Baby Steps Toward a Surveillance State? Posted by Tim Shoemaker

Posted 08/30/10 Last updated 08/30/10

The AP reports preschoolers in Contra Costa County, CA will soon be monitored by "small radio frequency tags."  These tags will be embedded in jerseys that each child will wear when at the school.  According to the report, "the tag will send signals to sensors that help track children's whereabouts, attendance and even whether they've eaten or not."

The project was funded by a $50,000 federal grant.

Fair Tax Critique Posted by earthshelterguy

Posted 06/28/10

Fair Tax Critique

I would like to see the income tax abolished as much as anyone, but we need to be careful how it's done. The Fair Tax is a bill to replace the federal income tax with a sales tax of 23%. It does not repeal the 16^th Amendment ( income tax), it only repeals certain provisions of the 1986 Internal Revenue Code enumerated in section 202 of the code. It takes a separate constitutional amendment to repeal the 16^th, that must be approved by ¾ of the states. Title IV section 401 of the Fair Tax bill allows a 7 year time frame to do this, or the Fair Tax will be dropped. Since both will exist at the same time, there is nothing in the bill to prevent some form of income tax from being reinstated along with the Fair Tax. I would like to see some kind of language added to the bill to prevent this, if possible.

My main concern is that the 23% rate is only for the first year per Chapter 1 Section 101 of the Fair Tax bill. Thereafter, in the 2^nd year, it becomes a total of 3 federal tax rate percentages, starting as follows:

1. General Revenue Rate of 14.91%

2. Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Rate of 12.4%

3. Hospital Insurance Rate of 2.9%

Notice that this adds up to 30.2% for the 2^nd year. Then, in following years, Section 904 of the bill says that the Social Security Administration alone will set the rates for #2 and #3 above, which is about half of the Fair Tax. I don't know who sets the General Revenue Rate, I did not see it in the bill, but the F.A.Q. on fairtax.org says, "If the government gets larger, higher taxes will be required".

Chapter 1 Section 101 of the bill says that the tax will be added to imports, in addition to import duties. When I questioned a Fair Tax panel on WWJB, I was told that exporters would lower their prices to stay competitive. I know that many companies operate with less than a 5% profit, so how can they lower prices that much? I think it would cause import prices to rise up to 30% after taxes are added.

In theory, American companies will be able to lower prices that much because they will not be paying the tax. For example, a home builder will not pay taxes, so the house will be about 23% cheaper, then the buyer pays the tax, bringing the final cost about where it is today.

In the fairtax.org "Fundamentals" example, the tax on a new $230,000 house will be $69,000. Notice that $69,000 is 30% of $230,000. If you add the tax to the price, you get $299,000, and the tax is 23% of THAT total. The fact remains that the tax amount is 30% of the house price. I asked the Fair Tax panel on WWJB if lenders were ok with including the tax in the mortgage. They said Yes. I hope this would be true for other loans also, such as cars, otherwise it would be hard to come up with that much money at once to pay the taxes. Lenders that I called would not take a stand one way or the other, and had not heard of the Fair Tax.

Another concern is that services will be taxed, so everybody from landscapers to lawyers will become tax collectors. I don't expect the IRS to be completely eliminated as claimed, because there will still be an administrative bureaucracy for enforcement, collections, rebates to everybody, distribution, etc.

Chapter 7 Section 703 of the Fair Tax says that purchases by federal, state, and local governments are also subject to the tax. Why? Businesses would be exempt. What do you think these governments use to pay those taxes, and what would be the grand total? I posed this question on fairtax.org and was told that they didn't know the total, but that the total tax would be "revenue neutral" compared to today's taxes.

There is a link to the entire bill on fairtax.org, approximately 60 pages long. I also suggest going to mises.org, click on author Laurence M. Vance, and look for the word "tax" in his article archive.

Pat Miketinac

Brooksville FL

6/22/10

HB2632/SB1070 - Not Real ID/National ID? Really........... Posted by Andre

Posted 03/19/10 Last updated 03/24/10

Is HB2632/SB1070 really "Real ID", "National ID" or whatever other name they try to hide behind?

