Fabian County Coordinator Location: Brooklyn, NY Last login: 10/27/09 RSS feed
My name is Fabian Gambino. I am from Brooklyn, New York and I've lived here all of my life. I became interested in politics and economics about a year ago when I saw Ron Paul in the debates. I began studying economics and am currently in an undergraduate degree for Business Administration and Finance. Dr. Paul got me interested in austrian economics and has inspired me to run for congress when I reach the minimum requirements. In the meantime, I am an active duty member of campaign for liberty.
I am currently seeking election for Republican Kings County County Committeeman for Election District 59.
Posted by Fabian on 06/11/09 Last updated 06/11/09
Yesterday, I attended a Brooklyn Young Republicans meeting in New York with some Campaign for Liberty Members and recieved some very pleasing support from everyone. After about an hour and a half of sitting through the typical dry meeting with neocons arguing who's better, it was my turn to speak.
I spoke about what has been wrong with the legitimacy of the GOP message and where to go from here. I spoke a little bit about Goldwater, the Constitution, and True Republicans Principles of Limited Constitutional Government, the difference between Capitalism and the Centrally Planned Economy that we have, and gathered support for HR1207.
It was the first speech I've ever given in front of a group of people whom I thought were completelty oblivious to the message of freedom and it turned out very very well. It was a refreshing contrast with the dead useless bickering about who loves Ronald Reagan more. I even got some candidates asking for help.
Don't be afraid to step up and keep the fight going!
Posted by Fabian on 01/26/09 Last updated 01/26/09
Important periods in history are given names to coincide with their historical relevance, either in honor of the achievements of mankind, or in recollection of our mistakes.
Gradually, we have accepted the notion that man must not live for himself, but must sacrifice himself for others. We have allowed ourselves to be the victims of the "do-gooders", falling prey to their psychological attacks. It can easily be said that today, the Age of Altruism has been upon us.
We are increasingly told that it is our duty to provide health care, freedom, wealth, prosperity, and every other luxury known to man, for others at the expense of our blood and prosperity.
In the Age of Altruism, we are told that good will and good intention are noble causes for crusades against every evil we deem abominable. Woe to us if we ever substitute hope for REASON.
Mankind must once again adopt REASON, or it will forever perish into darkness.
Maybe I'm dense and don't understand the irony, but I don't see any altruism. Altruism is willingly doing good for others with no personal benefit. We taxpayers have to do good against our will (although many of us would do more good willingly if the government stayed away from our resources). Politicians are totally in it for their own benefit. Every program and entitlement is a personal power-grab for a politician or group of them.
I'm not bashing personal generosity and charity. It is just important to realize that we have been embraced being selfless and held it as a virtue. People like to make you feel bad when you tell them that you should not have to be forced to pay for their healthcare ... etc
I wish I could say something positive about the state of our nation,that in the end its all gonna be OK;but its not.Dark times are ahead of us,and we all have a choice to make;Dr. Paul has sounded the call for "Revolution",mind you through peaceful means if possible.I really wish reason and logic and words alone could accomplish our goals...
I've shead my blood for this country once,and to protect our freedom and liberty I will gladly do so again.Sons and Daughters of the Republic Unite,burn Washington to the ground and start anew..."Those who have the ability to act have the responsability",I hope my words don't fall on deaf ears...
Haha, this reminds me of my father going on a rant saying, "IF EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO FREE HOUSING AND FREE HEALTHCARE, WHATS THE DIFFERENCE IN SAYING THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A FREE WRIST WATCH??? OR A FREE CAR???!! AFTER ALL, ITS ONLY FAIR!!!!" Haha, nice blog!
It is the 23rd of January 2009. The stock market continues its instability and rock ride down to the bottom, while precious metals rallied strongly. Metals do not seem to be connected strongly recently to the inverse dollar relation. The dollar is up in terms of other currencies, the stock market is down, and metals rallied strongly. The dollar is stronger in terms of other currencies, but gold is still much stronger than the dollar. Gold rallied $40 breaching the $900 level while silver ralled 50 cents floating around $12.
If metals continue to rally, and gold breaks the mid 900 level be prepared for a bull run to the stars. Here comes the gold recovery. The train has left the station!
I purchased a shit ton of gold when it was around the $800 mark. I'm not looking for a get rich quick scheme, but man I hope gold continues to skyrocket!
But, at least naively, the gold skyrockets due to inflation: more dollars mean less valuable dollars. But wouldn't this be true of all commodities, including, say groceries. With this simplified picture, gold is not an investment to make more wealth; it's a security to protect your existing wealth.
Incidentally, I was wondering where people purchase their metals. Europac?
You are right. Groceries are also subject to inflation. However, gold is a predominantly monetary metal so it is more stable than other commodities in times of inflation.
Posted by Fabian on 01/21/09 Last updated 01/21/09
I recently was very perplexed to hear the words come from my professors mouth, especially from someone who professes to be a conservative. While ranting about the Civil War and explaining the cause and how it played out, he did something very interesting to me. He combined the words from the Preamble of the Constitution and a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. What he said was true, even if he did make an error.
He combined "We the People" with "All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights". Apart from both phrases being from seperate founding documents, the statement still holds true. It is indeed plausible to pronounce that "We the People, hold these truths to be self evident ...", however immediately following this, he made the claim that secession is not a right, and that the Declaration was not written for us. My immediate thought was, "Well then who was it for"? If it holds value and self-evident truths, should the right of the people to alter or abolish it include secession? Is it against the Constitution to declare independence from tyrannical government?
I thought this was important to bring this issue up. The Declaration is a very important document ingrained in the veins of American History. It is the very document that emboldens the spirit of a people willing to be free or die. The arguement was not about the Confederacy's right to secession. The history is clear about the slavery issue and the reason for secession. But apparently, it was twisted into something profoundly unamerican in my opinion.
I have always considered the Declaration of Independence to be the "mission statement" for our nation.
It is a document that can help define everything else after it. It is one of my favorite documents ever written, and the fact that it exalts our unalienable rights, declaring each human being (not just Americans) has worth that is endowed by its creator.
Civil society requires two agreements. First a unanimous decision to form a society, the second a majority decision on the form of government. The Declaration served as a social contract forming a society independent of the British Crown. The Declaration applies to us today as the formal agreement to remain a society (i.e. citizens of the US). By writing the the Constitution as a separate document we are allowed to alter the government without reverting back to a state of nature.*
*Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
>From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 p ercent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Is secession a legal right? I think the better question is is secession a natural right?
England did not give the colonies the right to secede at anytime. I’m sure it was illegal. That might explain why the founding fathers didn't bother to mention it in the second constitution. If the states, counties, cities, towns don't have a right to secede, then you have to admit that the American colonies did not have the right to secede from England. What is the argument that applies today that does not apply to then?
In the 19th century, America was still debating over Jefferson's view of the country - that the states were voluntarily united in a confederacy - and Hamilton's view - that the states were subservient to the federal government. Lincoln ended the debate by total war and massive loss of life. Even if it is not a legal right after the signing of the union treaties, if a large group of people wish to leave the union, what stops then from doing so? Jail? That might work in a tiny town or two in N. Dakota, but what if a city like Dallas seceded? The federal government would lay siege, it would outrage many Americans, and it would lead to a massive revolt and the second American revolution or civil war.
Those afraid and against secession are afraid of forcing the following truth out into the open - that the government is beholden to its people, not the other way around. I'm forced to conclude that secession is an act that cannot be contained by written law. To rebel, to say “no,” is a right that no piece of paper will ever take away.
"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. [?]
County Coordinator
RSS feed
