Find out more about Massachusetts's government at congress.org State legislature page State Constitution Secretary of State website

Brad Wyatt (Wyatt) [Message] Interim state coordinator 18 Grafton St Worcester, MA 01505

Welcome to the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Taking back the Commonwealth, one precinct at a time.

Good Resources = www.masslpa.org (Local Massachusetts Liberty Preservation Association site)

Please make sure to VOTE in US Senate Primary on Dec 8th!  Scott Brown has stated he is in favor of Auditing the Fed, and Jack E Robinson even SPOKE at the End the Fed Rally.  http://www.jackerobinson.com/Audit_The_Fed.aspx

Is anybody there? Posted by galtgulch9

Posted 02/14/10 Last updated 02/17/10

I was drawn to the Ron Paul pro freedom movement during his campaign to become the nominee for president because of his qualities of character and personal integrity as well as his record of devotion to the principles of the American Revolution. In addition it was invigorating to find so many other citizens were drawn to it as well with such enthusiasm.

When I found out that Ron Paul founded the Campaign For Liberty I joined when the membership was just over 6,000. During the next year there was exponential growth resulting in its present numbers exceeding 227,730. But the growth in recent weeks and months has been excruciatingly slow with less than 100 new members each day.

The same activists post on the forums with the occasional new bee.  I don't have the impression that the members  are as active as they used to be in letting others know about our existence. There are examples of intense activism locally in spots across the country. But there is no longer any sign of the exponential growth with membership growing by doubling in a short period of time.

Perhaps I should have expected this between elections but I thought we were different given what we know, thanks to Ron Paul and the authors he has recommended, and the state of deteriorating affairs under the current leadership in the country.

I try to stay hopeful because the membership does grow and there are signs that there will be involvement of C4L in upcoming elections. We were helpful in getting our reps to join the Audit The Fed HR 1207 movement too.

I still believe we have reason on our side including a wealth of knowledge about economic theory and understanding of Constitutional issues and how they apply today. We know that government intervention both domestically, e.g. the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 coupled with Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the FHA, the Federal Reserve creation of the paper to cause the sub prime mortgage interest crisis, and in foreign affairs, e.g. military bases in over 130 countries costing over one trillion a year to maintain, has gotten us into our current fiscal situation with a rising national debt in the tens of trillions and growing federal government whose politicians ignore the limits and use sophistry to justify their usurpations with the support of the Supreme Court.

I still inform people I meet about the Campaign For Liberty and post about it everywhere I have the opportunity. I hope you are doing so too. I still wish that members become more involved in at least letting others know the Campaign For Liberty exists and that our growth becomes exponential again someday soon.

A two full page article on the Tea Party movement appeared yesterday, 16 February in the New York Times. Although Ron Paul is mentioned in the article there is no mention of his Campaign For Liberty nor of the Young Americans For Liberty. It is stated that there is a growing interest in Ron Paul across the country. In the article it is pointed out that people who have never been politically active are being drawn to the Tea Party movement because of their concerns about the financial crisis with foreclosures and unemployment growing as well as the efforts of the current administration to involve the federal government in a nationwide takeover of the health system.

Anger and fear seem to be the prevailing attribute of such tea party joiners and activists rather than any consistent ideology or understanding of what is happening and what needs to be done. There appears to be no leader and there are obvious attempts to take over the movement by a variety of presumptuous wannabes including the Republican Party leadership.

No Need To Reinvent The Wheel! Posted by galtgulch9

Posted 01/24/10

No need to reinvent the wheel! Ayn Rand grew up in Russia and experienced first hand the Bolshevik Revolution and life under the Communist Party. She had discovered in literature that man is capable of being heroic (a character in Victor Hugo's Ninety Three) and retained that vision as well as a desire to create such characters as a writer.

She came to realize that a hero is a man or woman who choses to be loyal to his or her values. The question was just which values are worth being loyal to. That is which ethical system makes sense. She studied history and identified the philosophy or theocracy which has prevailed in every society since the most primitive including the Soviet Union.

