Getting a Local Coordinator in every Precinct in Utah!
We need Local Coordinators whose job is to capture their voting precincts (their own turf). And we need County (or House District) Coordinators whose job is to identify Local Coordinators. Let's examine both roles more closely.
LOCAL COORDINATORS
The primary sphere of activity for an active member of the Campaign for Liberty is his own precinct:
2. Email your name and your precinct to your county coordinator (or to your state coordinator if you don't have a county coordinator).
3. Create an account on the Campaign for Liberty web site. Become a dues-paying member, and sign the nondisclosure agreement to become a Local Coordinator.
4. Identify liberty-minded citizens (neighbors) in your precinct who will be willing to attend the caucus in March and support you.
5. Attend a caucus training session to learn how a caucus works, what is expected of a delegate, and how to get elected.
6. Attend the March 23, 2010 caucus, and get elected as a delegate to the state and/or county conventions.
Local Coordinators are responsible for educating their precincts, keeping them informed, and recruiting for the Campaign for Liberty. This might entail canvassing (to distribute pamphlets, office-holder voting records, news articles, etc.), inviting people to events in person or by telephone, etc.
COUNTY (or HOUSE DISTRICT) COORDINATORS
A secondary sphere of activity for an enthusiastic member of the Campaign for Liberty is his own county (or his house district, in a more populous county):
1. Determine your house district by visiting this web site.
2. Email your interest in coordinating C4L activity in your county (or house district) to your county coordinator (or to your state coordinator if you don't have a county coordinator).
3. Become a dues-paying member of the C4L ($35), and sign the nondisclosure agreement to become a Local Coordinator.
4. Identify liberty-minded citizens in each precinct in your county (or district)--citizens who will be willing to attend the caucus in March.
5. Host caucus training sessions to help others learn how a caucus works, what is expected of a delegate, and how to get elected.
6. Coordinate your efforts with your county coordinator and/or other house district coordinators.
The primary role of a County (or House District) Coordinator is to identify, organize, and lead Local Coordinators in the county (or house district). Names and contact information of C4L members living in each county (or house district) will be made available to County (or House District) Coordinators, who can then contact these members about being Local Coordinators. Utah Campaign for Liberty Training materials will be provided so that County (and House District) Coordinators throughout the state can provide essentially the same information in the training sessions they host.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
The Utah Campaign for Liberty is endeavoring to accomplish the following:
1. Identify a Local Coordinator in each voting precinct.
2. Identify a House District Coordinator in each house district in Utah.
3. Identify a County Coordinator in each county in Utah.
4. Identify a Regional Coordinator for each congressional district in Utah.
5. Be fully organized ("staffed") by the end of January 2010.
6. Encourage local coordinators to meet, plan, train, and mobilize during January, February, and March.
7. Encourage local coordinators to attend their precinct caucuses on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, at 7:00 PM.
8. Encourage local coordinators to get elected as state and/or county delegates at their precinct caucuses.
9. Encourage state and county delegates to nominate liberty-minded candidates in their respective party conventions.
NOTES
A precinct contains no more than 1250 registered voters. It is geographically small (several hundred households, usually). Typically, a precinct contains only a dozen or more citizens who are interested in politics.
A house district contains about 20 precincts, on average. There are 75 house districts in Utah. There are 29 counties in Utah.
BECOMING A CANDIDATE FOR STATE OFFICE
You may become a candidate for state office if you meet these requirements.
PLEA
If you want to help in this awesome Campaign for Liberty, become a Local Coordinator or a County (or a House District) Coordinator. Create an account, pay your dues (that may be the best $35 investment you will ever make), and sign the non-disclosure agreement.
More background on the Campaign for Liberty for you first-time visitors to this site:
If you revere the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded; but see a national government exceeding its constitutional bounds with an interventionist foreign policy, a fiat monetary system, burdensome regulations, suffocating taxes, and irresponsible spending; then please join Texas Congressman Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Dr. Ron Paul is a true statesman, a "Champion of the Constitution," a Thomas Jefferson of our generation.
