Jerry Lewis votes (twice) to extend the PATRIOT Act Posted by artist14

Posted 02/16/11 Last updated 02/16/11

To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011. 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00514:@@@R

P.S. So did Michelle Bachman, the leader of the "Tea Party Caucus!"

Holiday Liberty Lunch & Food Drive Posted by AdamCabrera

Posted 11/12/10

Hi Folks-

Saturday, November 20th the C4L in San Bernardino County will be having its last official meeting of the year.  And to celebrate the upcoming holidays, we will have as our last meeting a Holiday Liberty Lunch & Food Drive.

This event will be a potluck, so bring your favorite dish to share!  This will also be a great time for "first-timers", if you've never been to one of our C4L events.  Also, clear out your pantry of any canned goodies, as we'll collect them for a local food bank.  The event will be in Apple Valley and will start at 2:00 PM.

Check out the Calender section for more information.  Hope to see you there!

Download the Word file for more details: http://files.meetup.com/1446423/Holiday%20Liberty%20Lunch%202010.docx

"Taxing the Rich" Posted by Nick Leavens

Posted 09/29/10

John Stossel discusses the practical side of taxing the rich in his latest RealClearPolitics.com op-ed article.

One example cited is the recently enacted Maryland millionaire surtax, which aimed to increase revenues (from taxing those in a higher wage earning bracket), but instead cost the state over $250 million.

Economist Art Laffer explains why:

"People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes."

Donald Trump agrees with Art Laffer's assertion that people will move to avoid paying higher taxes:

"Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."

I AM C4L - Final Push Posted by Kevin Brett

Posted 09/26/10 Last updated 09/24/10

We've reached the close of the State Contest in our "I AM Campaign for Liberty" initiative.  Texas emerged victorious, edging out California by a slim margin.  All winning participants will receive a copy of End the Fed autographed by Congressman Ron Paul.

The next and final phase of this project is the Congressional District Contest, which will last until 9:30AM EST on Monday, October 4th (we're extending the project one week).  The district with the most submissions by the deadline will receive a free grassroots leadership training session with Campaign for Liberty Senior Consultant, Kirk Shelley.  For the last 25 years, Kirk has been involved at nearly every level of politics.  His training session is very insightful and is sure to give your local C4L group the tools it needs to effect change.

We'll continue posting entries throughout the remainder of the contest.  The top entries will be included in a compilation video after the deadline.  There's still plenty of time to participate, so get your camera out and get involved before it's too late!  

Having defeated the DISCLOSE Act a second time, this is a great opportunity to drive the point home to the establishment politicians in Washington: Campaign for Liberty is made up of everyday people who care about this country and are not going to go away.  Let's not sit back and allow ourselves to be misrepresented any longer.  Let's take matters into our own hands and show the country who we are and what we're about.

Check out all the submissions at www.IAMC4L.com

For information on how to participate, click here.

Happy Birthday, Dr. Paul! Posted by Matt Hawes

Posted 08/20/10 Last updated 08/21/10

C4L's best wishes and many thanks go out to our Honorary Chairman, Congressman Ron Paul, who celebrated his 75th birthday Friday!

Book Bombs Away Posted by Matt Holdridge

Posted 07/26/10

Commissioned by Campaign for Liberty and written by former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein, American Empire: Before the Fall chronicles how far our foreign policy has come from the Founders' intentions, details the threat to America's security and prosperity posed by mortgaging our future to support the rest of the world, and lays out a plan to strengthen our nation by restoring a foreign policy that adheres to the Constitution.

We want to get the word out on this important new work, and you can help us do that by participating in our August 2nd “Book Bomb.”

Let’s push the book into Amazon's Top One Hundred and demonstrate the strength of support for a constitutional, common sense foreign policy!

Click here to pledge to purchase a copy of American Empireon August 2nd.

As we continue fighting the war of ideas, American Empire: Before the Fall’s vital and powerfully articulated arguments will arm us with the knowledge needed to successfully promote and defend a constitutional, noninterventionist foreign policy.

