Statement Concerning C4L's Issue Discussion Program Posted by John Tate

Posted 01/29/10 Last updated 01/29/10

Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.

Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.

As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.

There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.

For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.

As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.

First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.

In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.

That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.

So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.

In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.

I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.

This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.

Giraldi Interviews Sibel Edmonds on One of the Greatest Scandals of Our Time Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/30/09

In case you missed it, Philip Giraldi has an important interview with Sibel Edmonds in The American Conservative on a scandal with grave implications to national security. Edmonds had been gagged for years, but now she speaks more openly than ever.

Obama Line on Iranian Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/30/09

Gareth Porter explains how the latest propaganda against Iran is full of holes.

The United Nations and the US Empire Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/29/09 Last updated 09/29/09

A lot of folks see an aggressive US foreign policy and a powerful United Nations as being at odds with one another. Liberals love the UN and tend to believe the US should consult the "international community" on matters foreign and domestic, which would supposedly both curtail US belligerence and also make America a better nation on questions ranging from climate change to economic policy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to favor US imperialism while opposing the UN. They want America to act without any regard for international law, even legitimate traditions in the laws of war that have been around long before the UN and are constitutionally binding via treaty. They favor unilitaral intervention but oppose UN encroachments on American sovereignty.

Yet neither view really gets it right. The UN was born in the shadow of World War II, as a way for the victors — mainly the US and Soviet Union — to consolidate their global power and monopolize militarism and international action under the guise of global legitimacy. The UN has often acted as a figleaf for US aggression, and the US ultimately serves the interests of the UN in much of its warmongering.

Consider than the first major war after WWII, the Korean War — a war that began the precedent that presidential, undeclared wars would typify US policy ever since — was a UN war. The Cold War, which conservatives sometimes still long for, was mostly conducted outside of traditional American constitutional procedure, but instead relied on the United Nations and other dubious international bodies.

Then there is the Second Gulf War. The major argument for the year up to Shock and Awe was that Saddam had to be ousted becausee he had violated UN Resolutions, 1441 in particular. The UN's honor had to be upheld through force, at a great cost in life and treasure for Iraq and America, and the contention was that this enforcement of UN resolutions was so important that the US would have to do it unilitarally, without UN approval. Thus did the right champion the UN while ignoring it at the same time. Meanwhile, some liberals were arguing that war could be waged, but only if the UN approved it — implying that something magical happens when the UN gives its thumbs up that turns a bad war into a good war. Liberals also tended to downplay the UN Resolutions that could ultimately mean a unilateral US war, and ignored the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the 1990s through UN sanctions. Why? Such brutality conflicted with their idea of the UN as a sacred institution of humanitarianism.

Today, the liberals seem to be much more open to demonizing and warmongering against Iran than they had been under Bush. Why? As progressive Ariana Huffington argues, the "international community" is much more behind Obama and against Iran than it was behind Bush and against Iraq. Perhaps. But why should this matter? If it is wrong for the US to invade or bomb or starve Iranians all by itself, why should approval from more nations make a difference? Aggression does not become moral simply because more people are willing to get in on the aggression.

Of course, the US should withdraw from the UN, as well as stop using it as an excuse to bully other countries around.

California GOP: "Audit the Fed!" Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/28/09

Writes Jerry Salcido: "Yesterday the California Republican Party adopted the following resolution which Michael Erickson, Chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Party and I (Chairman of the Alameda County Republican Party) submitted":

Whereas, the California Republican Party applauds transparency and accountability in government and rejects government secrecy involving monetary policy that impacts the entire economy; and

Whereas, serious discussions of proposals to oversee and audit the Federal Reserve are long overdue; and

Whereas, the Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign governments and foreign central banks and the United States Congress is prohibited from overseeing these agreements; and

Whereas, the California Republican Party believes agreements made by the Federal Reserve with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions should be subject to Congressional oversight; and

Whereas, the United States Constitution, gives the United States Congress the authority to coin Money and regulate the value thereof and does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank; and

Whereas, auditing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to assert its constitutional authority over monetary policy and help to protect the value of the United States dollar;

 Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Republican Party, in defense of the United States Constitution, STRONGLY URGES the representatives of the 111th United States Congress to support the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 as set forth in H.R. 1207 and S. 604.

"Several members of the Campaign for Liberty including Matt Heath, Walter Stanley, David Latour, and David Ewing spent hours emailing, calling, and speaking in person with delegates of the California Republican Party over the course of the last 3 weeks in order to gain their support of the resolution," Salcido continues. "Our efforts resulted with a near unanimous adoption of the resolution.  There was only one nay vote out of the hundreds of delegates in the CRP."

No Sound Money, No Peace Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/25/09

Scott Horton has a great interview of Ron Paul at Antiwar radio on the ties between monetary policy and foreign wars. Hey, liberals: Want peace? End the Fed.

The Nature of Empire Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/15/09

In a free republic, or even a normal country, it would be considered a big deal when the government attacked a foreign nation. We would be able to keep track of the number of enemies we've had abroad. The US government, on the other hand, has long been an empire. Thus, when Obama widened the war into Pakistan, bombing and displacing large numbers of civilians, it was hardly on anyone's radar.

Yesterday, the US invaded a town in Somalia. It hardly made the news. In April, the US threatened an invasion of Eritrea -- and most Americans probably don't know where Eritrea is, that is, if they've heard of it at all.