The Campaign for Liberty needs you! Citizens like you help to govern the county, state and national parties. Party delegates make the rules, influence their peers, and choose candidates for the General Election! In every step of the process, it is essential that liberty-minded activists are engaged, active and numerous. Please sign up now with the Campaign for Liberty!
Thoughtfully consider how you can help to restore the Republic, preserve what freedoms we have, and reclaim those we have lost. Thomas Paine once said, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." Decide now to DO SOMETHING in the Campaign for Liberty. Decide now to devote some time each day or week in the cause of freedom. Decide now to be a person of influence in your precinct.
In these web pages, you will find educational material well worth reading, activist tools well worth your time, and a Precinct Leader Training Program well worth your efforts. Yes, this campaign will require time and effort. As Ron Paul said, "Elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." But it will be worth it. Your neighbor cannot do it all. I cannot do it all. No single person can guarantee our liberties. However, many good citizens throughout the country, each doing a little, CAN have the impact necessary to sustain freedom and guarantee our liberties.
In this campaign, we shoulder a four-fold mission: recruit, train, equip, and mobilize.
Recruit. We must recruit our fellow citizens to join us in this effort. There are about 1725 precincts in Utah. We need at least one leader in each precinct, and preferably two or three. Invite your civic-minded friends to join this campaign. (They can browse this web site without joining.) If they agree with what they find here, then they will be inclined naturally to join. We would like to have 100 such Precinct Leaders by the end of June, 2009.
Train. Once you have joined the Campaign for Liberty, become a Precinct Leader, and begin the PL Boot Camp (web pages that help you to understand how politics works here in Utah). You will not be able to complete the Boot Camp in a single sitting. It will require time and effort. Once completed, however, your research will become a gold mine of information you will be able to reference at will as you stand up for liberty in this campaign.
Equip. This web site will equip you to be an effective activist. It is an infrastructure that enables us to prepare for various activities that will promote liberty. It helps us coordinate our activities. It helps us to share information and encouragement. If you notice that something is missing here, please let me know, and I will work to make it available (or show you where it is :--).
Mobilize. When your help is needed, you will be invited (usually via email or by general announcement on this web site) to help. It may be to attend a rally, host a book club, walk your precinct, attend a political meeting, or talk to a legislator. Whatever it is, I hope you will embrace the opportunity with enthusiasm. And if you feel as though you are not doing enough, then organize something in your neighborhood, community, or county, and promote liberty.
A number of good people already are making good things happen--throughout the state. Please join us. Be a part of it. Make history.
Other Upcoming Events
Monthly Meetings. If you have not been invited to attend a meeting in your county (or your house district if you live in a populous county), please schedule a meeting and invite others to attend. Schedule your meeting a couple of weeks out, then invite everyone three times (via email, say): once two weeks in advance, again one week away, and then again a day or two before your meeting. I would be happy to attend your first meeting if you like.
Respectfully,
Lowell Nelson, Interim State Coordinator, Utah C4L
Housekeeping
These (state) C4L pages are updated several times a week in one way or another. Various calendar events, news items, blog entries, and so forth are added, updated, or removed. So please visit this site at least once each week. The main C4L web page changes daily.
If you have something of interest to other Campaign for Liberty members in Utah, please let me know. If I agree, I will be happy to share it via these web pages.
Some people have mentioned that this web site runs faster in Firefox than in Internet Explorer. If you are navigating this site with IE, and you find it slow going, then please try Firefox (or another alternative browser).
Senator Bennett has confirmed. As of March 1, we are still awaiting confirmation from Representative Chaffetz.
Please attend this two-hour event at the Salt Lake Community College (Taylorsville Redwood Campus) in the Calvin Rampton Technology Building Auditorium (Room TB203), beginning at 7:00 PM.
This event is co-sponsored by House Districts 32, 33, and 34.
