Sept 4, 2010; Ron Paul will be in San Francisco Rally, " Principles over Politics" FREE Posted by AlexanderVA

Posted 08/19/10

Our theme is "Principles Over Parties". 

Speakers: Confirmed are Congressman Ron Paul, John Dennis (Republican candidate running against Nancy Pelosi), Matt Gonzalez, others to follow....

The schedule is as follows:

Rally with Ron Paul

Saturday, September 4, 2010
2PM - 3:45PM Rally SF Civic Center

San Francisco, California

The afternoon rally is at the San Francisco civic center http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/images/civic_center/Map1.gif

The facebook Event:
http://www.facebook.com/allisongibbs?v=wall&story_fbid=111311278923067&ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment#!/event.php?eid=143142049042040&ref=ts

Promotions:
Dr Paul has made a video promoting this event.

Gary Clift for Congress! Posted by GeraldClift

Posted 06/11/10 Last updated 07/08/10

My Dad, Gary Clift, won the Republican Nomination for U.S. Congress in California's District 10 (includes Contra Costa, Solano, Alameda, and Sacramento counties) on Tuesday.  He will be facing Garamendi in Novemeber.  Garamendi voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act and against withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan so my dad (his c4l profile here) definitely has a shot in bringing in some democratic votes.  Visit GaryClift.com and please sign up to help any amount that you can.

Below is a quick 47 second video from the San Francisco Chronicle on why my dad is running:

Below is an excerpt about him from Halfway to Concord

Republican Gary Clift, a retired peace officer from Vacaville says that he "stands for the U.S. Constitution," and will read all bills before voting on them if he were to be elected. Clift would rescind the Patriot Act and dismantle the Department of Education.

Following the advice of George Washington, Clift opposes entangling alliances with other countries.

Clift, 53, is critical of former Commander and Chief, George Bush and his handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pointing out that "President Bush got into Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan, which spread our military resources thin."

He said that he would have voted "no" on the recent $106 billion Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, and insists that our oversees involvement in other countries "has served as a distraction to the real national defense needed here at home." Clift wants to bring the troops home from Germany and Japan too.

Like Bunch, Clift stands firm on the right to keep and bear arms. Clift says that he would be against a new assault weapon ban."

Regarding the new Health Care legislation, Clift argued that the government can not make health care more efficient, cheaper or better quality because an entity which can not go bankrupt has no incentive to be productive. Clift suggests ending federally mandated HMOs and using constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce to allow the people to purchase premiums outside of the state.

The former peace officer takes a hard line on economic issues. "Never, under any circumstances, will I support a government bailout." said Clift. Co-sponsoring H.R.1207 would be one of his immediate priorities if he were to be elected, and he sees problems down the road if the Federal Reserve continues to print money at such an alarming rate. He refers to inflation as a "hidden tax." Clift took part in recent Tea Party protests a few months back along with many other conservative activists.

Clift recommends using unmanned drones to assist in securing our borders, and does not support amnesty for illegal aliens.

Additionally Gary Clift got a perfect rating on the Campaign for Liberty Candidate Survey

Do the California GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Support Open Carry Rights? Posted by GeraldClift

Posted 05/06/10 Last updated 05/07/10

The 2010 California GOP Gubernatorial candidates (Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman) were asked by Josh Richman (Oakland Tribune) if they supported the right to open carry (at the Republican Gubernotorial Debate  on 5/2/10 available to watch at http://calchannel.com/ and the question is asked at 19:30 of the video ).  Below is a transcript of the question and the candidates' responses.

Poizner answers first by addressing political attacks made by Whitman in the previous answer and then making political attacks of his own against her.

Whitman is then interrupted by laughter in the audience and then Whitman laughs.  She then spends the rest of the question counter-responding to Poizner's political attacks on her and making political attacks on him.

So it seems to me that Poizner supports the right to open carry because he claims to be opposed to any new gun control laws.  Whitman appears to be opposed to a ban on open carry as well.  However her answer is somewhat ambiguous because she only says "I agree on the gun law issue" in regards to the open carry right.  Her answer could either mean that she agrees with Poizner's answer (is opposed to the open carry ban) or she could mean that she agrees with the Police Chiefs Association position against the right to open carry guns.

It appears that each candidate agrees in the right to open carry but if anyone knows of another incidence in which Whitman is asked about open carry please post a comment linking to the source below.

***POLL NOTE***- I ended the poll below early after it came to my attention that I had poorly worded the available answers.

Letter drive to defeat AB 1934 Posted by David LaTour

Posted 04/30/10 Last updated 04/30/10

On Tuesday, April 20th the California Assembly Public Safety Committee passed AB 1934, the open carry ban, by a 4 - 2 vote. The bill now moves onto the 17-member Assembly Appropriations Committee where the fiscal impact will be analyzed and debated. Read the recap of the hearing here:

http://bit.ly/bwhKRm

**We Can Still Defeat Assemblywoman Saldana & AB1934!**

Although AB1934 has passed through its first committee hearing, do not be discouraged! The bill still has a long way to go before it can become law. The Open Carry Movement is in a position to meet this challenge head on and help protect the right to keep & bear arms in California!

