Posts Tagged ‘Tennessee Liberty Alliance’

President Obama’s Health Care For Clunkers-Ron Hart-August 05, 2009

August 12, 2009

www.thedestinlog.com/opinion/president-10379-care-ron.html

Economics of Oblivion – George Koether – Mises Institute-August 11, 2009

August 11, 2009

Economics of Oblivion

Mises Daily by | Posted on 8/11/2009 12:00:00 AM

Albert Jay Nock believed Gresham’s Law operated in ideas as surely as in economics, with error displacing reason from men’s minds as inexorably as bad money drives good money from men’s markets. Nock’s theory seems fast on the way to proof a posteriori, especially in our colleges and universities and particularly in the teaching and textbooks of the “new economics.”

The “new economics” — as propounded by Professors Samuelson, Tarshis, Bowman and Bach in these textbooks used in hundreds of America’s best-known colleges and universities — is nothing more than Keynesianism, which, in turn, has many points of similarity to Marxism and the theories of that hyperinflationist, John Law. In sum, the “new economics” is simply socialism, not “new” at all, but the same old bird dressed up in the feathers of “compensatory fiscal policy,” “national income approach,” and the “mixed economy.”

Keynes, who popularized but did not spawn the “new economics,” frankly admitted his affection for socialism:

The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume … a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment … the necessary measures of socialization can be introduced gradually….[1]

Today’s professors are more cautious. They look down their noses at “socialism,” preferring the phrases “public economy” and “welfare economics.” All the while they pay ostentatious lip service to the achievements of freedom:

[O]ur mixed free enterprise system … with all its faults, has given the world a century of progress such as an actual socialized order might find it impossible to equal. (Samuelson, p. 746)

[I]it must not be supposed that to seek profits is an act of villainy…. Naturally everyone wants to make as much income as he can…. These actions are not censured. (Tarshis, p. 30)

Traditionally, American ideology has glorified such a [private enterprise] system. Individual initiative and independence are its positive values…. The state exists for the individual rather than the individual for the state. (Bowman and Bach, p. 42)

The Mixed-up Economy

Naturally the professors do not want to kill the free market entirely, else where would they get prices from which to calculate their impressive computations in the “new economics”? But even while embracing “free enterprise” they suffocate it. Their consummation of this love-death is curiously contrived. They begin by assuming that laissez-faire died a deserved and natural death.

[I]nequality in access to profit and job opportunities [implies] an inherent inconsistency in the private-enterprise, free price system itself. (Bowman and Bach, p. 14)

Even if the system worked perfectly … many would not consider it ideal…. The private economy is often like a machine without an effective steering wheel or governor. (Samuelson, pp. 39, 397)

We have given up our psychological and philosophical predilection for laissez-faire reluctantly. Most of us have not welcomed government intervention in economic life…. We have been compelled to call upon the government. (Tarshis, pp. 53–4)

Laissez-faire is dead, long live the “mixed economy!” Unfortunately it is often difficult to tell which is more mixed, the economy or the professors. They try their best to seem as sincerely opposed to “complete” socialism as they are obviously cocksure rugged individualism is gone forever. Their “mixed economy” seems to be a course midway between capitalism and socialism, with careful avoidance of the “bad” in each.

The difficulties they encounter in trying to steer between the Scylla of socialism and the Charybdis of capitalism would be amusing if the implications were not so tragic. Samuelson, for example, begins bravely:

After one has thoroughly mastered the analysis of national income determination, it is not hard to steer one’s way with confidence in these seemingly difficult fields (p. 11).

