Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty

edvedder3779

I know he sparked some lively debate in these here parts:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Our Mission
The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

Strategy
The Campaign for Liberty will carry out its mission through the following activities:

1. Promoting candidates for public office who share our commitment to freedom.

2. Gaining a foothold in political life at every level of government by expanding our precinct leader program.

3. Educating the electorate and lobbying against harmful or unconstitutional legislation.

4. Encouraging the formation of discussion groups and book clubs at the local level to help people learn more about our ideas.

5. Establishing a speakers bureau to give presentations around the country about the great principles we champion.

6. Developing materials for homeschooling families, to help them educate their children in history, sound economics, and related fields.

7. Featuring written as well as video commentaries on the news and issues of the day.

8. Additional efforts as time and resources allow.

Over the next few months we will be developing our program, organizing a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. Join now to get all of the latest updates and news!

Statement of Principles
Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.

But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.

This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.

That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.

The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.

With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.

We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.

We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.

We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.

We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.

We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.

Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.

Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.

Will you join us?

jeffbr

edvedder3779 wrote:

Will you join us?

I have joined and donated. I'm glad to see Paul's presidential campaign turning into something bigger and broader.

VINNY GOOMBA

Dr. Ron Paul cured my apathy.

I love it.

I'm gonna check out Chuck Baldwin in the National Election. I bet he gets Ron's endorsement.

unsung

Ron Paul supporter checking in. I am really surprised more people here did not back him and instead chose to back Obama. RP has forgotten more about economics than Obama knows. The only way Obama could get my vote would be to name Ron Paul his running mate, haha never happen though.

Sludge Factory

unsung wrote:

RP has forgotten more about economics than Obama knows.

I had to read that a couple times before I understood what you were saying. That's pretty funny, though.

farfromglorified

Good luck to you, Ron Paul.

ryan198

Ah yes...libertarians...shouldn't they just rename it the WMA party? Haven't we learned anything from the fact that the privatization of anything has led to failure in regard to the people, as well as the opression of the have not's by the have's? Dominant groups in society love this idea though, because then they can go on dominating...good luck.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I like how they actually tried a few times to exclude him altogether from the debates and so many people actually had the nerve to claim there was no media bias towards him.

Basically if you don't lick AIPACS ass you don't get into the inner circle, and those that control peoples thoughts and minds daily aka the mainstream media....all sleep with the same group of toadies that own the airways anyways. Politics meets media meets politics meets lobbyists.

Can't really play the game if you don't take it in a bent over position.

jeffbr

ryan198 wrote:

Ah yes...libertarians...shouldn't they just rename it the WMA party? Haven't we learned anything from the fact that the privatization of anything has led to failure in regard to the people, as well as the opression of the have not's by the have's? Dominant groups in society love this idea though, because then they can go on dominating...good luck.

I've certainly learned that there is no such thing as "public" ownership, and that if the state is in control of resources they will use them for the good of those in power at the expense of the "public" who suposedly "owns" the resources. There wasn't a lot of privatization in China or the Soviet Union, and the "haves" were doing a pretty good job of dominating the "have nots". But good luck with your utopia.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

Ah yes...libertarians...shouldn't they just rename it the WMA party? Haven't we learned anything from the fact that the privatization of anything has led to failure in regard to the people, as well as the opression of the have not's by the have's? Dominant groups in society love this idea though, because then they can go on dominating...good luck.

LOL...ironic thing to say on a "privatized" message board, using a "privatized" computer, sitting in a "privatized" building, on a "privatized" piece of land. Then again, maybe you posted this from Cuba or a state-run mental institution. What do I know?

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

LOL...ironic thing to say on a "privatized" message board, using a "privatized" computer, sitting in a "privatized" building, on a "privatized" piece of land. Then again, maybe you posted this from Cuba or a state-run mental institution. What do I know?

Ha ha.....not nearly as ironic as those that think private property rights can spontaneously emerge from a common property system without existence and enforcement of a set of rules. In other words, 'rules' and 'rulers' are required to establish, monitor, and enforce a property system. Fan of force, are we?

pjl44

jeffbr wrote:

I have joined and donated. I'm glad to see Paul's presidential campaign turning into something bigger and broader.

Well put. I joined as well and plan on donating. I really hope this movement continues to snowball...

flywallyfly

It's great to see he is going to keep the movement going past this election and really try to grow a viable alternative to the current system. I'm glad he decided not to just pop back every four years just for vanity and then leave again without trying to organize something that can grow in his absence.

Abookamongstthemany

flywallyfly wrote:

It's great to see he is going to keep the movement going past this election and really try to grow a viable alternative to the current system. I'm glad he decided not to just pop back every four years just for vanity and then leave again without trying to organize something that can grow in his absence.