She realized that the kind of hero she envisioned would not be welcomed, rather that the prevailing philosophy would not be compatible with the kind of ideal person she envisioned. Ayn Rand was individualistic and valued the individual human life as her highest value.

She rejected the notion that the individual ought to hold the interests of others above his own or that it would ever be justifiable to sacrifice the individual for the alleged "good of society." Her philosophy holds that Man has a certain identity and that his essential distinguishing characteristic is the possession of a volitional conceptual consciousness.

Her philosophy holds that a right is a moral sanction to take an action in a social context and that the source of the rights of Man is his nature. The ideas expressed above come from her article The Objectivist Ethics in The Virtue Of Selfishness and an article entitled Man's Rights which appears in the VOS and in Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal.

The concept of no one having the right to initiate force is appealing but doesn't go deep enough.

The socialists and altruists consider they are morally superior to those who simply defend the rights of people to their earned property. They consider they are superior and hold the moral high ground because they are willing to have force used or its threat to be used to take wealth away from those they characterize as evil, selfish and greedy, to be given to those who are in need!

In order to win this kind of conflict one has to demonstrate at least to those listening to the argument, that the socialists and altruists premises are mistaken and that if their premises are fully implemented you end up with a totalitarian dictatorship, with some degree of tyranny along the way.

Otherwise you only argue that they have no right to take or tax and they claim that they do for a good cause. Virtually everyone in our society has been indoctrinated at home and in the schools and churches that man is immoral and selfish and that one should hold the needs of others above one's own, with the implicit premise that man is a sacrificial animal.

The only way to win the freedom of the individual is to challenge the premise that man is a sacrificial animal and that it is justifiable to force him to give up his earnings for the good of others. Ayn Rand dramatizes the clash of her rational alternative with the prevailing wisdom in Atlas Shrugged, which you know has been recommended by Ron Paul in The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Like it or not, we are living in a time when the ideology which prevails in our society and in the world is being challenged because it has proven to lead to tyranny wherever it has been practiced.

Man is not a sacrificial animal but is treated as if he were by our own government, witness the taxation of earned income, business profit, inheritance, property, sales and excise; regulation of business and industry, talk of reinstitution of the military draft; inflation of the currency; compulsory public education; ignorance of and flagrant disregard to the constitutional limits enumerated by the Founders; legal tender laws forcing us to accept worthless pieces of paper with pictures of politicians as payment for work or debts, etc

Implicit in all this is that the individual has no rights unless politicians decide to enslave others for his benefit or to enslave him for the benefit of others.

Limits on the Lesser of Two Evils Posted by billbigler

Posted 01/28/10

Limits on the Lesser of Two Evils

During my four decades of voting, I have often voted for the lesser of two evils.  By the time the last election rolled around, I had had enough. I was faced with a Big Government Republican and a Bigger Government Democrat/Marxist.  I finally threw my hands up and declared, "I've been doing this my whole life! If you vote for the lesser of two evils, there's only one thing you're sure to get...EVIL!"  So I voted Libertarian.

 I didn't give any more thought to the lesser-of-two-evils doctrine until the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts.  After the election, I read some of my compatriots' remarks about how they were happy that they hadn't supported him because he didn't espouse all the principles that they held.  He was just the lesser of two evils.

 I, on the other hand, worked to elect Scott Brown.  For the first time ever, I exhorted friends, family, and political allies to send a candidate money.  I sent money-something I rarely did.  Did I think that Scott was the ideal candidate to uphold the Constitution, to stop tax-and-spend fiscal policy, to reduce the size and scope of government?  No.  I wasn't even sure that he might not vote for a watered-down Obama health care plan or amnesty.  Wasn't he the lesser of two evils? Yes.  Then what had changed since the McCain/Obama election to the Brown/Coakley election to make me willing not only to choose but also to actively support one of the horns of the dilemma?

 Before the Presidential election, it was clear to me that Obama was a Marxist.  He, in his own words, described how he sought out Marxists teachers, mentors, and associates in college and then proceeded to teach Marxism and advocate it.  As a political activist, he chose leftist revolutionary associates such as William Ayers, a wife who had no pride in her country and found it mean-spirited, a minister who was a racist and an America basher.  As a Senator, he voted with the far left more than any other legislator.  As a presidential candidate, he advocated re-distribution of wealth, government takeover of health care and energy, and a "fundamental transformation" of America. For a libertarian like me, he was obviously the greater of the two evils.