Bruce Fein on NPR Posted by Matt Hawes

Posted 07/16/10 Last updated 07/16/10

On Wednesday, Bruce Fein, author of the C4L-commissioned American Empire: Before the Fall, appeared on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show to discuss the book and our out of control foreign policy.  Later in the show, David Frum, David Kohl, and Bruce debated the issues and took questions from callers.

You can download the file here.  If you haven't yet purchased your copy of American Empire, get it today on Amazon.com or through the C4L online store.

Worst ever? No way! Posted by SpencerCS

Posted 06/16/10

            In a new column Ben Shapiro tackles the question, "Is President Obama the worst President in history?" Shapiro seems to conclude the affirmative (at least among modern presidents) while doing hit pieces on "the only other two contenders": Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan. I am going to respond to the points where I differ with Mr. Shapiro.

            Shapiro begins by attacking Carter. First he claims Carter "was responsible for the fall of the Shah in Iran and the subsequent rise of the Ayatollahs." This is simply not true. The person responsible for the fall of the Shah was in fact Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. After the British tricked us into thinking Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was a red, President Eisenhower authorized a coup that removed Mosaddegh and installed the Shah. The Shah was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people. The fall of the Shah and rise of Khomeini was simply blowback. While Carter can be faulted somewhat for removing US support of the Shah, he is not responsible for the Shah's actions that created hatred toward him.

            Next he contends that Carter "emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan." This is dubious at best. While it's true that Carter was appallingly soft on communism, the Soviet invaded Afghanistan because it shared a border and the socialist government there was under attack by anti-communist natives. The USSR invoked the Brezhnev Doctrine just as they had during the Prague Spring. It's actually hard to imagine the Soviets not invading Afghanistan.

            The next statement I take issue with is that under Carter we had "staggering inflation and interest rates, both of which topped 18 percent by early 1980." While it's true the economy was terrible under Carter and wouldn't recover until the 1980s, he can't be blamed for it. Much of that inflation was the result of a loose money policy during the Vietnam War and President Nixon taking us off of the gold standard. In fact one of Carter's better moves was making Paul Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve, perhaps the least terrible person to hold that position. (I know that's essentially, as Jon Stewart would say, "being the skinniest kid at fat camp.") Volcker instituted a tight-money policy that helped to later bring down inflation. It's hardly a wonder that President Reagan reappointed Volcker.

            Finally Shapiro states "[Carter's] presidency saw gas rationing and shortages, the surrender of the Panama Canal and the boycott of the 1980 Olympics." Now the gas crisis was a result of a war in the Middle East and the US only suffered the shortage because of our unwavering support of Israel, so the only thing Carter could have done would have been to remove US support of Israel and Mr. Shapiro would be using this space of his column to criticize Carter for THAT. I do agree about the surrender of the Panama Canal however. I also agree with Mr. Shapiro about the Olympics; the boycott went too far, simply not attending the opening ceremony would have sufficed. Carter also did some deregulating and cut back spending. While there are things to criticize Carter for, he is certainly not a contender for the "worst President ever."

            Now I have to defend President Obama from the same accusation. Shapiro starts his criticisms with foreign policy, the one area where the President hasn't been completely bad in my opinion. First "Obama has already tacitly OK'd the Iranian nuclear program and derided Israel's nuclear program." I'm still waiting for what the big threat of Iran having a nuke is. Does anyone remember that thing called the Cold War where the Reds had THOUSANDS of nukes pointed at us? We came out of that okay. In regards to Israel's program, well let them have nukes too, so I guess I kind of agree with Shapiro: don't condemn one and not the other.

            Next on Shapiro's list of grievances, "He has allowed Iranian protestors to be slaughtered in the streets without so much as a peep for days on end." Did it not occur to Mr. Shapiro that an American President voicing support these people would have undermined their cause? Does he really think that if the President had done that that the theocracy wouldn't have just said, "see this is not an Iranian movement, these are plants of the Great Satan"? I suppose Mr. Shapiro would have preferred that Obama sent US troops to slaughter the other Iranians. Next, "Obama has allowed the Russians to sponsor an uprising in Kyrgyzstan that resulted in the removal of a U.S. airbase." Would Shapiro have preferred that President Obama invaded Moscow and started a war with nuclear-armed Russia?