This is the nature of empire: Since the end of WWII, we've always been at war, with Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan, not including the dozens of other countries the US bombed or staged coups in during that time. This is not normal for a people, it's not healthy for a nation, and it cannot be squared in any way with the type of free country America was supposed to be. If the citizenry do not even know which countries their government has been at war with, in what sense is democratic representation meaningful?

Is Mandated Insurance Constitutional? Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/14/09

I have a new piece in the Christian Science Monitor:

Many liberals lambasted the Bush administration on detention policy and warrantless surveillance, often arguing that they violated the Constitution. Now the Obama administration is pushing ahead with plans to require every American to purchase health insurance.

Doesn't that also violate the Constitution?

The Constitution created a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare - yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance.

Read the rest.

The Road to Health Care Serfdom Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/10/09 Last updated 09/10/09

Obama is right that there are a lot of problems with America's health care system, but what is the source of the problems? In the 1960s, more than 80% of Americans had health insurance, and most of those who didn't saw no need for it, since health services were quite inexpensive. Doctors did house calls. Medications were affordable. A hospital visit cost a few days' pay, not a month's or year's pay.

This superior system could be restored, if only the government got out of the way. Phase out Medicare, Madicaid, subsidies, licensing and the FDA and we'd be a much healthier nation.

Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable at the current time, as Obama points out, but why expand this socialism to the rest of America's health care system? He notes that when someone uninsured goes to the hospital, we all pay, but this is the result of government subsidizing health care in the first place.

Although the president says we should tweak the current system, rather than build a new health care system "from scratch," this would just leave in place the hybrid corporatist-socialist system that has driven up costs. Indeed, mandating insurance, which is morally and constitutionally repugnant, is a great way to shore up the corporate state, which is why the insurance industry is behind Obama's plan.

Obama says some on the right want to eliminate employer-based insurance. Well, I haven't heard many suggest this, but employer-based insurance is indeed one of the major problems here. As critics of the status quo point out, employees fear they will lose their coverage if they change or lose their jobs. This is a big problem. Distortions in the tax code make it profitable for businesses to treat health insurance as part of their workers' compensation, since it isn't taxed as income is.

How can it be addressed? We must understand what has caused these distortions. We have a modern health care maze brought about by regulation, tax structures and government interventions. In the 1970s, HMOs were forced upon businesses as an option, and soon these institutions were demonized, though the government gave them their power. Nowadays, health consumers are separated from the cost of their health care needs, which drives up prices and inflated demand. Providers bill insurance companies, who operated under a zillion mandates as to what they must provide their customers. This whole mess must be fundamentally addressed if we are to solve America's health care crisis.

We do have major problems in the health care sector, but Obama is wrong when he says he plans to be the last president to address them. A fully blown socialist model looks like it's off the table, which means any "reform" will contribute to the corporatist status quo, only make it worse, lead to rationing, worse service and higher costs. Of course, a full socialist solution would be much worse. But if we get the "compromise" that appears to be emerging, it will only exacerbate all the problems and lead to more calls for a full government takeover. Ludwig von Mises identified this vicious cycle of one intervention begetting more intervention, and unless we defeat the Obama plan root and branch, we will soon be on the road to medical Serfdom.

The Decline of American Unions Posted by Anthony Gregory

Posted 09/08/09 Last updated 09/08/09

Unions used to dominate professional life for the working class. They have been in decline for decades. Apropros the article we ran on Labor Day by Mark Mix, calling for voluntarism to replace compulsory unionism, I notice that such sentiments are now hardly out of step with mainstream America. The New York Times reports:

Just 48 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, down from 59 percent a year ago, and a high of 75 percent in the 1950s. While approval of unions has dropped off across the board over the last year, the biggest drop has been among political independents, Gallup says.

The Times seeks to explain this trend in the context of the auto bailouts or unempoloyment, but either way, the swing in attitude could be seen as a general response to the failed leftist policies of the Obama administration in bringing recovery and transparency to the U.S. economy. Faith in unions may be a proxy for public support for the whole slew of left-liberal institutions thought for many years to be essential to economy equity and stability. It is fascinating that Obama and the Democrats, famous for being such friends with Big Labor, have brought on a rapid decline in popular support for this bulwark of managerial liberalism. On the other hand, wide support for unions was at its peak in the Eisenhower 1950s, ofteen seen by conservatives as one of the most idyllic periods in U.S. history.

Now, in the past, unions have done some admirable things, especially in their protests against World War I. But they have too often been nothing but a government-backed racket that helps some workers and union bosses at the expense of other workers. One of their first purposes was to keep competitors from entering a trade, often for reasons of ethnic animosity. They enjoy government privileges that distort the economy and violate the Constitution, and they have been known in many cases to employ violence and harrassment against the recalcitrant.

How does a free society handle employment? Through the avenues of private property, liberty of contract and freedom of association. People should be allowed to collectively bargain, but bosses and employers should also be completely free to negotiate independently of any politically fashioned advantages to unions. No one should be forced through government to support or be a part of a union. All employment contracts that are entered into voluntarily with a meeting of the minds should be valid. People always have a right to collectively quit their jobs, but the employer should always have the right to turn around and hire someone else, and there are often willing employees, especially in these days of nearly 10% unemployment. Hiring and firing should be the employer's decision, and pay and benefit arrangements can only be worked out with a third party involved if everyone is agreeable. The state should butt out entirely. Repeal the National Labor Relations Act and all other union regulations. If collective bargaining makes sense, it will survive on the free market.