Let's see what Mark Lerner of the Constitutional Alliance wrote to State Rep Biggs in an email where Mr. Lerner states unequivocally that "YES, HB2632/SB1070 will create a national ID card/system" for Arizona

Also, let's review Mr. Lerner's  impeccable credentials to speak on this issue here, here, and here.

Should you agree with Mr. Lerner's assessment and his ability to speak on this issue, please contact your State Reps and State Sen with a copy of the Lerner/Biggs email and put them on notice that there are serious consequences for supporting any form of Real ID/National ID under any name and that you will remember how they vote come election time.

All PRO-Constitutional elected officials and candidates need to oppose HB2632/SB1070 and all bills that advance Real ID/National ID.

Lerner/Biggs Email:From: Mark Lerner

Subject: SB1070/HB2632 Mark Lerner Constitutional Alliance
To: abiggs@azleg.gov
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 3:32 PM

Dear Representative Biggs,

I have been asked by several people in Arizona to contact you regarding Senator Pearce legislation. My name is Mark Lerner and I am the Co-Founder of the Constitutional Alliance. The Alliance is made up of state lawmakers,national and state groups/organizations and private citizens.

I am providing two links for the purpose of illustrating that DHS's own "system" is not working and further that DHS is failing at securing our borders even at authorized Custom Border Patrol Checkpoints. http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=8b92c12425a67effcc195e6905f7d556 and http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/how-effective-cbp-keeping-us-borders-safe. With all due respect to Senator Pearce relying on the federal government's "system" is a recipe for disaster. As long as we as a country continue to look to the same people (federal government) who created the problem to resolve the problem we will continue to have to deal with the problem. It is long past time for states to look for ways to resolve problems without providing the federal government with more information/control over each of us.

At the end of the day we, as a country, will have to create a hub system that will allow for the issuing agencies of driver's licenses to authenticate the birth certificates of those applying for driver's licenses directly with the issuing agency or deportment of the birth certificates. Each birth certificate will have to be sequentially numbered starting with the two letter abbreviation of the state. An example being: AZ00030001000567. That number would go into the "system" as active. If anyone attempted to use that birth certificate to obtain a driver's license the "system" would show that birth certificate/number was active and already used to acquire a driver's license. If a person attempted to use a "counterfeit" birth certificate with a fraudulent number the "system" would show that the number and/or birth certificate were not authentic.

It is noteworthy that both the Real ID Act 2005 and PASS ID Act call for an authentication process for birth certificates, I do not oppose such a system but rather support it because it could be done without the need to provide information either to or through the federal government. States would have complete control of the "system". The hub itself would not retain any information but rather act only as a conduit. I would admit that in a very few instances birth certificates would not be available. In those instances other breeder documents should be able to satisfy place of birth or citizen status. It is also true there may have to be rare instances where immigration status would have to be resolved. This would be the very rare exception and not the rule and thus would not create a national identification system.

I respectfully disagree with Senator Pearce. His legislation would create a "national" ID card/system. The mere fact that before a license or identification card can be issued a "check" or approval of the federal government is required creates a national identification "system" or card.

I have testified on the "issue" of Real ID and the issuance of identification documents in many states around the country. Additionally I have been afforded the opportunity to present testimony to Congress. I have also met with and convinced the ACLJ to address the issue of the Real ID Act 2005. Although I primarily work with "Conservative" Republicans I also work with Democrats on this issue and other related issues.

I am providing several documents as attachments that I believe will establish my credibility on this issue.


Mark Lerner

Oppose the Revised SB1070 on National ID Concerns Posted by Jeff Greenspan

Posted 03/30/10

Dear Representative Burges,  

I have been asked by many residents of Arizona to comment on SB1070.  I provide what I believe to be a much better alternative at the end of this email.  