In an effort to make sure that our voices' are being heard and opposition to AB1934 is accurately recorded, we are organizing a "Letter Drive Campaign to Defeat AB 1934."

Written letters that are mailed or faxed into the Assembly Appropriations Committee are noted in committee agendas and in the members' reports. It is reasonable to assume that letters of opposition will be more effective in defeating AB1934 because your position will be heard in the legislature and seen by your representatives before they cast their votes. Phone calls and e-mails do not work the same way and are not noted in committee agendas, or the member's reports.

The committee hearing has not yet been scheduled; however, it could be scheduled at any time and will likely happen on May 12th. It's important to get your letters out right away! The total number of "Private Citizens" in opposition will be printed on the agenda. We would like to have a few hundred at the very least.

MAIL LETTERS TO:
The California State Capitol
Assembly Appropriations Committee, Room 2114
Sacramento, CA 95814

FAX LETTERS TO:
Assembly Appropriations Committee - (916) 319-2181

Send a free fax online by clicking HERE

Here is a sample letter:

Assembly Appropriations Committee,

I would like to express my opposition to AB 1934, which would ban the open carry of an unloaded firearm in California. If A.B 1934 passes, it will be counter productive to the safety of the public as it will only serve to put law abiding residents of the State of California at a tactical disadvantage. Police are not required to protect individuals, only to enforce the law; therefore, it is each individuals own responsibility to protect themselves. The legal ability to openly carry a firearm is a component of the natural right of personal protection and serves as a useful deterrent to criminal attack.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee must reject this bill. Please do not replace inmates being released from prison with law abiding California residents seeking protection for themselves and their children.

Vote NO on Assembly Bill 1934! California simply cannot afford it.

Thank You For Your Time & Service,

**SIGN YOUR NAME HERE**
include your contact information

*More information on the "Letter Drive Campaign" can be found HERE: http://bit.ly/d4vGqm

*Research the Status of AB1934 HERE: http://bit.ly/a8n6a5

*Assembly Appropriations Committee Members HERE: http://bit.ly/vTlss

*Join the Keeping Californians Safe, Oppose AB1934 Facebook Group HERE: http://bit.ly/chsxze

*Join the Support Open Carry, Stop AB1934 Facebook Group HERE: http://bit.ly/cLB8k9

Gun Rights Under Attack in California Posted by David LaTour

Posted 04/17/10 Last updated 04/19/10

There are two bills in the state legislature that will severely impact your ability to openly carry a firearm in public. The two bills are Assembly Bill 668 and Assembly Bill 1934. Both bills must be defeated!

*AB 668* amounts to a back door ban on open carry. Currently, California Penal Code 626.9 prohibits firearms from being openly carried within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school. Areas that fall within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school are commonly referred to as Gun Free School Zones. AB668 would expand the current distance from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet making it nearly impossible to openly carry from one area to another within any city. AB668 was authored and introduced by Assemblyman Ted Lieu [AD-53 El Segundo].

Research AB 668 here: http://bit.ly/8XEgXd

AB 668 Note: This bill has already passed in the State Assembly 76-0. If it passes in the State Senate, the bill will more than likely be signed into law by the Governor. This is unacceptable to me and should be to you as well! Out efforts to stop this bill from passing must take place in the State Senate. I recommend contacting your State Senator and urging them to oppose AB668 right way. Phone calls, letters and e-mails to State Senators other than your own will help too.

Locate contact information for California State Senators here: http://bit.ly/uBAH7

*AB 1934* is an outright ban on open carry! This bill is an obvious attack on the 2nd Amendment as it would make it a misdemeanor to openly carry a firearm on your person in public. Furthermore, it is an attack on the 4th Amendment as law enforcement would be able to make an arrest without a warrant based only upon "reasonable cause" as opposed to the constitutional standard of "probable cause." We must stop this threat to our personal liberties from passing at all costs! AB1934 was authored and introduced by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana [AD-76 San Diego] who has not only violated her oath to "support & defend" the Constitution, but is also under the impression that the natural right to "keep & bear arms" is a privilege that can be taken away by an ever expanding and out of control government.

Research AB 1934 here: http://bit.ly/a8n6a5

AB 1934 Note: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee and is scheduled for hearing at the State Capitol in Sacramento on April 20, 2010 in Room 126 at 9:00 am. Several individuals associated with the Bay Area Open Carry Movement have already expressed intentions of attending the April 20th hearing. Feel free to join us there in person to voice your opposition to Lori Saldana's AB1934. In the mean time, everyone inside and outside of California should be flooding the Assembly Public Safety Committee with phone calls, letters, e-mails and faxes demanding that they hold true to the title of their committee. They must protect the public's safety by voting "NO" on AB 1934.

Locate contact information for the Public Safety Committee here: http://bit.ly/cCnPe

Let it not be said that we did nothing!

KTVU News Special Segment on AB1934: http://bit.ly/aVTHB6

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."