Then, embarking on a carefully calculated Keynesian course, he asserts that private enterprise cannot

guarantee that there will be just exactly the required amount of investment to ensure full employment: not too little so as to cause unenlployment, nor too much so as to cause inflation … the system is without any thermostat … the system is in the lap of the gods. We may be lucky or unlucky … (pp. 261–2)

and so, to prevent the ill luck that might result from private investors following their own inclinations in a free market, Professor Samuelson pompously tells us,

Fortunately, things need not be left to luck. We shall see that perfectly sensible public and private policies can be followed which will greatly enhance the stability and productive growth of our economic system. (p. 262)

Wherewith he plots a pretty series of “propensity-to-consume” and “propensity-to-save” curves based on figures compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics taken from a 1944 study of urban families (“with data for all families rounded and smoothed off”) and shows us how to compute, numerically, the “marginal propensity to consume (MPC)” and its “Siamese twin” the “marginal propensity to save (MPS),” triumphantly concluding: “We are now prepared for the theory of income determination.” But wait, there is a catch coming.

[A] few final warnings are in order…. Suppose my income were to go from $5000 a year to $40,000 a year. Would I spend and save my money in the same way that the budget studies showed $40,000-a-year people spend their money? Not necessarily. Especially at the beginning, I would be a nouveau riche and have different patterns of behavior. (p. 269)

Cake Is When You Eat It

So statistics are too tricky to trust as a basis for generalizations in economic theory. The elaborate equations, graphs, curves and charts, must take into account “important qualifications” and “other reasons why the propensity-to-consume schedule might shift around.” Samuelson admits,

[A]t the end of World War II, many economists made a famous wrong prediction. They neglected the fact that people came out of the war with greatly … savings; for this and other reasons, the consumption schedule turned out to be at a higher level than many pessimistic predictions had indicated. Again we are reminded that no social science can have great exactitude. (pp. 269–70)

Wrong again. Economics does have great exactitude, but it is a qualitative, not a quantitative exactitude. The economist cannot know the number or size of all the cakes in the world, or when they will be eaten, but he is dead certain that whoever eats his cake no longer has it.

That is more than the Keynesians seem to know. Their theory implies you cannot have your cake until you do eat it. You can spend your way into prosperity. The formulas say so:

Could a nation fanatically addicted to deficit spending pursue such a policy for the rest of our lives and beyond? … the barrier to this would not be financial. The barrier would be political. (Samuelson, p. 416)

There is no sign that a high debt exhausts the credit of the government…. And since as a last resource “it can borrow from itself,” there need be no fear on this account. (Tarshis, p. 535)

Even the Brannan Plan fits into the “new economics”:

Government programs to limit crops … and to raise the price to the producer while keeping it low to the consumer are all understandable in terms of diagrams of supply and demand. (Samuelson, p. 452)

As for the problems of increasing American investment in foreign lands (i.e. the problem of the “dollar shortage”), Professor Tarshis has the typical Keynesian answer:

If we could only export one of the printing presses used for the manufacture of Federal Reserve notes to, let us say, China, our foreign investment would be enormously higher. (p. 391)

This “new economics” is neither new nor economics. Instead, it is a concatenation of statistics, mathematics and social philosophy used in support of the age-old sophistries of government inflationism. Every one of these old nostrums, served up with formulas and charts, was exposed long ago. The “periodic business crises,” lamented as an inherent deficiency of free enterprise, have been shown to be nothing more than inevitable periods of deflation following repeated periods of inflation brought on by government-directed credit expansion. These followers of Keynes forget, when they reiterate the necessity of “maintaining full employment,” that labor is more scarce than the material factors of production, that in a truly free market there can be no such thing as prolonged mass unemployment.

They forget, when they apply their formulas and extend their curves, that there are no constant magnitudes in economics, that statistics of “national income” are merely data of history not useful for the development of economic theory. They forget that trying to maintain a high “national income” with printing-press money is as hopeless and as helpless for people as trying to cure sick patients by writing unfilled prescriptions. And they forget, when advocating government intervention, that government does not own anything which is not first taken from the people, that government can only help some people at the expense of others or, by inflationism, make matters worse for everybody.

These advocates of a “mixed economy,” well meaning and sincere though they may be, fail to realize that there can be no such thing as a “mixed economy” — part capitalistic and part socialist. Production is directed either by the market or by a National Production Authority. One ends by precluding the other. In the long run Americans will have either economic freedom or socialism in toto. Textbooks like these will certainly not help them retain what measure of freedom they have left.