1)  Reasonable suspicion is the lowest threshold possible.  It does not equate to probable cause.  I do understand that individuals are not detained indefinitely.  That being said the fact is citizens of the United States are protected against "searches" without warrants.  I do understand that there may not be Constitutional issues in so far as the courts have ruled but that does not make it right.  There was a time in this country that we were presumed to be innocent.  Further, it was said years back when FREEDOM meant something that we would rather let 9 guilty people go then convict one innocent person.  I will agree that the illegal alien/undocumented worker problem must be addressed.  I do not see the logic in going back to the same people (federal government) that caused the problem and asking them to help be a part of the solution.   

 2)  The following language from the bill is of great concern:  

F.  (In SB1070 it is subsection E.) Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1.  Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2.  Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

3.  Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

This language in no way prohibits law enforcement from sharing the personal information of citizens of the United States during the "vetting process".  I contend that the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has made their intentions clear.  They want the personal information of Americans either through direct electronic access or indirect access. I appreciate that currently the "federal government" has much of our personal information already.  The fact is "that information" is spread out over many departments and agencies of the federal government.  DHS wants a more centralized system and thus we have witnessed the Real ID Act 2005 and now the PASS ID Act. 

Because the standards for both Real ID and PASS ID are the adopted standards of two international organizations, AAMVA and the ICAO, the driver's license would become not simply a national ID but more accurately an international ID.  International standards are only used to facilitate global information sharing. 

The following comes from a February 2006 GCN (Government Computer News) article:

"He emphasized repeatedly that information sharing is appropriate around the world on biometric methods of identifying terrorists who pose a risk to the public. Noting that his organization already receives information about terrorist threats from around the globe, Mocny said, 'We have a responsibility to make a Global Security Envelope [that would coordinate information policies and technical standards.]'

"Mocny conceded that each of the 10 privacy laws currently in effect in the United States has an exemption clause for national-security purposes. He added that the department only resorts to its essentially unlimited authority under those clauses when officials decide that there are compelling reasons to do so."

In a 2007 article with the same publication Mocny stated "We're starting the process of biometrifying [sic] a good proportion of the world population."  Robert Mocny also stated that "information sharing is appropriate around the world, and DHS plans to create a "Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations."

Robert Mocny of the same DHS that has stated nearly all Americans are potentially domestic terrorists.  Under Real ID, the Secretary of DHS is given the authority in the "Official Purposes" section to add restrictions at his or hers own discretion.  Real ID currently restricts entrance to a federal facility, flying on a commercial airliner or entering a nuclear facility.  Tomorrow we could see restrictions on purchasing weapons, ammunition or even prescription drugs.  This kind of unfettered authority is unacceptable.  In Mocny's statement we see that DHS can decide when to ignore our privacy laws.  He never mentions consulting with Congress or eve the President for that matter. 

SB1070 does not create a national ID card but it does embolden the federal government.  States should not and must not depend or rely on the federal government when the states themselves can go a long way towards resolving the issue of citizenship.  There would be times when the federal government might be needed but first every state has a responsibility to only involve the federal government when all other means have been exhausted.  I cannot comprehend why a state would offer up/volunteer their own citizens personal information to a department of the federal government that has made their intentions clear.  Let us not forget DHS had made it clear that it believes domestic terrorism is a much threat as terrorism initiated outside our borders.  If they felt you were a potential terrorist would they share your personal information with other governments and/or corporations? 

Under the Real ID Act and the PASS ID Act breeder documents must be authenticated.  Nearly all citizens of the United States have birth certificates or an acceptable alternative.  We suggest a "hub" system be put in place that is solely controlled by the states.  The hub itself would not retain any information, only act as a conduit.  All DMV's would have the capability to communicate with the state issuing agencies or departments of birth certificates. 

The federal government wants birth certificates digitized and we agree.  We go one step further and believe all birth certificates must be numbered starting with the two letter abbreviation for each state.  One a birth certificate is presented to acquire a driver's license or other for of identification the birth certificate number would go into a databases as active.  If anyone else attempted to use that same numbered birth certificate the "system" would show that birth certificate had been used previously to obtain an ID document or driver's license.  At that point it would be very simple to determine if someone was attempting use another person's birth certificate or if a person was using a birth certificate that was not in the "system". 