            Next comes hypocrisy, "[Obama] sold American debt to a communist Chinese government that supports North Korea." Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle "African-American"?! Has Mr. Shapiro never heard of one George W. Bush? Because that's essentially how The former President (man that feels good to say) financed his war in Iraq. Next "[Obama's] pushing for comprehensive 'immigration reform' that will really act as an amnesty for illegal immigrants." Again, this is just continuing President Bush's ways.

            None of this is surprising of course. The chief rule of American politics seems to be that no matter who the President is the opposition party will label him the worst President ever.

For whatever it's worth here is my own ranking of the Presidents:

Excellent:

1. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington

2. James K. Polk

3. John Tyler

4. Grover Cleveland

5. Ronald Reagan

6. Martin Van Buren

7. Rutherford B. Hayes

8. Chester A. Arthur

Good:

9. Warren G. Harding

10. Calvin Coolidge

11. Dwight D. Eisenhower

12. Richard M. Nixon

13. James Monroe

14. Gerald R. Ford

Average:

15. John Quincy Adams

16. James Madison

17. John Adams

18. Jimmy Carter

19. Andrew Jackson

20. Benjamin Harrison

21. Ulysses S. Grant

Poor:

22. Theodore Roosevelt

23. William Howard Taft

24. George H. W. Bush

25. Herbert C. Hoover

26. Andrew Johnson

27. Franklin Pierce

28. Zachary Taylor

29. Millard Fillmore

30. Barack Obama*

Bad:

31. James Buchanan

32. Franklin D. Roosevelt

33. John F. Kennedy

34. George W. Bush

35. Bill Clinton

36. William McKinley

37. Harry S Truman

38. Abraham Lincoln

39. Woodrow Wilson

40. Lyndon B. Johnson

*Tentative ranking

Proposition 16 is a sham Posted by likestogofast

Posted 05/11/10 Last updated 05/31/10

Under the banner of "voter choice" the big utilities are pushing this initiative to ensure that the taxpayer is "protected" in the electricity "market." I use all those quotes because each of these in the context of Prop 16 and the electricity market are a joke.

We do not have an electricity "market," we have a managed electricity cartel, supported by government subsidies and manipulated by price controls and collusion. One only needs to look at the Public Utilties Commission and their control of the electricity sector to arrive at this conclusion.

There is no competition in the electricity market that is not already subject to government review and manipulation. Don't believe me? Simply try to sell power to your neighbor using a generator - you'll rapidly find yourself with cease and desist orders from some judge or another and perhaps a visit from the police ordering you to stop.

Happily, should Prop 16 pass it will be a defacto prohibition on municipalities generating new power, unless of course the power is the most expensive, least economically viable form of power, the almighty "renewable" energy. That's right, if it's "renewable" it gets a pass from voter scrutiny. Read section 9.5h. So the most likely result of Prop 16 will be the use of your local tax dollars to fund the "renewable" projects mandated on the utilities without a vote anyway.

So the question for me is simply this: Do the voters in the towns and cities of California ALREADY carry the responsibility of holding their elected officials accountable for entering the electricity market? I say that the answer is an emphatic YES! Why should we mandate a special election, millions in ad campaigns, and let the special interests with all the money decide the issue? Why not simply remove the bozos in charge if you don't want them to become a utility?

You all know the answers to the last two.

[EDIT: Mr. GrizzlyGuy has a pro-Prop 16 post here and a response to Mr. Geesman's comments here for those interested in reading the opposing viewpoint.]

House Debates War in Afghanistan Posted by Matt Hawes

Posted 03/10/10 Last updated 03/10/10

The House is currently in the midst of a three hour debate over H Con. Res. 248, which would require President Obama to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan within 30 days of the resolution's passage by Congress or no later than the end of 2010.

Watch live here.

Update:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=422uTaGxY8o

Update #2: The bill failed 65-356.  See the roll call.