Let me start by saying, I am in this for the long haul. I learned very quickly upon getting involved politically, that one must look at the big picture. Goals will not be achieved overnight, but this is not to say that goals will not be achieved. Through the hard work of every concerned citizen, we will accomplish our goals. What are those goals? to oversimplify it, they are to return the Federal Government of the United States back toward principles of Individual Liberty, Constitutional Government, Sound Money, Free Markets, and a foreign policy of Armed Neutrality (noninterventionist). Once this is done, States and localities will begin to pick up their proper roles again, and we can focus our efforts where they belong - at home, where it most affects us. This can only be completed if you and I educate ourselves and begin to tell others what we have learned. No one is going to do this for us, or even tell us where to start. That is why I am taking the initiative, and asking you to do the same. Together and with the help of Campaign for Liberty, we will help America find her way back to the principles that have made her great.
Like many other people involved in this effort, I was unengaged in politics prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. Although I have always voted since becoming eligible to do so, I never took the time to fully understand the issues facing our country. Besides occasionally listening to some talk radio, or picking up a local newspaper, I had few sources of information. Because of that, I followed those around me, many of whom where just as blind to the truth as I was. Blind leading the blind is a good way to describe the actions of many American's when it comes to politics. November 4, 2008 changed all that. I knew something was wrong with what I was hearing out of the mouths of both candidates vying for my vote. Every speech left me thinking "did he even say anything just now?". That sour taste in my mouth led me to seek out additional and better information. I bought a copy of "The Revolution - A Manifesto". Honestly I bought it because the cover caught my eye, and the synopses on the back sounded like it may be something worth reading. Despite not knowing who Ron Paul was, or having any recommendation to read the book, I did. "the red pill" is what I like to call that book. The pill that will awaken you from an unconscious stupor, and let you see America for what it truly is. Prior to reading that book, I don't know when the last time was that I really thought about Freedom and Liberty. Those were words on our money and in our pledge and stuff, but what did it mean to me? Now, I can't get those words off my mind. Everywhere I look, I see something that impedes my freedom, or Someone who doesn't care to defend their own. My eyes are forever opened.
On Monday, November 9, Congressman Paul will return to South Carolina for the first time since the 2008 presidential campaign for one night only!
Campaign for Liberty is teaming with Young Americans for Liberty to host Dr. Paul at the Carolina Coliseum on the campus of the University of South Carolina. The event starts at 7:00 pm eastern and is free and open to the public.
On Friday, November 13, C4L and YAL are again teaming up to hold a rally at the Benton Auditorium at Iowa State University Center's Scheman Bldg. This event starts at 7 pm central, and it is also free and open to the public.
These events are sure to be packed with an exciting crowd. To give you an idea of how much attention they are already generating, CNN and the LA Times are just two of the outlets to have picked up on the story.
Don't miss this chance to catch Dr. Paul in what are guaranteed to be great nights!
We were successful in promoting Campaign For Liberty at our four day Brevard County Oktoberfest booth. It could not have transpired without a comparable persevering, seven person crew to work the event. It would not have occurred at all, without our members that committed financially, to make our endeavor feasible. The name exposure alone would have made the labor involved in being part of this event, worth-while. Obtaining enthusiastic recruits is an enormous accomplishment for Brevard Campaign For liberty. The indisputable positive impact of this event on Brevard Campaign For Liberty will be felt for a long time to come.
Dan, Alex, Thomas, and Eric toiled though the light rain for the first two days, without abated enthusiasm in speaking to anyone that approached our booth. We had such a superior parcel of real estate, giving us the maximum amount of foot traffic passing our booth. The event was in the evening, so we lit the banners with spotlights. It was energizing to see, that Campaign For Liberty already had some name recognition, as some people walked by exclaiming encouragement. Events like the Brevard Oktoberfest will increase public recognition even more. On account of Oktoberfest being a drinking festival, the crowd tended to be more social than average, making our endeavor easier. When we weren't active with the general crowed, the employees of the fair would approach to discuss the the need for smaller government.