SB1070 is enabling DHS and worse yet feeding it's addiction for the personal information of citizens.  Domicile information is not the business of DHS.  We would ask that Arizona legislators work with the legislators of the other states and agree to create the hub system I describe above.  I have talked with telecommunications companies and the network could be in place in short time.  A focused and coordinated effort must take place to digitize and number birth certificates, 

Let me add this about the confirming of identity:  We, as a country do not have the biometric data of most Islamic extremists or for that matter many of the people entering our country illegally through Mexico or Canada.  If a person comes into our country and we do not ave their biometric data there is nothing right now to stop that person from "beating" the "system".  That person can obtain a counterfeit breeder document for a couple of hundred dollars.  To spite this we are insisting all Americans be enrolled into a single global biometric identification system (facial recognition).  So much for the presumption of innocence again.  There is a person facial recognition is not used to see if a person has a driver's license in other states.  The technology does not work when hundred's of millions of images are compared.  (2003 AAMVA sponsored report conducted by the IBG (International Biometric Group).

The only reason the Real ID Act and PASS ID do not violate the 1974 Privacy Act is it is the states that are collecting the personal information of citizens that DHS wants.  The states are being used as surrogates.  SB1070 is tantamount to giving a child a free pass in a candy store.  In this case Arizona is feeding the addiction of DHS by feeding DHS citizens information. 

I have provided an alternative that calls for thinking outside the box.  Please keep in mind that even the federal government wants breeder documents authenticated.  That is because without doing so only crates perceived security and not real security.

I believe illegal immigration and the threat from Islamic extremists/terrorists is real.  We must face these threats with real solutions.

I would ask that Arizona lawmakers contact the NCSL/ALEC and urge that what we propose be addressed with the urgency required. 

Please keep in mind it is each citizens foremost responsibility to pass on to future generations,the rights, liberty and freedom they inherited at such great sacrifice from previous generations.  SB1070 does not meet that test.

Finally know that the SSN database is riddled with errors with estimates running as high as 13 million.  Admittedly most are not serious errors but that being said there is a problem with E-Verify identifies those in our country illegally less than 50% of the time correctly.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/27458614/Final-E-Verify-Report-12-16-09-2  This preceding link is of a report DHS sponsored.  The following comes from an AP story:

The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.

Representative Burges I ask that you not support SB1070.  The issue is not whether SB1070 creates a national ID.  The issue is are states going to provide DHS with enough information about each of us that it, DHS will have a centralized database with our personal information in it. 

Sincerely,

Mark Lerner  Co-Founder of the Constitutional Alliance, an organization comprised of state lawmakers, state and national groups/organizations and private citizens.

http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/

The Council of Governors--an endrun around state sovereignty Posted by Laura Hausladen

Posted 02/26/10

Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  As a country we’ve been guilty of trying to purchase a little temporary safety and we’re going to have to wise up!

Many people have said it in many ways, but tyrants and the power grabbers know that “fear is the most effective way to control people”.  I bring this up because we need to see a bit of how we’ve gotten to this new executive order that establishes this Council of Governors.

Keep in mind that after 9/11, due to the fear generated, and the people’s belief that the government could provide them with security if it was allowed more control we’ve experienced a mushroom cloud type explosion of the power of the state. Abroad we’ve allowed bankrupting and unconstitutional wars (please remember only Congress can declare war!), we’ve allowed torture and inhuman un-American practices such as unmanned drone attacks (that killed 126 Pakistanis last month alone including many woman and children). At home we’ve allowed wire-tapping, surveillance, suspension of habeus corpus (or warrantless searches), financial monitoring, body scans, even martial law and the confiscation of firearms from lawabiding citizens after Katrina)... Our civil liberties are all but gone. Right before Christmas we got the executive order that granted INTERPOL, the world’s largest international police organization, with 188 member countries,  complete immunity from investigation or searches in the United States, and now this new exececutive order # 13528 establishing the Council of Governors empowers the president to select 10 governors  to represent all the people of the U.S. Our own governor Nixon, (infamous for his condoning of the 2009 MIAC report with its blatant political profiling), has been appointed to the Council.

