Hawaii's Campaign For Liberty membership grows larger every week! We have members in every Congressional District, and in all four major counties of our state. We have Local Coordinators in each Congressional District just as most of our counties. If you're interested in taking on a leadership role, you'll need to first join as a Local Coordinator and progress through the Local Coordinator training. After you've done that, contact your District Coordinator or the Interim State Coordinator. We will begin developing criteria for the appointment of more County Coordinators soon. You should be aware that ALL Coordinator appointments are considered "interim"--at such point as the state has adequate leadership to become a chartered organization, there will be elections. For the time being, members in counties who do not currently have appointed coordinators are encouraged to nominate those who seem to be strong leaders. The Interim District and State Coordinators will then confer on the selection. In some counties, if two people seem to be compatible, co-coordinators may be chosen. State, District and County Coordinators track training progress, as well as how many "recruits" Precinct Leaders have been successful with. Since this is an organization designed to "do", it will be important for coordinators in the future to demonstrate some evidence of action.
Once you've joined the Campaign For Liberty in Hawaii, be sure to CHECK BACK OFTEN, log in and check your messages, and return to this state page (as well as your district and county pages)--this site is a social networking site for liberty lovers, and this will be the best way for us to share information with you--but YOU'VE got to sign in so that you can read it.
Finally, be sure to try your hand at the blogging tool--all members can blog on the site, and the best ones will be featured on the home page. We'll also post the best blogs that we can find on our district and state pages, so that everyone has the opportunity to take a look at them. For those who like Facebook, we also have a Facebook page for our state group that you can join.
The Bill introduced in the Senate on April 1, 2009 known as S.773 will establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure.
First they wanted the power to take over any business that they deem a threat to the economy, now they want the ability to control the Internet! This is exactly what our founders feared, a central government with too much power. They already have too much power now they want more!
They Internet is the only alternative choice for media and information. We need to do what Gary Fielder said to do in his presentation The Gig is Up, fight for Internet freedom for our lives! We don't need the federal government controlling the only source of free, independent information.
Their reasoning for this bill is because of quote "America's failure to protect cyberspace." Protect cyberspace? The feds can't do anything efficient! Well besides take your money. How about protect your own governments network, keep your filthy hands off the Internet and stop trying to grab more and more power because people are afraid! Franklin's famous quote works perfectly for this, "Those that would sacrifice civil liberties in exchange for a false sense of security deserve neither and will lose both!".
I wanted to get this information out there since I haven't seen in anywhere else. Please do your part to stop this bill immediately!
Poll: Should the executive branch controll the internet to secure cyberspace?
I oppose government health care. Ever work in a Veterans Administration hospital? I have. So I know what the government can do with health care and I am appalled.
The current system of third party payers is not serving the needs of everyone, but no system will. Get it? No system will meet everyone's needs! At least now though, here in the US you have the choice of earning health care coverage through your employer or not. You have the freedom of choosing your own doctor. You have the freedom to a second opinion. The point is that now we have freedom. The choices may come with costs but they always do.
When government takes control of the system your choices will be put up or shut up. End of story. Only the elites will truly have access to quality health care in their private clinics. Senators and CEO's are never going to settle for public health care on par with criminals and libertarians. The public will be treated like cattle at best.
I know there are many out there (doubt many of them read this website) who live in a fantasy world. In this fantasy the government can take care of all problems if the state is given enough control and oversight (ie. we move closer to fascism). I believe it has been tried before. Ask a survivor of the Soviet health care plan how that worked.
Rather than go to the extreme of state run health care, why not find some middle ground? Insurance companies are part of the problem. Government gave them their monopolies back in the Nixon days. Government and insurance companies are in bed together. The need to get out of the health care business. Together insurance and government are leaching the lifeblood of the providers and patients like, well... LEECHES! Take insurance and government out of the picture and let doctors practice and patients make choices for themselves.
Only when patients and providers can choose the best course of action unimpeded will the system ever work again. Only then will we cease to be herded like sheep. I am a pharmacist and I see everyday how the government and insurance companies drain the lifeblood out the the health care system in the US.
And still it is the best health care system in the world. If you are going to get sick, where do you want to be? Beijing? Bombay? I think not.
Freedom of choice, not government control. Get government and insurance companies out of health care altogether.