Absent-Minded Professors

Through all the record of history is strewn the wreckage of nations ruined by inflationism. Yet these Keynesians stubbornly pursue their will-o’-the-wisp of managed money and the magic of a multiplier. When, under a government-induced inflation of the money and credit supply, unemployment shrinks or completely disappears, the phenomenon does not corroborate the “triumph” of their theories. It is due, simply, to the fact that the rise in wage rates has lagged sufficiently behind the rise in prices to cause a drop in real wage rates, precisely as the classical economists have long insisted. The Keynesians forget this obvious fact. Theirs is the economics of oblivion.

After listening to these ten hours of audio, you will know more real economics than most econ majors.

One can explain the widespread popularity of socialist ideas, despite their inconsistencies, among the uninformed masses. But the authors of these textbooks claim competence in economics. Presumably they are as familiar with Böhm-Bawerk, Jevons, Walras, Wicksell and Mises as they are with Marx and Keynes. One would not think so, to read their books.

What is even more inexplicable is their insisting they do not want socialism when their hero, Keynes, served notice more than thirty years ago:

[T]he sharp distinction, approved by custom and convention during the past two centuries, between the property and rights of a State and the property and rights of its nationals is an artificial one, which is being rapidly put out of date … and is inappropriate to modern socialistic conceptions of the relations between the State and its citizens.[2]

and sixteen years later added,

It will be, moreover, a great advantage to the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain and will need no revolution.[3]

Apparently Gresham’s Law is functioning — as Albert Nock felt it would — upon the minds of Professors Samuelson, Tarshis, Bowman and Bach.

Notes

[1] Cf. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London, 1949), p. 378.

[2] Cf. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York, 1920), p. 71.

[3] Cf. Keynes, op. cit., p. 376.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Kane Takes Down Barney Frank-via LewRockwell.com August 04, 2009

August 4, 2009

Kane and Barney Frank by Glenn Jacobs.

Hamilton County (TN) Residents Against Annexation, August 01, 2009

August 1, 2009

The proponents of bigger government are at it again.

If you believe smaller government is responsible government, check out the link below.

Annexation is nothing more than the city/county practicing eminent  domain on a large scale by using fear tactics to entice the unwitting to abide with the greedy proponents of an ever-expanding government.

The term…“Services” should be scrutinized thoroughly. You don’t always get what you pay for. Take the largest employer within the physical boundaries of Hamilton County into consideration… The Hamilton County Department of Education. If that’s not enough to prove that METRO GOVERNMENT is over-bloated and out of control of “We the People”, what is?

Thanks for visiting.

www.hcraa.org/

1400 is More Than 200 via- http://www.et-liberty.com July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

http://someoneneedstosayit.blogspot.com/2009/07/ap-vastly-understates-obama-protest.html

Technically, 1400 is more than 200. What is the truth?

In Liberty,

PK Lowrey

Please read “The Future is Calling”

● Part 1: The Chasm

● Part 2: Secret Organization and Hidden Agendas

● Part 3: Days of Infamy

● Part 4: The War on Terrorism

__._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages East Tennessee Liberty: http://www.et-liberty.com
Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty: http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Why Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam can NOT be Governor of TN! [or who I’m (NOT) supporting for TN Governor] by Matt Collins July 13, 2009

July 14, 2009

The following is contributed by Matt Collins. His credentials follow the article below.

Definitely a must read for folks who strive for accountability in government!

You’re kidding me. Our elected officials are supposed to actually keep their oath to uphold the Constitution? The supreme law of the land?

Yup, that’s it. It’s so simple; but these folks are hard to find due to “Special Interest Influence” and arm-twisting from the “Dark Side”.

—————————————————–

<<I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING AT: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21733 FEEL FREE TO COPY AND REDISTRIBUTE – citizens of TN should know about their candidates>>

DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.