For additional information, contact Scot Wallace, District 34 Chair, at (801) 968-6034, or ScotWallace@comcast.net.
04/17/10 12:00 PM RLC of Utah 2010 Convention w/ Gov. Gary Johnson
On Saturday, April 17th, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Utah will be having its 2010 convention from 12 noon to 4 PM at the Draper Library. We will be electing state officers and endorsing candidates for public office.
Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus exists to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party by: (a) promoting these ideals among Party officials and its various organizations, (b) identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with these ideals, and (c) promoting Caucus membership among Republican Party registrants, officials, and officeholders.
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be our keynote speaker. A businessman, triathlete, and libertarian-leaning Republican, Gary Johnson served as governor from 1995 to 2003. Since leaving office, Johnson has advocated libertarian ideals of limited government and non-interventionism.
Also featured will be Dr. Randy Simmons, Director of the Utah State University Institute of Political Economy, mayor of Providence, Utah, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, and a former Policy Analyst for the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Possible public office endorsees who have been invited to speak include the following:
U.S. Senate candidates Mike Lee and James Williams
U.S. Congressional candidate Morgan Philpot
State Representatives John Dougall (confirmed), Curt Oda (maybe), Craig Frank, and Julie Fisher
State Representative candidates Rob Alexander (confirmed) and John Huntinghouse.
(U.S. Congressman Jason Chaffetz was invited but has a scheduling conflict.)
Please join the Republican Liberty Caucus or renew your membership so you can vote on endorsements and officer positions.
I am deeply concerned that a respected and peaceful Utah Valley University student, Nick Moyes, was confronted and unreasonably detained by police on the UVU campus simply because he was lawfully carrying a firearm:
According to the above Daily Herald article, the UVU chief of police said Mr. Moyes could not open-carry on campus without written approval and if he openly carries again, he could have his weapon confiscated and be charged with disruption of school activities. UCA § 53-5a-102 specifically denies the UVU chief of police any such power or authority. Although it happens far too often, there is no excuse or reason for any police officer or chief to be a bully.
Like all Utah Concealed Firearm Permit holders, Mr. Moyes has been certified by the FBI as one of the good guys. To possess a Concealed Firearm Permit, he had to undergo a background check, training in firearms safety and handling, and training in the laws regarding deadly force and the use firearms (something UVU police officers, including the chief, all apparently need more of). Having met those standards, UVU staff and students can be confident that Mr. Moyes is no threat to anyone except to a violent attacker. How much does the UVU administration and campus police know about the non-permit-holders on the campus?
In their official statement on this incident, the university administration declared that, absent a law specifically allowing open carry, it must be restricted. The administration, therefore, seems to believe we can only do what we are allowed to do -- that we can only do what we have government permission to do! That position is contrary to the our nation's founders' concept of individual liberty where government exists only to secure and protect God-given human rights -- not to ration them!
I assume that by now, the UVU administration has learned that this issue may not be the hill they want to die on. So, I urge the UVU president to ensure all UVU law enforcement officers, including the chief, are immediately and properly trained in the law regarding the lawful possession of firearms on state college campuses. These laws include:
There is no law in Utah which addresses or restricts open carry in any way. If anyone can find one, add it to this list.
Mr. Moyes deserves an immediate, full, and sincere apology from the university, from the officers involved, and from the chief of the campus police.
The really silly aspect of banning guns on a college campus or anywhere else is that the ban only affects law-abiding people. Those who want to shoot up the school (a la Virginia Tech) will simply ignore any gun restriction. Ironically, a few days after this UVU incident, two people were shot at Ohio State University -- a gun-free zone. You see, criminals by definition don't follow the rules! That's why Nick Moyes needs a gun in school.
* Hoplophobia: From the Greek hoplon (weapon) plus phóbos (terror). An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user.