Last week at the book store while looking through some books about gold and the economy (I can't really remember which book it was), it mentioned Alan Greespan's essay "Gold and Economic Freedom." I had read about it several times and heard Ron Paul mention it, so I thought I should finally read it. I found it in Ayn Rand's CAPTIALISM: The Unknown Ideal. I am new to economics but have been reading as much as I can from The Ludwig von Mises Institute and lewrockwell.com, for the last ten months. Still, I have to say it was an extraordinary essay for me. Based on what little I know, all I can say is, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!
Greenspan goes straight to the matter in the first paragraph:
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
He then goes over a short history of money, similarly found in Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money? The two differ, however, on the value of fractional reserve banking. Not surprisingly Greenspan allows for fractional reserve banking believing that gold reserves would keep banks from overextending and nations from creating "easy money." Rothbard, however, says it's all a fraud.
Then, after explaining the different booms and busts of the late nineteenth centure, I read:
But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business.
He writes as if that's a bad idea. It seems like a bad idea. It is a bad idea.
SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!
He then gives a short history of the 'FED' beginning with it's creation in 1913 and it's manipulation of the money supply to protect Great Britain. The 'FED' did stop Britain's loss of her gold reserves, saving her from the embarrassment of having to raise interests rates, but:
it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed.
SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!
Statists, he argues, blame gold for the Great Depression, but the real reason they hate gold is that the welfare state is impossible with a gold standard. Taxation cannot support it, therefore, the government must resort to borrowing, but gold hampers government deficit spending. By increasing the money supply, the value of the currency falls.
Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion. In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
This is a wonderful essay. "Gold and economic freedom are inseparable." "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO ALAN GREENSPAN?!
I have no illusion and will not be surprised when you vote for the new scam President Obama is pushing on us. He is using fear to further increase the power and scope of the Federal Government (as Mr. Emmanuel said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste.") Nevertheless, I want you to know that I am against the bailouts. Can you explain to me the moral and constitutional justification for doing this? Can you explain where the money will come from? There are only three sources: inflate the currency, borrow the money, or increase taxes. Can you explain how it is moral to inflate the currency, thus taxing the poorest of our citizens and robbing the people of their savings? Can you explain how is it moral to borrow more money, thus putting our children, our grandchildren, and us further in debt? Can you explain how is it moral to increase the tax burden on a nation that is already suffering, robbing the people of what little the government already allows them to keep in order to bailout incompetent corporations? You swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. How is this bailout constitutional? It is not. It is immoral and unconstitutional. Let's be honest, shall we? We are no longer a constitutional republic under the rule of law; we are a democracy under the rule of the mob. The Constitution is dead. Every vote for a bailout, every unconstitutional act of Congress, the President, and Judiciary shows the contempt the three branches have for the Constitution, making a mockery of it and your oath of office to uphold it.
<!--[if supportFields]>CONTACT _Con-3F2148D31 c s l David A. Singhiser<!--[if supportFields]>
I'm assuming you voted for the "Stimulus" package. I am against it, but that is not the reason for this letter. I understand that the bill was not available until around midnight before the vote. It was around 1000 pages long. What I would like to know is how can you justify voting for or against a bill before you can possibly read it?
Do you just trust the leadership? Do you just trust the President? Isn't that what the Republicans did under Bush with the Patriot Act and all their other odious acts weakening our civil liberties?
You are sent to Washington to represent the First District of Hawai'i, but how can you represent us if you do not even have the time to read and think about the pros and cons of a certain bill? Are you there just to rubber stamp a bill for your leaders or a Democratic President or just vote against the Republicans? How can you possibly be a free and independent representative for us? I know that this is not your fault, but if you and your staff do not have the time to read, much less analyze a bill, then why are you even there?
1410 LHOB Washington, DC 20515-1102 DC Phone: 202-225-4906 DC Fax: 202-225-4987 [Website] [Contact]
Prince Kuhio Federal Building 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Room 5-104 Honolulu, HI, 96850 808-541-1986 808-538-0233
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 co-sponsoring HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency Act [More info]
Voted for H.R. 3435: 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 HR 2847: Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes [More info]
Voted for HR 4061: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 [More info]
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. [?]
Dear Senator,