So what is the Council of Governors?  Let me read from the Executive Order that establishes it. Its opening statement reads:
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property,” it is hereby ordered as follows: 
Section 2 declares the council’s function...
Sec. 2.  Functions.
The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information, or advice shall concern:"

(Virtually every major agency of force, both federal and domestic, has been listed here, and now it continues with the areas that will concern them--the areas in which they will share information and advice...)


"(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

Well what’s wrong with that?  A nice partnership between the state and federal governments so they can coordinate things and keep us all safe! We’ve gotten so used to this government speak. We should scream just hearing that statist jargon “partnership between the Federal Govt and state governments”.  Our founding fathers did not see it that way. The states were sovereign.  They gave certain enumerated powers (Art1. sec8) to the federal government, they delegated certain responsibilities to the federal government, but they did NOT make them partners.  We were the united (with a small u as written in the Declaration of Independence) States of America.  This executive order does an end run around state sovereignty, creating 10 regions of the country (in line with the regions FEMA and the UN have established) and essentially erasing state lines in the event of the council taking any action. The president having the power to appoint the governors who are then partnered with him and have charge of “the synchronization and integrations of state and federal military ACTIVITIES in the U.S.” becomes the supreme commander and in charge of state militias and ALL the armed forces (county police, state militia and national guard and federal troops,  AND removing any checks and balances thereof)--he in effect becomes a dictator. The approval of the legislative branch of government isn’t even needed if he wants to squash a domestic insurrection.   This makes us the United State (SINGULAR!) of America under the control of 1 person who is advised by the elite he has chosen--clearly no longer a republic, no longer united sovereign states.  It should give us pause that Hitler did something similar in 1934 when he transferred the sovereign rights of the states--Germany had states similar to ours-- to the Reich central govt and put the state administrations under the control of the Reich administration.
It  certainly looks like the executive branch of the govt is conspiring to get all of the military power and all of the forces under its control.

Let me quote from "Martial Law in America: No Longer Just a Possibility!" by Gary D. Barnett, “This executive order was issued for one purpose only, and that is to build a “legal” partnership between the federal government’s national military force and the domestic police state so that they become one and the same. But in reality, this “partnership” would be controlled by the executive branch of the federal government; this being the most dangerous kind of fascism. Nothing could be more treacherous or more of a threat to liberty than for one man, the president of this now “United State,” to have the power to control and use in domestic matters the entire federal military, the National Guard, the Reserves, the Coast Guard and all state police organizations. This would effectively give the president the power to establish Martial Law over the entire country at any given time of his choosing.”
 
I think the jury is still out on the best way to deal with this... Should the people call for Nixon to be disqualified and removed from the Council of Governors because of his previous support of political profiling in the MIAC report and his failure to respond to FOIA requests as regards this issue?  Should the state legislators enact laws that would nullify any action taken by the Council, especially as regards the deployment of Missouri militia and National Guard troops and the “syncronization” of local police and federal troops?  Should the governor be asked to step down on the grounds that he has broken his oath to uphold and defend the Missouri Constitution which says in Art. 1 Sec. 3 Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and forms of government. “That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal govt and police thereof...” ?

What are we Missourians going to do?  Surely we cannot allow our governor to serve two masters as he now is. Surely we cannot allow the erasing of our state's borders by a federal government on a rampage. What is our plan?  Now is the time to decide how we will proceed!

Precinct Committeeman: Most Powerful Office in the World Posted by Chris Stevens

Posted 01/05/09 Last updated 01/05/09

By Grant Noble http://www.rlctexas.org/membership/training/precinct_committeeman.htm

If you are tired of seeing things continue to go down the drain, you must understand how liberals dominate our government. You must understand the seven laws of American government:

1. If you want to change things, change the laws. Remember all the nonsense we learned in school about "Coequal Branches of Government"? Actually the Founding Fathers made Congress far and away the most powerful branch because it was "closest to the people."

The President can't spend a dime unless Congress authorizes it. Congress can reject treaties and Presidential appointments, mandate programs the President doesn't want (by overriding vetoes) and even determine if the Supreme Court can rule on a case (Article III, section 2, "...the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction...with such exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.")!