____ I raised it in a conversation and hopefully turned on a light in at least one person’s mind
____ I defended it when it was challenged by error
____ I improved my own knowledge of the literature of liberty so as to become a better advocate
____ I wrote a letter-to-the-editor in liberty’s defense
____ I recommended a good article, book or film that advances values consistent with a free and civil society
____ I sent a personal check to an organization I know to be working for the advancement of liberty ideas
____ I resisted temptation to subvert liberty by accepting something from government that didn’t belong to me
____ I took action to clean up my own act so that I can be a solid exemplar of the virtues necessary for a free society to flourish
____ I checked out at least one textbook my son or daughter was assigned in school, explained to my offspring any fallacies I found, and complained to the school about any that were especially egregious
____ I told at least one of my representatives that if he or she ever voted for more government again, I would pull out all the stops to see him or her defeated in the next election
____ I told my college or university alma mater that if they didn’t start hiring faculty who know how to present and defend the case for free enterprise, they’ll never, ever get another dime from me
____ I did nothing at all for liberty today, except enjoy the fruits of it while leaving the battle for its restoration and preservation to others. I was essentially a liberty freeloader today.
Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York.
Barack Obama has nominated University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Like nearly all of Obama's other nominees, Liu is the wrong person for the job. Why? Liu seems to believe that rules (ie the US Constitution) are made to be broken.
Liu feels the Constitution is open to creative manipulation to impose meanings not intended by the Founders and heretofore undiscerned by all the greatest legal minds. He believes that judges have a right to impose their values on the nation from the bench.
According to Liu, "Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change...as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."
His words indicate that judges are free to adapt the Constitution to the times. But what really happens is the Constitution is repeatedly ignored and judges impose their own values upon the nation instead.
He also believes we must subjugate our values to the values of the world: "...the Constitution's text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world..."
Liu distinguished himself during the Alito confirmation process by delivering patently demagogic opposition to the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito mostly, it seems, because Alito is a true Constitutional scholar who adheres to originalist views on the role of the judiciary. Liu's statements manifest a constitutional scheme in which judges, and only judges, make policy on everything.
A recent study showed that many Americans consider our founding documents "obsolete." That opinion, however, comes from people in two categories: 1 - Those who have never read or studied the document, 2 - Those who, like Liu, disagree with its principles of individual liberty, separation of powers, and limited central government.
Anyone who has read and studied the US Constitution knows that it has a built-in mechanism for adaptation -- an amendment process. There is nothing in there that authorizes any judge to do the amending!
The Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee must make its determination on whether Liu correctly understands the Constitution and is willing to abide by it. Obama should already have made that determination. The fact that he nominated Liu clearly indicates that "Constitutional Law" Professor Obama cares nothing about the Constitution. The Constitution is like sun-block: It only works when it's applied correctly. Liu does not seem to be that sort of judicial candidate.
Liu clearly is a radical activist who wants to move the courts and our country in the wrong direction -- further away from the Constitution.
The authors of the US Constitution wisely provided for Senate confirmation of all presidential nominees. The purpose of this confirmation process is to protect the US Constitution and the liberties it guarantees from an activist and power-hungry administration and from activist judges such as Goodwin Liu. Therefore, Senators must make all decisions regarding presidential appointees based not only on the nominee's professional qualifications but more importantly on his/her respect for the Constitution and not on whether he/she is politically correct (politically cleansed).
On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (ie Goodwin Liu and most other Obama nominees). In recent decades -- and especially during the current administration -- the Senate has done an utterly horrible job in protecting the US Constitution because Senators make their decisions based on political ideology and even race -- not the nominee's qualification, Constitutional discipline, or his/her potential effect on liberty.
Clearly, the Senate must expedite confirmation of presidential nominees who have a solid record of applying the original intent of the Constitution and halt consideration of all nominees from any administration who do not respect the rule of law or who are hostile to any individual liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Compromise is giving in to the enemies of liberty. There must be no compromise!
I urge the Senate to oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu for any judicial position. I consider a vote for him is the same as a vote against the Constitution.
