THE TRUTH ABOUT CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY.
Campaign for Liberty is getting a bad rap. Recent events have prompted me to set the record straight. The media (except for Fox) painted the events of September 12 as racist and against Obama.
That is not completely true. The Campaign for Liberty started before Obama was elected. It started as an outgrowth of the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul campaigned on a platform of issues. Every since 9/11 and a little before Bush and Congress voted in numerous bills that stole our liberties in the guise of “protecting us” Nothing could be further from the truth and Ron Paul campaigned against the Patriot Act, Homegrown Terrorist Act, the We can eavesdrop on your conversation and mail as well as your interned usage any time we want to policy. It was a whole list of freedom stealing ideas from the Bush Administration. He campaigned against the illegal invasion of Iraq and of Afghanistan. He was and is against Colonialism and the policy of interventionism in our Government.
The Campaign for Liberty grew out of Ron Paul’s campaign even before the election and just before Ron Paul dropped out of the race. The Campaign for Liberty stands for a Constitutional government just as Ron Paul does and endorses every one of the issues Ron Paul had on his platform.
The big gripe against Obama is he has not done what he promised and straightened out the miss Bush & Co got us into. He has had plenty of time to suggest the repeal of the Patriot Act, instead he wants it renewed. He is using signing statements to change legislation just like Bush. He has increased the involvement over seas, especially in Afghanistan. He is acting very much like Bush
If Campaign for Liberty started up AFTER Obama was elected the Liberals might have a point but it did not and they have no point. In fact two years before Obama the people elected a majority of Democrats on their word that they would put a stop to Bush. They rubber stamped every bill the Bush administration suggested.
Campaign for Liberty is about an out of control government that has gotten so far out of hand that the nation is in dire danger.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
The 12th must have been a confusing day for the bought off media. Two events happening they like to ignore and at the same time.
Obama was also part of a group of Senators participating in a filibuster to block passage of Bush's version of the Act's renewal which would have made 14 of it's 16 provisions permanent.
Obama's vote for the compromise took the steps of increasing the waning civil liberties from the original Act while still allowing for sensible tools for law enforcement to use in fighting any ACTUAL threat of terrorism and not simply prying their wandering eyes where they have no business - IN MY BUSINESS.
I believe Obama will repeal the Patriot Act when a satisfactory alternative has been drawn up which can restore and strengthen civil liberties while not castrating domestic intelligence efforts in an age when it would be easy for those wishing to do harm to America or its people to hide their intentions and their actions amidst the chaos of cyberspace and easily hidden documentation. The goal of this act and its future should be in finding balance while being SENSIBLE and not sensationalist in our policies.
As long as our borders are so wide open that act nor the ones that followed did nothing to protect our country.
Not true.
I've checked out a fair bit of media coverage of the events, particularly those in DC, and I don't remember any examples of the media painting the event as racist. Do you have any examples?
As for painting the event as "against Obama", I think there was plenty of evidence of that, just by reading the signs people carried, listening to what they had to say, and checking out the blogs and websites associated with many of the organizations involved.
As for Campaign for Liberty "getting a bad rap" from the media coverage, I'm trying hard to think of even one instance where Campaign for Liberty, or Ron Paul, got any kind of significant mention in the media (with regard to the events of 912 or otherwise), and I can't really think of any. Can you provide some examples that I might've missed?
I saw little of Ron Paul involvement, with the exception of a quick question to him, as to what he thinks about the hoopla. He was pleased of course, and didn't seem to realize that the whole movement has been stolen from him, and it's agenda hijacked and replaced to being simply anti-Obama.
Politicians tried to hijack (gift from old media to the opposition) and Beck is trying to bring the truth to the forefront.
It is what it is - peaceful people expressing their HUGE concerns for govt, takeover of our total lives.
Did Ron Paul get this particular ball rolling? As I understand it, the primary organization involved in the 912 Teabagger protest was FreedomWorks, which has been around quite a bit longer than Campaign for Liberty. And FreedomWorks was started by David Koch, who was a Libertarian Party candidate a couple of elections before Ron Paul.
Sorry, but I don't really see any indications that Ron Paul has played any sort of leadership role in the thing in Washington on 9/12. Or in much of anything else, really.
Didn't you say in an earlier comment that he did? As in "Ron Paul may have started the ball rolling but it was quickly overtaken by Glenn Beck..."?
I've read George's "article" (or, more accurately, advertisement for Campaign for Liberty), and I know what Campaign for Liberty claims to care about. What I care about (among other things) is the claim that the media "painted the events of September 12 as racist and against Obama", and that by doing so, somehow painted Campaign for Liberty as a racist, anti-Obama organization.
Yes it is an advertisement for Campaing for Liberty in that it tells what the organization is all about.
If you don't like the messes of the various Administrations then work to change the situations / circumstances in which they act.
www.nopom.info
What do you do to change their situation? They are now exposed to the need to get campaign financing and to lobbyists and to the influence of the powerful. How do we eliminate that at the local level? At the national level? At the state level?
One way to eliminate at least a lot of the influence of money at local and state levels is to outlaw campaign funding from outside the are represented. i.e. Our govenor got a lot of his financing for the last campaign from California.
The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether they are interventionist or not, they will act pretty much the same way. It won't matter what laws you make about campaign funding, the money will still find it's way into their campaigns somehow. It always has, no matter what the law. (The candidate may become very lucky at poker, for example, in those "friendly" games with supporters.)
Our money makes corruption, bribery, lobbyists, special interest influence, and lots of kinds of big brother government inevitable. We won't have meaningful change so long as we keep this kind of money.
We reached critical mass after the stimulus bill. We are fed up and won't tolerate it anymore. That's why we started TEA parties. It should have happened under Bush but too many of us were snoozing. It has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the current policies in Washington.
Yes Matthew it is ALL about our out of control government.
Campaign for Liberty
libertycampaign.gather.com
Here is the link to the Campaign for Liberty here on Gather, Everyone is welcome to join.