Give it a fucking rest already. I don't know how many times you need to be shown that Nader doesn't just pop up every four years. This has moved beyond ignorance on the matter now and is slipping into pure denial. Nader is doing it as an independent instead of running Green or Reform because he wants to make an issue of just how hard it is to obtain ballot access in this country. It is a HUGE obstacle for anyone who might choose to use their right to run for office but then comes to find that even though they have the right to run you still have all this mess to go through, different rules and petitions for all 50 states and it makes it virtually impossible to even use your right to run in the first place. Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul have touched upon this issue and the complete ridiculousness of it, as well. I'm glad Nader's out there going through it all in order to shed light on our completely screwed up system....because no one else wants to bother with it. Everyone just shrugs and says 'well, that's just how the system is. oh well'

Ron Paul's not building a new party, either. But it's only useless when it's Nader?....how objective of you.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Ha ha.....not nearly as ironic as those that think private property rights can spontaneously emerge from a common property system without existence and enforcement of a set of rules. In other words, 'rules' and 'rulers' are required to establish, monitor, and enforce a property system. Fan of force, are we?

I don't believe that property rights "spontaneously emerge from a common property system", nor do I believe that property rights are established at the point of a gun. "Common property systems" are the antithesis to personal property and property rights emerge from peace as opposed to violence.

ryan198

jeffbr wrote:

I've certainly learned that there is no such thing as "public" ownership, and that if the state is in control of resources they will use them for the good of those in power at the expense of the "public" who suposedly "owns" the resources. There wasn't a lot of privatization in China or the Soviet Union, and the "haves" were doing a pretty good job of dominating the "have nots". But good luck with your utopia.

I've certainly learned that when we privatize anything (health care, schools, energy, cable companies, etc.) that the have's that own those companies, who are primarily white, male, and heterosexual, fuck the people in the ass.

So, yes, farfrom, I recognize that I am privileged to the point that I can own a private computer, that I can afford the astounding rates for high-speed internet, and afford to power my computer while paying for the ridiculous BGE bills, while the owners of these companies laugh all the way to the bank getting richer and richer while the people continue to get fucked.

To deny this as an inevitable fact of the rise of the free market is as ludicrous as thinking that China or the USSR shared power and privilege equally. The problem is that I can recognize this, Ron Paul fans and other libertarians, just say "look it's the politicians that are screwing us", forgetting the fact that it is the beneficiaries of the free market that are paying them off in the first place. You really think that would change? Please.

flywallyfly

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Give it a fucking rest already. I don't know how many times you need to be shown that Nader doesn't just pop up every four years. This has moved beyond ignorance on the matter now and is slipping into pure denial. Nader is doing it as an independent instead of running Green or Reform because he wants to make an issue of just how hard it is to obtain ballot access in this country. It is a HUGE obstacle for anyone who might choose to use their right to run for office but then comes to find that even though they have the right to run you still have all this mess to go through, different rules and petitions for all 50 states and it makes it virtually impossible to even use your right to run in the first place. Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul have touched upon this issue and the complete ridiculousness of it, as well. I'm glad Nader's out there going through it all in order to shed light on our completely screwed up system....because no one else wants to bother with it. Everyone just shrugs and says 'well, that's just how the system is. oh well'

Ron Paul's not building a new party, either. But it's only useless when it's Nader?....how objective of you.

YOU give it a fucking rest already. Put me on ignore if you dont like what I write but dont tell me what the fuck to do. You go one week without posting anything in/on/around Obama and I'll never mention Nader again (like 99.9999% of this country).

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

YOU give it a fucking rest already. Put me on ignore if you dont like what I write but dont tell me what the fuck to do. You go one week without posting anything in/on/around Obama and I'll never mention Nader again (like 99.9999% of this country).

at least she's not pushing falsehoods...what do you expect her to say when you keep bringing up nader does nothing except run for president when it has been proven time and again to be untrue?

why are ya so worked up about a message board?

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

at least she's not pushing falsehoods...what do you expect her to say when you keep bringing up nader does nothing except run for president when it has been proven time and again to be untrue?

why are ya so worked up about a message board?

I'm not worked up. I honestly dont care about her opinions anymore. I just dont want someone to think they can stifle me because they dont like what I write. If you disagree then fine but dont tell me to not do something and expect no reply.

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

I'm not worked up. I honestly dont care about her opinions anymore. I just dont want someone to think they can stifle me because they dont like what I write. If you disagree then fine but dont tell me to not do something and expect no reply.

yeah, well if it makes ya feel any better i don't think she was actually expecting you to shut up, more like 'stop lying'

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, well if it makes ya feel any better i don't think she was actually expecting you to shut up, more like 'stop lying'

Stop lying? What in my statement is a lie? What has Nader organized politically inbetween elections to grow into a viable alternative to the two party system? What is the lie or is he keeping it a big secret? I never said he doesnt do anything between his "runs" -- but fighting against corporate rule (why investing in them..huuum) is not organizing an alternative now is it???

Perhaps she can tell me what I lied about instead of channeling through you.