Why Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam can NOT be

Governor of TN!
[or who I’m (NOT) supporting for TN Governor]

The Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party held our annual summer picnic Saturday (7/11); all of the Republican gubernatorial candidates were present. After speaking with each candidate individually I am still unsure who I am going to support, however there are definitely two of the candidates who have not only disqualified themselves, but should never hold and elected office again!

I‘ll start with Bill Haslam the Mayor of Knoxville.

In case you are unaware Mayor Haslam joined NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition in an effort to curb crime in Knoxville. However Mayor Haslam then says that upon joining the coalition the leadership took a different direction and he withdrew from the organization. Fair enough and at the DCRP picnic Saturday 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis and myself asked him about this issue. I wanted to hear the straight scoop directly from him in order to give him a chance to explain his actions before I decided.

Mayor Haslam discussed the story as I explained and he said his intention in the entire situation was simply to “stop the wrong people from having guns”.

I asked him “what kind of people are you referring to that you say shouldn’t have guns?”
And he responded with “felons, criminals, and those without a permit”.

Then I asked “so you believe we need a permit or permission to exercise a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?
Mayor Haslam said “well, for handguns yes

That told me everything I needed to know; I thanked him for his time then I ended the conversation and Dan and I walked away.

What Mayor Haslam does not understand is that ONE DOES NOT NEED A PERMIT TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!!!
We have a right to bear arms that both the US and TN Constitutions guarantee shall not be infringed. Do we need a permit for free speech? Do we need a permit to print a newspaper? Do we need a permit to have a trial by jury? Do we need a permit to birth children? NO, of course not. Why? Because these activities are fundamental individual RIGHTS which cannot be taken away without due process (obviously those convicted of violent crimes should be denied their right to posses firearms). We do not need permission from the government to exercise our rights. If we have to ask permission, then it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege! Rights and privileges are opposites.

The idea that our right to self-defense, our right to bear arms, and that our right to buy/sell/own personal property is first contingent upon a governmental grant of approval is insulting to the very ideals of freedom on which the American Republic was founded. I suggest Mayor Haslam read the US and TN Constitutions because ignorance of both that magnitude and of that authoritarian mindset is dangerous to individual rights and to a free society. He is obviously unfit to govern if he cannot understand the simple and basic difference between rights and privileges.

(Upon edit apparently I am not the only one who takes issue with Mayor Haslam in this regard)

Continuing on to the other gubernatorial candidate, Zach Wamp, the US Congressman from Tennessee’s 3rd District.

Representative Wamp voted for the October ’09 bailout. Representative Wamp calls himself a conservative but one has to ask what is conservative about spending billions of nonexistent dollars, increasing the size/scope of the federal government, and voting against the US Constitution? As an aside it is worth noting that the bailout Representative Wamp voted for also included an audit of carbon emissions which laid the foundation for the coming cap-and-trade / carbon tax; next time you see him be sure to thank him for that.

All US Congressmen upon being seated are administered an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution (the part that lists Congressional power) is the federal government given the authority to bail out banks, businesses, or mortgages. By voting for and supporting the bailout Congressman Wamp clearly violated his oath to support and defend the US Constitution. On those grounds alone he should be removed from office immediately, and personally I would like to see him, along with most of the rest of the members of Congress, either in jail or forced to perform restitution to those of us who are footing the bill for his unconstitutional action.

When one is entrusted with and given the awesome power to make laws governing the life and property of others, the abuse (or negligence) of that power is not only criminal, but amoral; Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary labels an individual “who betrays another’s trust or who is false to an obligation or duty” as a traitor. Does that denotative description fit Representative Wamp’s blatant violation of his oath?

Several DCRP officers and myself approached him near the conclusion of the Picnic because we wanted to discuss HR1207 (Audit the Federal Reserve Act). Representative Wamp extended his hand to me to shake it and I absolutely refused; I am not interested in being friendly towards those who violate the Constitution. To be fair he said that he was very supportive of HR1207 and that “we ought to do more than just audit the Fed….it’s the cause of a lot of our problems”. While I agree with the Congressman on that specific issue I honestly wanted to vocalize that the other cause of our problems were big-government Republicans acting like big-government Democrats such as himself. However in the spirit of, at minimum, being cordial, I held my tongue. But prior to walking away I did thank him for and told him I appreciated his support on HR1207. I still did not shake his hand.