While we've made some mistakes, we have a record of promoting freedom, peace, and prosperity throughout the world. There is a view in Washington that America will be eclipsed by other nations. I think that would have grave consequences for freedom and world peace.
True to form, he did not actually answer the question. He first made a highly superficial concession that we’ve made some mistakes. (Which? How often? How damaging?) He then goes on to blabber about a “view” that other nations might “eclipse” America, something he feels would have “grave consequences”. How this is in any way connected to the original question is anyone’s best guess.
Mitt Romney, unsurprisingly, is wrong. He’s not the only one spouting this hollow rhetoric, however. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said recently during his CPAC speech that we should “never, ever, ever” apologize for America. Former Governor Sarah Palin said last fall that we “should never apologize for our country”. George H.W. Bush said, as President, that “I’ll never apologize for the United States. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are.”
These shallow and ignorant statements are an affront to any sense of justice, morality, and civic virtue. If, as Romney suggests, America has “made some mistakes”, it might just follow that, depending on their severity and damage, we should apologize and/or make reparations. To see where this might apply, and in stark contrast to the superficiality of Romney and his like-minded cohorts, let’s dig a bit deeper and consider a few examples, in no particular order:
President Bush’s offensive statement above was no isolated incident. After a Navy missile destroyed an Iranian civilian airplane in 1988, killing all 290 passengers (including 66 children), Bush, who was Vice President and campaigning to become President, said in response to the event: “I will never apologize for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” You can only imagine how the family, friends, and Iranian population at large felt about these remarks by the soon-to-be leader of the so-called free world.
America’s role in Vietnam was not isolated only to the intense and protracted military engagement. As Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed out in a 1967 speech, our entanglements were both historical and highly damaging. Though this article’s brevity require I exclude all but a portion, the reader is very much encouraged to read it in its entirety.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.
Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not “ready” for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.
Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization. … What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only non-Communist revolutionary political force — the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?
Now there is little left to build on — save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.
Fast forward to the event that began America’s commitment of soldiers to war in a distant land. The false-flag Gulf of Tonkin incident served as political fodder forRobert McNamara and others to further involve America in the “cold war” worldwide battle to “contain” communism. The alleged goal was to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam; after over a decade of American involvement, and the groundswell of public opposition, our government removed its military support from the unsuccessful campaign. One Vietnamese in every ten had become a casualty of war (1.5 million killed, 3 million wounded), and the Vietnamese had been embroiled in resistance to foreign intervention or occupation for 116 years. Almost 60,000 Americans were killed, over 300,000 wounded, and all for an unncessary military campaign desired by a few politicians.
Eisenhower consider this project (“Operation Ajax”) a “successful secret war” though the event is now widely recognized as being a massive failure since the resulting “blowback” heavily contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah and replaced his pro-Western monarchy with the Islamic Republic of Iran, certainly no friend of the West.
In 2000, globalist and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. … But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. (emphasis added)” While not an apology, this recognition is at least a petty needle in a voluminous haystack of long-standing imperial arrogance.
On October 16, 1970, the CIA sent a message to its branch in Chile which read:
It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to October 24 [1970] but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden…
Just shy of three years later, and in the alleged name of rooting out Communism, the CIA was successful in helping to overthrow the government of democratically-elected President Salvador Allende through a military coup. The military junta that consolidated control of the government was backed by the U.S. government, composed of the leaders of Chile’s various military branches, and headed by General Augusto Pinochet.
Around three months of riots and public resistance to the coup followed, leading to the arrest of tens of thousands of people who were held in the National Stadium. The Rettig Report determined that 2,279 individuals were killed by the military dictatorship for political reasons or as a result of political violence. The Valech Reportstated that 31,947 individuals were tortured, and 1,312 were exiled. Two-thirds of these instances of brutal oppression occurred within one year of the U.S.-assisted coup.