Because our state constitutions are modeled after the Federal Constitution, it's the same story at the local level. Governors and State Supreme Court Justices have some influence, but ultimate power lies in the same legislature that passes the laws and determines what happens in our society. Unfortunately, most legislatures are dominated by liberals.

2. To change laws, change the lawmakers. No citizens or group can possibly keep up with the thousands of laws passed each year by U.S. legislatures. Sure a big protest campaign can change a vote or two. But after all the shouting is over, sometime down the road liberal legislators quietly pass whatever they wanted in the first place. There's really no substitute for legislators we can count on whether our eyes are on them or not.

3. Our people have to be on the ballot to get elected. When was the last time you were really enthusiastic about a candidate? How often do you vote for the "lesser of two evils"? Ever wonder why, despite the rhetoric, both major parties promote anti-conservative policies after they are elected?

4. To get on the ballot, our people have to win a major party primary. Except in very rare cases, everyone we elect in the fall won a major party primary. Because one party usually dominates a district, 90% of legislative seats are actually decided in the dominant party primary, not in the fall. Usually no more than 20% of registered voters bother to vote in these all important primaries. In dominant party primaries with multiple candidates (very common after an incumbent retires), normally less than 7% of registered voters determine who goes to the legislature (Campaigns and Elections magazine says 108 major-party nominations for governor or U.S. Senate in the 1990's went to candidates who won with less than 50% of the primary vote). Since only about half of the eligible population bothers to vote, I estimate about 4% are telling all the rest of us what to do!

Some naive conservatives fall for third party appeals of "conservative" leaders who are more interested in fundraising than results. But our "winner take all" system (like England and Canada) does not provide for proportional representation. 10% of the voters in a general election gets nothing. 10% of the voters in the primary of the party that dominates a district usually wins a legislative seat.

5. Party endorsed candidates win the primary. Sometimes candidates endorsed by local party organizations lose primaries, but it's rare. Endorsements mean you get party money plus party workers who will pass out sample ballots with your name prominently endorsed. Primary voters are no different than anyone else. They don't have a lot of time to study the qualifications of primary candidates and their stands on the issues. Usually they see the party endorsements, assume "the Party knows best" and punch the appropriate holes.

There are state, ward and township party organizations, but the basic unit of U.S. government is the county. In nearly every case, the party endorsements the primary voter sees are made by a county executive committee. This executive committee is usually elected by the county's precinct committeemen. These committeemen are elected in the party primary from every precinct (normally about 500 voters) in the county.

In some states the office of precinct committeeman goes under another name (in Michigan, they are called precinct delegates; in Ohio, it is precinct executive). Sometimes (as in Illinois' Cook County), the county executive committee is elected by primary voters from an entire ward, township or county. But such widespread voting for a major party's county executive committee is the exception, not the rule. Normally it is the locally elected precinct committeemen who ultimately control endorsements.

Each state has slightly different rules for getting on the primary ballot for committeeman. For example, in Illinois (outside Cook County) you must file the signatures of any 10 registered voters in your precinct 90 days before the primary. In Ohio, you must file 5 signatures 75 days before the primary from voters who either voted in you party's primary or didn't vote in any primary in the last two years. The rules (and the name of the office) may differ slightly from state to state, but it's usually easy to get on the ballot to run as a committeeman.

6. It's not necessary to have a majority of the county committeemen to influence the endorsement process.

Here's how it works in my home county, Lake County, Illinois. Lake is mostly Republican. To advance their agenda, liberals get elected as Republican committeemen. There are about 400 precincts in Lake. Normally about 100 are "vacant", i.e., nobody ran for Republican committeeman in the last primary. Of the 300 or so elected committeemen, about 10% are conservatives, 15% are liberals and the rest "regulars" mainly interested in patronage and power who usually could care less about issues like abortion, "gay rights", gun control, etc.