Jonathan, Kim, David and myself worked the two sunny days of the Brevard Oktoberfest. We were able to sign up twenty-two people that are desirous of getting involved with Brevard Campaign For Liberty. Some people took the constitutions as gifts for friends or family. One lady stopped by to assert her belief in the public option. To my delight, She conceded that forced association is not appropriate. Numerous people came up to tell us how much they admired Ron Paul, and everything he stood for. A couple of people came by to tell us that although our message was commendable, what we sought was unattainable. David did a great job inspiring all of us in his list of our past achievements, including the Fed hearing that others said would never happen.
Despite half the event being in the rain, our accomplishments still add up to a great victory. The Brevard campaign For Liberty showed a colossal amount of devotion to getting our message to the people that attended Oktoberfest. We labored hard each of the four days, and had a heroic attitude in the face of private personal hardship. I am absolutely certain we had a sizable impact on the future of Brevard Campaign For Liberty. I am eager to see some of the people we signed up, work our next big event with us. The Brevard Campaign For Liberty is destined to grow exponentially.
It is generally accepted that one must wait several decades before looking back at an event or an era with sufficient "historical perspective." Only from that vantage point can the significance and long-term effects of any piece of history be objectively observed, quantified, and analyzed. However, there is a dilemma inherent in this long-standing tradition. It is that there are always interested parties who wish to characterize significant events or eras in history in a way that suits their own agenda. As a result, by the time sufficient time has passed to satisfy the need for "historical perspective," these interested parties have created an official story regarding the events in question and have had time to convince the majority of people that this official story is the truth. By the time a generation has passed, the official story has become both accepted history for academia and "conventional wisdom" for average citizens. Regardless of facts, reason, or any perspective whatsoever, the official story now is the truth.
Such has been the case countless time throughout American history. It is universally accepted that America's Civil War started over slavery, and credits Abraham Lincoln with "freeing the slaves." History and conventional also wisdom tells us that the quality of life of the working class in America declined during the industrial revolution, and credits the "progressive movement" for instituting needed reforms that saved the working class from capitalism. Most relevant to our situation in America today, history blames the Great Depression of the 1930's on Herbert Hoover's "laissez faire capitalism" and "unregulated free markets," and credits FDR's New Deal with ending the Depression and restoring prosperity.
When presented in the textbooks of high school history or college survey courses, there is a certain logic and reasonableness to these versions of historical events that makes them very easy to understand and accept. There is only one problem: none of them are true.
Americans are already familiar with the official story of our present crisis. Too much laissez faire capitalism" has resulted in an unprecedented crisis caused by predatory lenders, irresponsible borrowers, speculators, and other market participants acting in an environment with too little regulation. Without oversight, "unregulated free markets" naturally resulted in market players choosing short term profits over long-term prudence. This process was fueled during the past decade by George W. Bush's "laissez faire policies."
There is only one problem with this story - none of it is true, either. None of the problems we face today were caused by unregulated free markets and the policies of George W. Bush were in no way "laissez faire." This is much more than an academic argument. The premise that unregulated capitalism is to blame for our present economic crisis is the basis for every action that our government is taking right now. If that premise is incorrect, then the results of action taken based upon it could be disastrous.
It is probably a good idea at this point to define some terms. Assuming that "laissez faire capitalism" and "free markets" mean the same thing, what I mean when I use those terms is this: a market economy where all exchanges of property are made with the mutual, voluntary consent of all parties to those transactions. While government's role is limited in such a system, it is nevertheless crucial: to ensure that all transactions are made with the mutual, voluntary consent of all parties. To put it most succinctly, government's role in a free market is to protect the property rights of each individual.
Is this what George W. Bush did or at least attempted to do? Let us examine the Bush economic policies and see for ourselves.
Bush campaigned on and did follow through upon a promise to cut taxes. He did this by reducing the income tax on the highest income earners and by sending each American family a "refund" of several hundred dollars. One might be tempted to argue that this was a move in the direction of free markets, as the returned money represented reductions of a government that had grown far beyond its role of defending life, liberty, and property. Thus, the tax money collected for these illegitimate functions was a violation of the property rights government was supposed to protect and the tax cuts were a partial remedy for those violations. This is what any self-respecting Republican would have you believe.