The military interventions into Central America and Caribbean countries in the early 1900s received this nickname because of their primary purpose, which was to preserve American commercial interests in the region (banana production chief among them). The list of countries whose governments the U.S. overthrew and occupied shows the magnitude of military force being used to clear the way for the American corporate prostitution of these countries’ natural resources.
Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, was highly involved in these wars and later stunned an audiencerecounting his participation in and assessment of these wars:
I spent 33 years…being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism….
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street….
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….I had…a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions….I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents…
From 1990 to 2003, and initiated at the U.S. government’s behest, the U.N. imposed sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. After the Iraqis were forced out, the sanctions began with the U.N. mandating that the country comply with Security Council Resolution 687 which demanded that Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and that it recognize the nation-state of Kuwait.
Rolf Ekeus, the U.N. representative responsible for identifying and destroying Iraq’s weaponry, had already certified that 817 out of Iraq’s 819 long-range missiles had been destroyed. This report was a political liability for President Bill Clinton, who had his new Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declare that sanctions would continue until Saddam was removed from office.—a much different purpose than their original one. This led to Saddam refusing to work with the weapons inspectors any longer, leaving only the hopes of Clinton’s administration that heavy suffering imposed on the Iraqi citizens would somehow bring down the despot.
Half a million children are estimated to have died as a result of the sanctions—a number which Albright once declared in an interview as being “worth it”. In 2000,Christian Aid observed that:
The immediate consequence of eight years of sanctions has been a dramatic fall in living standards, the collapse of the infrastructure, and a serious decline in the availability of public services. The longer-term damage to the fabric of society has yet to be assessed but economic disruption has already led to heightened levels of crime, corruption and violence. Competition for increasingly scarce resources has allowed the Iraqi state to use clan and sectarian rivalries to maintain its control, further fragmenting Iraqi society.
During the dozens years of sanctions, bombs were being dropped on Iraq almost daily, while the sanctions continued a long campaign of human rights violations. The U.N.’s humanitarian aid chief, Dennis Halliday, resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck. Together, they wrote that:
The death of some 5–6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.
One cannot think of an action committed by this country’s government that necessitates an apology without having the bombing of these two Japanese cities come to mind. President Harry S. Truman ordered the bombing of these two cities, filled with hundreds of thousands of civilians, in supposed retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military installation. The lives of some 200,000 civilian men, women, and children were immediately snuffed out, or slowly and miserably drained through the effects of radiation poisoning, in one of the greatest war crimes this nation has ever committed.
Consider two variants on the action. Would so many Americans cheer the retaliation if instead of sending the bombs, our military had rounded up each individual in the two cities and murdered them in gas chambers? Or, if Germany had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of our government, would those responsible not have been charged as war criminals and sentenced to death at Nuremberg?
Guantanamo Bay is the military detention facility where the U.S. government imprisons alleged terrorists, beginning in 1991 when George H.W. Bush used it to round up HIV-positive Haitian immigrants who were forcefully separated from other refugees after the 1991 Haitian coup. The first captives in George Bush’s “war on terror” arrived from Kandahar, some 8,000 miles away, on January 11, 2002, and locked up in wire cages. In order to sidestep the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war by theGeneva Conventions, they were labeled “unlawful (and later ‘enemy’) combatants”.
Out of 775 total detainees sent to Guantanamo, only 245 currently remain. 420 have been released without being charged for any crime—sent packing with nary an apology or compensation for the years of their lives lost. And thus far only three (three!) individuals have been charged with a crime:
David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.
Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.
Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).
Thus, the fruits of this imperial institution are the successful prosecution of a man who donated some money or supplies, a car driver, and a videographer. The lives of hundreds of individuals have been forcefully altered through the decision of the U.S. government to imprison them without being charged of a crime, all in the name of allegedly providing security for Iraq/Afghanistan and our “homeland”. According to some sources, the government now plans to hold 47 of these individuals in infinite detention, neither giving them an opportunity to contest the (likely erroneous) allegations made against them, nor releasing them for lack of evidence.