Regardless of his support for a call of transparency in Auditing the Fed, the fact of the matter is that he broke the trust of the People of the United States by clearly violating his oath to uphold the US Constitution. One or multiple positive actions do not negate the fundamental premise of breaking the highest law in the land, usurping more power to the federal government, and going against one’s sworn oath. Even though Representative Wamp has called his vote for the bailout “a mistake” how can the voters continue to trust him after such a grossly grievous err in judgment especially considering the significance of the consequences resulting from his action?
At this point we have a candidate who has violated his oath, and another who is of the authoritarian mindset that the People need permission from the government before exercising their individual and guaranteed rights. I have 3 more candidates in the TN gubernatorial race to investigate before I decide who to support, hopefully at least 1 of the 3 will not disappoint me because the thought of voting for “none of the above” in the upcoming primary is extremely depressing– I refuse to vote for anyone who is going to increase government, or decrease liberty.

In conclusion it is prudent to ask if we attain smaller, more limited-government, more liberty, more personal freedoms, and less taxes by continuing to vote for elected officials that have broken our trust and ignore the Constitution? Should we reward politicians who take our money, our property, and our freedoms by elevating them to higher office? Should we continue to vote for more of the same? Upon a review of history, I think not. If the Republican Party, and ultimately the country, is going to restrain its government, we must vote for those who adhere to principles, not compromise them.

Matt Collins
principle before politics
Vice Chair Davidson County Republican Party
Vice Chair Republican Liberty Caucus of TN
Coordinator Davidson County Campaign for Liberty
Talk Radio Producer 99.7 WTN Nashville
Member America’s Future Foundation
Member Liberty on the Rocks

DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.

Say No To Real I.D.-DownsizeDC.org-May 29, 2009

May 29, 2009

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h


MEDIA NOTICE: Today (Friday), Jim Babka is scheduled to appear on “Straight Talk w/ Jerry Hughes,” starting at 3:05 PM Eastern. Listening details can be found on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

Quote of the Day: “I won’t call it Real ID, I’ll call it enhanced or higher security drivers license.” — Robert V. LaPenta, President and CEO of L-1 Identity Solutions, which stands to be a primary beneficiary of any government scheme for a national ID card

Subject: Tricking Americans Into Real ID

Jim Harper, at the Cato Institute, alerts us to new dangers on the national ID front.

The so-called Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and certain politicians, are trying multiple ways to impose a national ID card on us, even though the American people have made it very clear we don’t want it.

One under-handed scheme started with the passage of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which requires law abiding U.S. citizens to have either a passport or an enhanced drivers license to cross the Mexican or Canadian borders. An “enhanced drivers license”…

* Is an initiative of the DHS that has NO Congressional mandate
* Will require you to undergo a security interview, pay a fee, and get a new federal ID number (in addition to your Social Security number)
* Has an RFID chip that can be read at a distance, up to 30 feet away, even while it’s in your wallet!

Now things are being rigged to move citizens in the direction of the enhanced drivers license.

The problem starts with the fact that passports are too expensive. The high price gives people an incentive to pay for the enhanced drivers license, which is about half the cost. The Government Accounting Office had already issued a report saying that the $100 price for a passport didn’t need to be that high, but…

Now they’ve raised the price even higher. Representative Paul Opsommer of Michigan suspects the purpose of this is to drive even more people to get the cheaper (but more dangerous) enhanced drivers license.

Please notice that all of this is being driven NOT by Congress, but by un-elected bureaucrats in the DHS and the State Department. But that doesn’t mean Congress is blameless. Congress is doing nothing to reign in the bureaucrats, plus, some are even working to make things worse. For instance…

Something called the PASS Act is being crafted to revive the Real ID concept, under a new name, and companies like L-1 Identity Solutions, which stands to benefit, are almost certainly lobbying hard to make it happen. We must lobby just as intensely in the other direction.