There is only one problem: there were no reductions in government. In fact, Bush greatly increased the size of the government with military and new entitlement spending. As a result, he ran huge deficits and doubled the national debt. Looked at objectively, there was a tenuous relationship at best between the money taxpayers had previously paid in taxes and the checks sent out by the government after all of that tax money was already spent. Furthermore, millions of Americans who hadn't even paid taxes received "refund" checks anyway. Seen for what it was, this "tax refund" was merely a ploy to buy votes with other people's money dressed up in Republican rhetoric, as well as a way to perpetuate debt-fueled consumerism for the benefit of President Bush's friends in corporate America. Handing out money to people to whom it doesn't belong has nothing to do with free markets, whether that money is borrowed from other nations or printed out of thin air. It represents complete distortion of the markets by government, along with a fundamental violation of the property rights of present and future generations.
Amidst this confusion we seem to have forgotten one major contributor to the aforementioned deficits: the Medicare drug plan. The Medicare drug plan was the Bush administration's program from start to finish, and it was rammed through the legislature despite its dubious administrative plan and complete lack of funding. While it was rightly criticized for both of these faults, no media outlet seems to have recognized its complete antagonism toward free markets. In addition to violating property rights by forcing one group of individuals to pay for the healthcare services of others, Medicare and other government health care programs completely distort the health care market, creating artificial demand that inflates prices and suspends market forces. Here we have another major component of President Bush's policy that is the complete antithesis of laissez faire capitalism.
The mass illusion about this president's policies doesn't stop there. The American public also seems to think that major deregulation occurred under President Bush, but actually the exact opposite is true. It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (repealing the Glass-Steagall Act) that lead to the massive expansion of derivates in the stock and real estate markets that helped fuel the housing bubble. However, this legislation was actually passed when President Clinton was still in office. In fact, Bush's only significant effect on the regulatory structure was to increase regulation, not decrease it.
Due to the political fallout from the accounting scandals during the early years of Bush's presidency, especially the Enron scandal, Bush championed new, completely unnecessary, and profoundly destructive regulations under the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Despite the fact that the accounting scandals were clear cases of fraud, which was already illegal and which could be prosecuted without a single new regulation, President Bush had a political need to show that he was "doing something" about corporate crime.
So, again in complete opposition to "free markets," Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law, saying as he did so that the bill represented "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt."[1] Invoking FDR should have been enough on its own to erase any perception of Bush as a champion of free markets, but the hated "laissez faire" moniker seems to be a tough one to shake. As we now know, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been terribly destructive to American markets and has contributed to a migration of new investment away from America and to more business-friendly countries. Chalk up another victory for Bush against free markets.
Finally, there is Bush's role in the housing bubble, the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back regarding America's borrow and spend economy of the past several decades. Here it should be noted that the lion's share of the blame for this debacle should go to the Federal Reserve System, which kept interest rates artificially low and expanded money and credit to counter what would have been two recessions in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Remember, the private Federal Reserve System does not answer to any branch of the federal government. One could certainly argue that both Clinton and Bush merely happened to be in office while the Federal Reserve blew up two massive bubbles during their presidencies (the NASDAQ bubble and the housing bubble).
However, it was not just low interest rates or the expansion of money and credit that caused the housing bubble to inflate. There was also the role of government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guaranteed mortgages that would not have been written in a free market. Starting with Clinton and continuing with Bush, the executive branch played cheerleader to the "ownership" society whereby every American was entitled to own their own home, whether they could afford the mortgage that went with it or not.
The mortgage debacle is often cited as an example of the "unregulated free market" producing negative results. Since both the "predatory lenders" and the "irresponsible borrowers" were acting voluntarily, the millions of subsequent defaults are characterized as the result of too little regulation on the market, allowing these freely-acting participants to eschew prudence for short-term profits. However, this analysis omits one very important fact: there were not two parties to most of these mortgage transactions, but three.
The forgotten third party was, of course, the taxpayer. It was the taxpayers' money that was put up as collateral for the loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the taxpayer was not acting freely. The taxpayer was forced by government to back these loans without his consent and against his best interests. Had the government not committed this crime against property rights to serve its goal of an "ownership society," none of the defaulting loans would have been made.
In a truly free market, the desire for profit is balanced by the presence of risk. When one is lending one's own money, the possibility that the borrower will default forces the lender to adhere to high lending standards to avoid making a bad loan. This is not done out of some civic duty or professional integrity (not that many lenders don't possess both of these qualities), but out of recognized necessity for economic survival. The balance between desire for profit and risk is a naturally occurring market force when all participants are acting voluntarily in their rational self interest. However, by allowing lenders and borrowers to use other people's money as collateral, this natural market force was suspended. To go on to call the resulting disaster the result of "unregulated free markets" is nonsense in the first degree.