 But I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  So I voted for neither.   I "paid my money and took my chances."  I told my friends, "If you liked Jimmy Carter, you're going to  love Barack Obama!"  I was expecting an inexperienced leftist ideologue who would add to my frustrations, taxes, and subjugations to a greater extent than Jimmy but still in the ballpark of Democratic presidents who preceded him. 

 I have found that, for aspirants to the Oval Office, talk is cheap.  Many say one thing before they get there but act differently once they arrive.  The gravity of the command of not only the USA but also of the whole Western World has a sobering and tempering effect on those who assume such responsibility.  I was expecting such modification in our new President.

It didn't take long to discover that I had misjudged this newcomer's ambition, ruthlessness, arrogance, and audacity.  Under the pretext that the sky was falling, he took control of financial institutions, banks, and car companies.  He rushed through legislation that was supposed to fix the economy but mainly served to advance his power grab.  He conspired with his Congress to take control of labor by taking the secret union ballot away from workers and by forcibly unionizing health care workers, to seize control of the health care industry, to take control of business, and to burden an already failing economy with massive energy taxes, regulation, and gov't control.  He unleashed Interpol to conduct operations in the US without having to abide by US law or the Constitution possibly so that they could enforce global warming, hate-speech, or other desired UN laws that he could never get passed with the approval of the American people.

 He appointed "czars," who were beyond the reach of Congress, to carry out his policies.  One was an avowed communist.  One wanted to use to sterilizers in the drinking water to control population and to authorize forced abortions.  One lauded Chavez for taking control of his nation's media and worked to drive conservative talk radio out of business by assessing ruinous licensing fees.  One wanted to use the taxpayer-funded NEA to create propaganda for him.  One wanted to surrender US sovereignty to the UN.

 He broke virtually every campaign promise and showed himself to have no regard for the truth except when it advanced his agenda. In the way of Chicago politics from whence he came, he used every dirty trick, strong-arm tactic, arm-twisting pressure, bribe, and back-room deal he could to achieve his ends. He showed no regard for the Constitution nor for the rights of our citizens.

 This is understandable.  A good Marxist champions the triumph of the state over the individual and does not care what he says or does as longs as it accomplishes that end.

So what if our economy crashes?  So what if we all wind up on the dole or starving or in political prisoner gulags?  Hey!  If you're going to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs.  Right?  After all Chairman Mao, who is the favorite political philosopher of one of O's appointees, said that he was willing to "sacrifice" half of China's population to complete his People's Revolution.  Lucky China!  He only had to kill off 70 million Chinese to get it done.

This brings me to my re-evaluation of the lesser-of-two-evils principle.  I have been forced to conclude that there are limits to its application or perhaps it should only be applied with a caveat. 

 Let's say that I am being asked to eat either a bad-tasting, unhealthy vanilla ice cream or a bad-tasting, unhealthy strawberry ice cream.  Even though I might have more affinity for vanilla, I could rightly say that I refuse either on the grounds that I would be choosing the lesser of two evils. After all, each is going to be unpleasant to the taste and contribute to my lack of health.  This is the kind of arena in which the two-evils doctrine functions very well.

But does it work in this situation?  Now I am going to be force-fed one of the ice creams above, but one of them is laced with arsenic.  If I were a strict adherent of the lesser-of-two-evils dictum, I would say, "I'm not going to choose the lesser of two evils," and, in so doing, risk death instead of  minor harm. Of course, I would not do that.  None of us would.  We would choose the no-arsenic ice cream.

What has changed that has caused us to abandon the two-evils philosophy?  It is because the evils are not comparable.  One is catastrophically worse than the other.  If a sadistic mugger gives me the choice between being beaten and having my children killed, I'm going to take a beating.  Both choices are evil, but one choice is life-ruinous while one is painful and temporarily debilitating.  We would all choose the lesser evil. 