Say X and Y are running for Lake County's executive committee. Each has half of the "regulars". Where are they going to get the necessary voters to get a majority? From 45 liberals or 30 conservatives? And once elected, who do you think the winning candidate is going to endorse in the next primary---a liberal Republican or a conservative? That's why most of Lake County's officials vote liberal, despite an overwhelming Republican vote. That's how 45 people in a county of 520,000 control the endorsement process. In my county, it's not 4% telling all the rest us what to do, it's less than one hundredth of 1%!!

Occasionally, some rich amateur will dump millions into a campaign and become a senator or governor overnight. But for the vast majority of politicians, it's a long, slow grind to the top. Each step of the ladder, they need a party endorsement---endorsements which in both parties are dominated by liberals. Is it any wonder why we get the government we do?

In summary, to change things, we must change the laws. To change the laws, we must change the people making them. To get elected , our people must get on the ballot. To get on the ballot, they must win a major party primary. To win the primary, they should get endorsed by their party. To get a party endorsements, we must find, train and elect precinct committeemen who will in turn elect the people who make party endorsements. Precinct committeeman is the most powerful office in the world because committeemen ultimately determine who goes to Washington D.C. and our state capitol.

7. The Most Powerful Office in the World is Easy to get!! Lake is typical among U.S. counties. 25% of the committeeman spots of the dominant party are normally "vacant". In these precincts, if you get on the primary ballot with no primary opponent, the only way you can lose is through an almost impossible write-in campaign.

In the other 75% of precincts, you will probably have to oust an incumbent committeeman (sometimes they withdraw rather than fight). But most incumbent committeemen are patronage hacks who do little besides drop off party literature and endorsements. (When was the last time any committeeman came to your door?). $50 for literature, a few weekends visiting the hundred or so homes that might vote in your party's primary and any dedicated conservative can win.

In my experience in Illinois, it's very rare for a conservative who follows the formula above to lose to a "Regular" Republican committeeman---even a "regular" who has had the office for decades. I've even seen one issue zealots who insisted on converting everyone to their cause (pro-life, gun rights, etc.) eke out wins. Those who follow our advice and say "I'd like to represent your views to the Republican Party. What do you think are the most important issues?" usually win 2 to 1. Of course, being a conservative is harder in the Democratic party. But there are many "Reagan Democrat" areas where conservatives can win and the Democrat party is the only game in town.

As the 1992 Presidential election proved, it's a mistake to put all our conservative eggs in one party's rickety basket. Believe me, liberals never make that mistake. They always join the dominant party of their area, no matter which it is. Voting for the Executive Committee and determining those critical primary endorsement is by far the most important power of precinct committeeman. But there are others:

1. Access to neighbors---The media makes conservatives look like kooks. No wonder conservative politicians have problems. As the dominant party's committeeman, you can reach people who would never come to your church, social club or home. Most voters are eager to know about their government and the people they elect. Even the most apathetic have some interest in an institution that is taking about half their income in taxes, mandates and fees.
2. Respect from politicians---Committeemen represent 500 voters and those key party endorsements. Any call or letter from a committeeman is going to get a lot of attention from elected officials of their own party.
3. Launching point for other offices---Running for committeeman is the best place to start learning how to build winning coalitions. One of the big problems among conservatives is the notion that running for office is like running a business. Levelheaded businessmen, who wouldn't dream of being their own lawyer in court, somehow think they can win against experienced, entrenched liberals without any prior political experience.
4. Control of party leaders and platforms----Committeemen influence or control most party matters. If the Republicans dump pro-life and other conservative positions from their party platform, it won't be because of election results. It will be due to a handful of liberals who have patiently wormed their way to high party positions, starting as precinct committeeman.

Now you know how our government actually works, just like the average liberal does. You can continue to picket, write letters to the editor and your Congressman or work in another losing, non endorsed primary campaign---all the things that have gotten conservatives nowhere the last 60 years. Or you can stop wasting time, run for precinct committeeman and start using the liberals' secret weapon against them!

(Permission is granted to reprint or even sell this essay as long as nothing is altered without author's permission. Grant D. Noble, P.O. Box 146, Lake Forest, Il. 60045 847-234-3520 Fax: 615-0281 gnoble@safeplace.net I have the "Most Powerful Office" rules for all 50 states.)