Please send your Congressional employees a message asking them once again to repeal the REAL ID Act.

Use your personal comments to ALSO ask them to…

* Stop the DHS from promoting enhanced drivers licenses
* Make the State Department lower the cost of passports
* Reject all the new forms of REAL ID, such as the PASS Act

We achieved our goal of sending more messages in May then we sent in April, but this issue still needs your attention. We hope you’ll use DownsizeDC.org’s proprietary Educate the Powerful System to send a message to repeal the Real ID Act.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how much we’re growing please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Keeping Score

We grew by 23 net new members yesterday, which brings us to 1,063 net new members for the year. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 25,412 — 41% of the way to 26,000!

YOU can make the army grow even faster by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

We can also grow faster by doing more outreach to potential DC Downsizers. If you can start a monthly credit card pledge to expand our outreach please tell us on the secure contribution form if its okay to publish your name here . . .

NEW MONTHLY PLEDGERS IN MAY: Don Matesz, Silvy Berman, David Jones, Barbara Baxter, Nancy Kovar, Ryan Ackroyd, WM Michael O’Brien, John C Houghton, James Alan Speedie, THREE unlisted

Or, if you’d prefer to make a one-time donation, please let us know if its okay to publish your name here . . .

NEW ONE TIME DONORS IN MAY: Arlene Lindstrand, Dee Clary, Joan Garro, Jennifer Tarling, Richard Linchitz, Steven Palmer, Bruce N. Liddel, Ernest P. Eusea, Chris Reulman, David Anthony, Christopher T Wagner, Thomas Sartwelle, Jr, EIGHT unlisted

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
Normally published 3 – 6 times per week.

CONTRIBUTE in support of the “Educate the Powerful System”

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.  Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200

IF you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We’re eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.

The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/page/newsletter or by using our Educate the Powerful System to send a message. Your subscription comes to this email address: moliberty@comcast.net

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Fingerprints For Traffic Infractions??? Tennesseans-A Useful Letter Is Below-Don’t Let It Go To Waste!-May 24, 2009

May 24, 2009

To: “sen joe haynes” <sen.joe.haynes@capitol.tn.gov>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:47:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: SB2153

Senator Joe Haynes,
My name is ______________. I am a United States citizen and a resident of Tennessee. It has been brought to my attention you are proposing a bill titled SB2153. This bill is coming up for vote on May 28th, 2009. SB2153, if it were to become a law, would allow police officers to take the fingerprints of motorists who have been pulled over for a traffic infraction. This is a very clear violation of Americans’ civil liberties and must not pass into law. SB2153 is unconstitutional and should not even be considered.  My civil liberties are not up for a vote, Senator. You cannot remove the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens to apprehend those who are not.
Letters and blogs on bill SB2153 are circulating the internet. American citizens finally have a way to be informed on what you political people are doing. We have left you law-makers unsupervised for far too long. Americans are tired of having their civil liberties taken away all in the name of “protection”.  I have my own protection handed down to me by our forefathers and fought for by our military, service men and women. My protection is called the United States Constitution.
The Constitution is what you have been elected to protect and uphold, Senator. You were not elected to change the Constitution, decreasing power belonging to the citizens and increasing powers for the government. I’m a proud citizen of the United States of America and I, nor my countrymen, will watch you politicians put a wedge between us and our Constitution. We will no longer sit quietly while we are stripped of our rights, our freedoms, and our ability to control the government that grows so ever close to completely dominating every aspect of our daily lives. Enough is enough.
Now, with all due respect, Senator Joe Haynes, I’m not asking you, I’m telling you to extirpate bill SB2153.  We do not want bill SB2153 in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Your cooperation in this matter is expected.
Sincerely,
_____________
_________________, Tennessee

Campaign for Liberty’s response to Lindsey Graham’s arrogant proclamation-May 21, 2009

May 22, 2009

May 21, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Across our nation, Campaign for Liberty’s 150,000+ members are taking action, educating their fellow countrymen, and making a considerable impact on the political landscape. Together, we unapologetically champion the principles that made our nation great: sound money, a constitutionally limited government and foreign policy, and respect for individual liberties.