 Therefore, in order to apply the two-evils doctrine, we must not only ask if we are faced with two evils, but we must further ask if the evils are reasonably comparable.  If not, we must choose the non-catastrophic one.

 This brings me back to Scott Brown.  By the time his election reached national attention, the GOP had had several notable showings at the polls. The mood of the people seemed to be shifting away from the President and toward his opponents.  As phenomenal as it seemed, Brown seemed to have a chance to win in a state where the GOP hardly ever won. 

 If he pulled off the win, he would deprive the Dems of a filibuster-proof Senate and strike fear in the hearts of all Dems facing re-election.  That might be enough to stop the passage of further pieces of "The Transformation of America"-most especially, an amnesty bill.  If amnesty passed, there might be enough illegal alien votes in 2012 to get O re-elected.  If Scott Brown could stop that, he was getting my vote and money even if he shared no principles with me.

 Why did I care?  Wasn't O just the greater of two evils?  After watching O and company at work for almost a year, my answer was no.  I no longer thought that O lived in the land of Jimmy Carter or, more contemporarily, Joe Biden.  My judgment was that he more properly should be placed in the company of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung.  Granted, he didn't have the iron grip on our country that those tyrants had on theirs, but that wasn't for his lack of trying.  He was grabbing as much power, by hook or crook, as he possibly could with all possible haste and there was no reason to think that he would cease of his own accord.  Someone or something was going to have to stop him if he were going to be stopped at all.  I saw Scott Brown as the means to that end.

 What had changed for me? I no longer saw the choice as between two comparable evils even though one was worse than the other.  I saw the choice as more between a thunderstorm and a hurricane.  Choosing between Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden is a situation where the lesser of two evils doctrine works.  Choosing between Joe Biden and Mao Tse Tung is a case where it does not.  For me, working to get Scott Brown elected or suffering the re-election of Barack Obama also was not.

Reasonable people may differ about my analysis of our current President.  However you view him, I hope that my account will give you pause before you automatically apply the lesser-of-two-evils doctrine to make a decision.  I hope you will first ask, "Are the two evils relatively comparable or is one so disastrous that it should not be equated with the other?"   After Scott Brown, I know that I will.

 Bill Bigler

Sound Currency Takes Center Stage Posted by Chris Stevens

Posted 01/19/10

Idaho's Campaign for Liberty is highlighting the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinserting them into the political conversation.

We mobilized for the January 9th Republican State Central Committee and passed "A Resolution Calling for the Establishment and Use of Sound Currency in the State Of Idaho."

Then we helped organize Sovereign Idaho's Converge on the Capitol on January 18th. Among the seven State Representatives who spoke about legislation we are supporting, Rep. Phil Hart and Rep. Lenore Barrett each announced the Idaho Sound Currency bills they are introducing. Yes, this is so popular there are two bills being introduced.

Let the public discussion begin! It will take a huge effort to inform our friends, neighbors and citizen legislators about sound money and how it will benefit Idaho. Stay tuned as these bills make their way through the legislative process.

One of the better news stories on the event (notice the sidebar story - New House Group Backs Tea Party Ideals): http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/1046775.html

Nevada Precinct Success Launches National Precinct Alliance Posted by DebbieMcKee

Posted 12/10/09

No RINOs in Nevada State GOP

Nevada Precinct Success Launches National Precinct Alliance

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17665 

By JB Williams  Monday, December 7, 2009

Nevada has become the proving ground for the precinct committeemen initiative and the success in Nevada is very likely to transform the GOP and RNC in the coming election cycle.

According to conservative grassroots activists behind the Nevada success story, a small group of about 30 Tea Party activists took matters into their own hands by way of filling vacant GOP precinct chairs, first at the local level, then the county and six months later, Tea Party activists seized control of the state GOP precincts, placing local Tea Party approved people at the head of the Nevada GOP.

Nevada precinct activist Tony Warren describes the timeline of events here at the new National Precinct Alliance web site.