The Senate Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act Wins in Both Houses Posted by dljholt

Posted 02/12/10

Dear Friends of Liberty,

Twenty-four hundred citizen grassroots activists made their voices heard at the state capitol bell tower on January 18th and the Virginia legislature listened.

Even before Obamacare is made federal law, the Virginia House and Senate has voted to stand up to the powers of Congress to mandate that every citizen purchase federally approved health care coverage.

Senator Jill Vogel's SB417 passed on the House floor moments ago with a vote of 66 - 29. We expect Governor McDonnell will sign the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act into law the moment it crosses his desk.

The House version, HB10, was passed by the full House yesterday by a vote of 72 - 26. The bill is on it's way to the Senate where it is expected to pass with bi-partisan support. But regardless, Virginia will not have to comply with federal mandates to purchase health care insurance once Governor McDonnell signs SB417, and likely HB10, into law.

Under Obamacare, if you file your tax return and fail to offer proof that you have a policy that puts you in compliance with the law, the IRS will try to penalize you, possibly by garnishing your state tax refund. If you live in Virginia, you will have the Commonwealth in your corner. Virginia's Attorney General has vowed to challenge the feds in court should any citizen of Virginia be penalized for not purchasing federally approved health care insurance. This legislation also opens up a test case that could get ObamaCare thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have effectively reaffirmed our position that it is "we the people" that set the course for this nation. Governments are instituted by the governed and will not be usurped on our watch.

The Virginia 10th Amendment Revolution is victorious in winning back our state's rights!!!

Yours in liberty,

Donna Holt

Theft of the Tea Party Movement Posted by Adam de Angeli

Posted 02/03/10 Last updated 02/03/10

We all know what the first modern-day "Tea Party" was. It was on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 2007. Ron Paul's grassroots supporters, with no guidance from the campaign, raised more than $6 million in one day. They did it for one reason: because they figured that if the amount was big enough, people would have to notice the Ron Paul movement, which had been viciously and deliberately marginalized by the mass media.

So now I hear from Dick Armey via his access-based sellout organization, "Freedomworks," that the Tea Party movement was born "on February 27th, 2009[, when] thousands of Americans heeded the call of CNBC's Rick Santelli and took to the streets in dozens of cities across the country to protest bailouts and wasteful spending."

That's right: the Tea Parties aren't angry at the mass media: they were created by it!

For his part, Armey should be ashamed for plugging Santelli who was totally pro-bailout until there was talk of a token amount being set aside for--gasp!--homeowners. Moreover that the incident was completely staged and it was FOX News' sponsorship of the parties that brought them to fame.

Thus the pied-piping began. In a perfect mirror image of the anti-war demonstrations of the Left during the Bush years, they began as demonstrations whose only mission was to bring out as many people as possible. They will end with the majority being herded back into being loyal Republican voters, and a few stalwarts who will join the Natural Law party or start the "Tea Party" something similar toward irrelevance. Soon, it will be 2002 again.

How do we break this cycle? It begins by refusing to settle for the lesser of two evils, and treating elections not as partisan affairs, but as the opportunity to punish the politician--of either party--who wronged us. Voting anti-incumbent is one thing. Making issues of the primaries is a great way to sidestep the partisanship issue. I'm sure you can think of more ideas, but one thing is certain: we need to bring these "tea partiers" into our movement, not simply "join forces" with them. Because their movement is being actively co-opted.

Reid Can't Get the Votes to Confirm Bernanke Posted by Matt Hawes

Posted 01/21/10

ABC News reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at one point was planning on scheduling a vote on Bernanke for Friday, but the Senate is currently in the midst of a debate over raising the debt limit and the vote has been pushed....

Roll Call reported this week that at the Senate Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday, "according to senators, liberals spoke out against confirming Bernanke for a second term....

Read the rest.

Keep those calls going!  The message is clear: no vote to confirm until there is a vote on Audit the Fed.

S.604 Mass Action Day WINNERS! Posted by Deb Wells

Posted 10/09/09 Last updated 10/29/09

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!

There are currently 30 co-sponsors in the Senate!!

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:

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:

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!