Ironically, Clinton and Bush each pursued the exact same policy regarding the housing market for very different reasons. Clinton pressured Fannie Mae to take more and more risk in order to play to his base: low-income Americans who would not qualify for a mortgage in a truly free market. Bush went right on encouraging the process in order to appease his base: Wall Street investment houses that were making a killing securitizing mortgages. Regardless of the motivation, what is important to realize is that this policy is completely antithetical to the concept of free markets or laissez faire capitalism.
Of course, once the crisis began, most people recognize that nothing President Bush did could be characterized as "laissez faire." Bush himself admitted that he was abandoning free market principles because "the market is not functioning properly," a bizarre statement from one who supposedly believes in free markets in the first place. His massive intervention into the economy and egregious redistribution of wealth are characterized by the media as a departure from his previous "laissez faire approach." Yet, anyone can see that this "laissez faire approach" was complete fiction. So why do all but a few contrarians keep saying it anyway?
There is an answer to that question. Characterizing Bush's policies as "laissez faire" does serve a very useful purpose for politicians. It provides them with justification to loot more property and seize more power. The all-out war on free enterprise presently being waged by President Obama and his cohorts in Congress would not be possible if most Americans did not believe the official story that Bush's presidency was an era of "laissez faire capitalism" or "unregulated free markets" and that these policies caused the economic crisis. Only the continued willingness by the majority of Americans to swallow this economic gibberish allows the destruction of our liberty to march forward.
To my fellow Americans, I say this: No politician (save perhaps one) is going to come forward and tell you the truth. Most of them don't know the truth, and those that do have figured out that this official nonsense serves their own ambitions, just as saying that the world was flat once served the ambitions of medieval rulers. It is up to you to rub your eyes and look at the world as it really is. Two plus two does not equal five and you know that. Similarly, people voluntarily exchanging their own goods and services with one another can never cause anyone harm and deep down you must know that, too. It is time to reject the idiotic history that is being written about our present difficulties and demand that the evil incursions into our liberty cease immediately. You have enormous power when you know what to demand. It all starts with recognizing the obvious despite the well-funded efforts of those who wish to deceive you. As the good book saith, the truth shall set you free.[2]
Since Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill was introduced, you've reached millions of Americans through phone calls, mailings, radio and television interviews, letters to the editors, emails, social networking sites, door-to-door canvassing, booths at fairs, gun shows and music festivals, and a host of other local events and activities in communities around the country.
Then we turned up the heat. You put the pedal to the metal, shifted gears and took aim at the Senate.
You made your voices heard loud and clear by calling your Senators and attending Town Hall events, and collected petition signatures for the cause at every possible event. Then on September 15, you hand-delivered thousands upon thousands of petitions to Senators across the country, making S.604 Mass Action Day a resounding success!
To make it interesting, Campaign for Liberty held a competition.
The following individuals gathered the most signatures on petitions in their states. They not only win our respect, gratitude, and admiration, they've won a copy of Ron Paul's new book End the Fed and a pocket Constitution, both bearing Congressman Ron Paul's autograph!
A big shout out to Debi Longarello in Florida, Rob Bulas in Ohio and Brent Roos in Illinois for collecting 1,000 or more petitions!
Please join me in congratulating all of the following Patriots:
STATE
PATRIOT's NAME
# PETITIONS
AL
Marcelo Munoz
466
AR
Alex White
125
AZ
Annette Freeman
768
CA
Tin Lieu
800
FL
Debi Longarello
1,700
IL
Brent Roos
1,000
IN
Melissa Lineberry
300
KY
Alan Brown, Sr.
150
LA
Pam Rankin
350
MA
Tony Camean
350
MI
Eric Cadeau
1000
MN
Jonathan Kovaciny
290
NC
Sharon Ward
261
NY
OH
Bob Gawel
Rob Bulas
542
1,400
VA
Donna Holt
548
VT
Audrey Pietrucha
63
And now, for the state that collected the most signatures as a percentage of population:
WASHINGTON STATE
Members gathered a whopping 7,180 unique signatures!