"Nevada just had its elections for GOP Leadership. As a PC, It was my duty and great pleasure to drive 5 hours from Las Vegas to Hawthorn Nevada, along with our other delegates, to represent Clark County. Our approved slate of candidates swept the elections and we now control the entire State. No RINO was left standing. Every one of them has been moved out of our way. Every change to the State Party bylaws we didn't approve of was voted down. It was a complete and total VICTORY for the grassroots conservatives in Nevada."-said Warren

Nevada was the proving ground and now Warren and his leadership council, Dan (aka ColdWarrior) and Philip Glass, have taken the Nevada strategy and formed a nationwide networking organization aimed at recreating the precinct level success in precinct after precinct, state after state across the nation.

There is no doubt that the long term solution for a runaway government is the patriot's control of a primary party, and the direct retaking of the federal steering wheel. Until recently, too many citizens had forgotten that the government belongs to them if they will only get off the couch and get engaged in the process.

As I have explained many times, I have a 12 year old and a 10 year old at home. As great a kids as they are, if I leave them to tend to my house, the cleaning, the cooking, the shopping, the financial planning, etc., - I will likely return home to a mess and a half within only a few hours or days.

The people wrongly assumed that they could leave the care of their nation in the hands of elected officials, as if those elected officials had the same goals, the same talents and the same agenda. Now they know what happens when they fail to tend their own house and let the DC children run wild.

Rasmussen reports this morning-"Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican." Yet another foolish plug for the 3^rd Party concept? Once again, the devil is in the details...

That report goes on to state-"In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided."

And there you have it! Democrats have a solid 36% of the vote. A minority of the vote, but a winning minority that will win once again if the right remains divided.

The GOP can only win with the combined support of the 18% RNC voters and the 23% Tea Party voters. The 22% so-called "undecided's" will likely break nearly 50/50 at the end of the day.

Only if Tea Party folks unite with RNC folks can they defeat the DNC, better known today as the Democratic Socialists of America. Scattered over numerous 3^rd party efforts, the American Right has NO chance of regaining political power, much less saving U.S. sovereignty, security or freedom today.

If the right unites, they win in a 53-47 take over in the next election cycle. But if they allow themselves to be divided among 3^rd party efforts, they lose again to a 47% larger leftist minority.

Once you understand the simple math, you must ask what it will take to unite the pro-American political right with what's left of the old RNC.

The answer is simple-It will take gaining control of the GOP/RNC and returning America's "conservative" party to its "constitutional" roots. To do that, the people can no longer leave the "doing" to others. They must directly engage in the process individually and at the local level, the precinct level. That is the sole focus of National Precinct Alliance.

Others know how to throw a party, march, higher expensive speakers to come and hawk their latest book.  But Warren, Dan and Glass have shown the way to retake America in Nevada and now they are leading the charge nationwide.

As easy as 1, 2, 3...

• Retake the precincts
• Retake the Party
• Retake the nation

"To me, it is no longer a question of, "can this work?" It is a question of when the rest of the Patriots in our Country put forth the small amount of effort required to do the same thing."-said Warren

As a result, National Precinct Alliance has been chosen as the single strategic partner for the Precinct Committeemen project by newly formed and already affective patriot network Freedom Force US.

Freedom Force US was formed for the sole purpose of bringing patriots across the country together in a targeted tangible strategy, strategically partnering with initiative specific organizations capable of mobilizing millions of citizens in a proven strategy.

Thanks to Freedom Force and strategic partners like National Precinct Alliance, the people will soon be a few clicks from real power via their precinct chair.

In case you are tempted to think this is a "partisan" initiative, think again. The American right must retake control of their own party, the GOP. WWII Democrats and Jefferson liberals also angry with the current Marxist regime in Washington, must begin the process of retaking the DNC by the same methods. They just have a greater task ahead of them as the DNC is currently controlled by the Democratic Socialists of America, while the RNC is floundering about and ripe for the taking.

For more information on how to reclaim your country at the precinct level, visit the National Precinct Alliance. State and county precinct coordinators are being assigned every day and the necessary forms are available on the web site.

Visit Freedom Force US for more information on the absolute power of freedom! Pledges of support are being taken through December 15, 2009. Not a penny has been taken in yet and already, we are making history with tangible results! That's as it should be! It's all about the people...