These ideas transcend traditional boundaries and draw Americans (and like-minded people across the globe) from all backgrounds to the liberty message.

Many Republican leaders, however, continue to believe that principle must be sacrificed on the altar of attaining political power, despite the devastating defeats a “win-at-all-costs” philosophy brought their Party last November.  And, as you will see below, it is the liberty message that has all the momentum.

This past weekend at a South Carolina Republican convention, Senator Lindsey Graham adamantly defended supporting those who choose political expediency over substance. “We’re not going to build [the Republican Party] around libertarian ideas,” he told his audience. “[Ron Paul] is not the leader of this Party,” he emphasized.

Click on the image below to see these widely-circulated remarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy48BKd-1TI

Senator Graham claimed his view as being that of a Ronald Reagan Republican, but Reagan’s own words in a 1975 Reason interview remove any endorsement of the Senator’s statement.

“If you analyze it,” said Reagan, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

What about principle vs. politics? (Emphasis in the following mine)

Reagan said: “I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph… I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.”

South Carolina’s junior Senator, Jim DeMint, spoke after Graham and echoed Reagan, commenting about the Senate that he, “[w]ould rather have 30 Republicans who believe in the principles of limited government and free markets and free people than 60 Republicans who have no beliefs at all.”

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford also defended the freedom movement, remarking, “Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment. That is the distinguishing characteristic of our Republic, and frankly what’s made it great… I’ve been accused of being a libertarian, and I would say I wear it as a badge of honor because I do love, believe in, and want to support liberty.”

Click on the image below to watch Governor Sanford’s remarks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikqJ_KB66WQ

In his speech, Senator Graham noted that those who don’t think winning matters should head for the Party’s exits.

Of course winning is important. But when that becomes your ultimate focus at the expense of everything else, you throw away the integrity our Founders believed crucial in order to be involved in government.

The time has come to make it clear that we will no longer tolerate the rampant trashing of our Constitution by our representatives or their constant shifting on the issues. No matter what political party you belong to, you should have the courage to stand firm on your beliefs.

As our efforts with HR 1207 are demonstrating, you don’t have to cast aside principle to achieve success. A clear, consistent stand on a philosophy of freedom will find supporters, and from there real, lasting change can be effected.

To those in all political parties who wish to maximize freedom and prosperity, we invite you to join us in our efforts. To all those who would sell out our Constitution and their beliefs in pursuit of power, we turn Senator Graham’s words back on him and you by saying, “There’s the exit sign.”

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. Campaign for Liberty’s progress in less than a year after its founding has been incredible, but our fight is only beginning. If you are a dues-paying member, take the next step to reclaim your local area for freedom and become a local coordinator today. And if you are able, please consider making a contribution to C4L to help us hold our elected officials accountable.

Hamilton County Libertarian Party (TN)-May 23, 2009 Venue Correction

May 20, 2009

Hamilton County Libertarian Party (TN)

May 20, 2009

Hi folks,

I apologize … I’ve not been in touch much in the last two weeks due to being sick, and then working 100+ hours over the last 9 days on a project with a very, very tight deadline. I just noticed that the location of this month’s HCLP meeting was not correct … we are actually meeting at the Ryan’s on Lee Highway this month.

We will be discussing harnessing the energy from the Tea Parties.

Best,
Jeremy

I’ve updated this Meetup. For more details, see the full listing:
http://www.meetup.com/hamiltoncountylp/calendar/10110509/

When: May 23, 2009 7:00 PM

Where: Ryan’s Restaurant
6734 Lee Hwy.
Chattanooga, TN 37421

If the changes affect your plans to attend, please take a moment to update your RSVP. (You can RSVP “No” or “Maybe” as well as “Yes”.)

———————————————