Congratulations to Washington State who wins a $1,500 gift certificate to the Campaign for Liberty store!
Here's how the winner was calculated: Unique signatures gathered divided by total 2008 est. population. The winner is based on percent of total population, which is why Washington State edged out Florida for first place. (Although in some cases, twice as many petitions were actually delivered, unique signatures were used in the actual calculation.)
The state of Minnesota came in second with 3,000 unique signatures!
The state of Michigan came in third with 5,622 signatures!
A special shout out to Florida who gathered the most unique signatures with 10,160!
All of these states deserve a big round of applause for getting over 250 unique signatures on Mass Action Day:
STATE
# SIGNATURES
AL
602
AR
650
AZ
1,274
CA
6,600
FL
10,160
IL
3,900
IN
1,000
KY
1,777
LA
1,475
MA
750
MI
5,622
MN
3,000
NC
NY
600
3,856
OH
3,600
VA
2,520
VT
263
WA
7,180
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR MAKING S.604 MASS ACTION DAY A BIG SUCCESS!!
Keep up the great work! Let's get a majority in the Senate to co-sponsor!
313 CHOB Washington, DC 20515-0922 DC Phone: 202-225-3026 DC Fax: 202-225-8398 [Website] [Contact]
Voted for 2008 bailout
Voted for HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted for HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for HR 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [More info]
Voted for HR 2346: 2009 $106B War Supplemental [More info]
Voted for HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [More info]
Voted for the Garrett amendment to H.R. 3269: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted for HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted for HR 2647: Imperialism Authorization Act of 2010 / Hate Crimes Creation Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 2194: Expanding Economic War with Iran [More info]
Mr. Alcee L. Hastings FL-23rd (D)
Mangonia Park Town Hall 1755 East Tiffany Drive Mangonia Park, FL, 33407 (561) 881-9618 (561) 881-9879
U.S. Federal Building 299 East Broward Boulevard Suite 127 Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301 (866) 713-7303 (954) 735-9444
2353 RHOB Washington, DC 20515-0923 DC Phone: 202-225-1313 DC Fax: 202-225-1171 [Website] [Contact]
Voted for 2008 bailout
Voted for HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted for HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for HR 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [More info]
Voted for HR 2346: 2009 $106B War Supplemental [More info]
Didn't vote on HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 645: To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations [More info]
Voted for the Garrett amendment to H.R. 3269: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted for HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted for HR 2647: Imperialism Authorization Act of 2010 / Hate Crimes Creation Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 2194: Expanding Economic War with Iran [More info]
Ms. Suzanne Kosmas FL-24th (D) (freshman)
1000 City Center Circle 2nd Floor Port Orange, FL, 32129 (386) 756-9798 (386) 756-9903
12424 Research Parkway Suite 135 Orlando, FL, 32826 (407) 208-1106 (407) 208-1108
238 CHOB Washington, DC 20515-0924 DC Phone: 202-225-2706 DC Fax: 202-226-6299 [Website] [Contact]
Voted for HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted for HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for HR 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency Act [More info]
Voted for HR 2346: 2009 $106B War Supplemental [More info]
Voted for HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [More info]
Voted for the Garrett amendment to H.R. 3269: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted for HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted for HR 2647: Imperialism Authorization Act of 2010 / Hate Crimes Creation Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 2194: Expanding Economic War with Iran [More info]
Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart FL-25th (R)
12851 SW 42nd Street Suite 131 Miami, FL, 33175 (305) 225-6866 (305) 225-7432
4715 Golden Gate Parkway Suite 1 Naples, FL, 34116 (239) 348-1620 (239) 348-3569
328 CHOB Washington, DC 20515-0925 DC Phone: 202-225-2778 DC Fax: 202-226-0346 [Website] [Contact]
Voted against 2008 bailout both times
Voted against HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted for HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted against HR 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [More info]
Voted against HR 2346: 2009 $106B War Supplemental [More info]
Voted against HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [More info]
Voted for the Garrett amendment to H.R. 3269: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted for HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency Act [More info]
Voted for HR 2647: Imperialism Authorization Act of 2010 / Hate Crimes Creation Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 2194: Expanding Economic War with Iran [More info]
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