Conclusion
The list, unfortunately, could continue. The examples cited above are a mere handful in an otherwise lengthy chronicle of circumstances in which the U.S. government has been directly responsible for denying other individuals the right to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Should America offer no apology for any of the aforementioned atrocities? Should our government be able to wash its hands so easily of these actions by merely declaring them necessary for “protecting America’s interests”, “spreading democracy”, or some similarly pathetic response? And should the ignorance and/or arrogance of current politicians be tolerated when they declare that “we should not apologize for America”?
History makes at least one thing absolutely clear: regardless of the stated purposes and proffered justifications, the United States of America has been the cause and source of untold death, destruction, and damage. To say that we should not apologize for these stains on our nation’s standard of liberty is not only a reflection of the individual’s inadequate level of morality, but an indication that he or she might one day participate in similar atrocities.
The Framers designed the US Constitution to allow federal regulation of international and interstate matters. No authority was ever delegated to the federal government to regulate internal matters reserved to the States.
The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution gives Congress authority to "regulate" (to bring order, method, or uniformity to) commerce among the states, or to make regular the commerce among the several states. There is no federal authority whatsoever to regulate commerce within any state.
SB-11 (Utah State-made Firearms Protection Act) draws a line in the sand to remind the federal government that commerce within Utah is none of the federal government's business. Unfortunately, this bill only addresses one small segment of intrastate commerce -- guns which are made and used only within Utah.
Utah now needs to take a stand against the federal government on all intrastate commerce. It is clear to me that when our local WalMart brings products into Utah from other states or from overseas, they may be "regulated" by authority given in the US Constitution's commerce clause. However is clear to me that when I go to WalMart to buy any of those non-Utah-made products, I am making an in-state transaction and my local purchase does not fall under federal interstate oversight or regulation.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that I have a right to possess and use that item within or outside Utah with no interference from the federal government. I also have a right to sell that product to anyone in or out of Utah who has a right to possess that product provided the sale is private -- not commercial. For example, whether I buy a camera, a set of tires, or a firearm from my local WalMart, I am making a local, intrastate transaction -- not an interstate transaction and my purchase and non-commercial disposal of that item is none of the federal government's business -- even if I use it or sell it outside of Utah.
While it is disappointingly limited in scope, SB-11 is a good first step. I thank the legislature and Governor Herbert for taking this step.
123 CHOB Washington, DC 20515-4401 DC Phone: 202-225-0453 DC Fax: 202-225-5857 [Website] [Contact]
Federal Building 324 5th Street Suite 1017 Ogden, UT, 84401 (801) 625-0107 (801) 625-0124
Voted against HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted against HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency 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 against H.R. 3435: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted against HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted against 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]
Voted against 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]
Mr. Jim Matheson UT-2nd (D)
2434 RHOB Washington, DC 20515-4402 DC Phone: 202-225-3011 DC Fax: 202-225-5638 [Website] [Contact]
240 East Morris Avenue Suite 235 South Salt Lake, UT, 84115 (801) 486-1236 (801) 486-1417
321 North Mall Drive E101B St. George, UT, 84790 (435) 627-0880 (435) 627-1473
120 East Main Street Price, UT, 84501 (435) 636-3722 (435) 636-3721
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 against HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [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 co-sponsoring HR 2194: Expanding Economic War with Iran [More info]
Voted against 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]
Mr. Jason Chaffetz UT-3rd (R) (freshman)
1032 LHOB Washington, DC 20515-4403 DC Phone: 202-225-7751 DC Fax: 202-225-5629 [Website] [Contact]
51 South University Avenue Suite 318 Provo, UT, 84601 (801) 851-2500 (801) 851-2509
3895 West 7800 South Suite 201 West Jordan, UT, 84088 (801) 282-5502 (801) 282-6081
Voted against HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted against HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency 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 against H.R. 3435: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted against HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted against 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]
Voted against 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]
"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. [?]
