Congratulations you “small government, conservative Republicans” – you bought the line of crap the Party bosses sold you in April of 2010 and voted for Tom Corbett over Sam Rohrer in the primary, setting the stage for this Corbett governorship we are now under. Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

I now ask you: will you kowtow to the Party bigwigs again this primary season by voting for Tom Corbett’s hand-picked candidate Steve Welch? Or will you stand up and vote for a Senatorial candidate that will actually be a Constitutional conservative?

Stop listening to the Party bosses. Stop reading their propaganda you receive in the mail. Stop listening to the media who tells us the only way to beat the Democrat is by picking a nominee who runs a centrist campaign. Start thinking for yourself conservatives!

That said, when Bill Clinton was conservatives’ main target, the most vicious criticisms focused on the president’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky. My problems with Clinton were primarily the same problems I would later have with George W. Bush and Barack Obama — big government, big spending, porous borders and unnecessary wars. But for virtually all conservatives and especially social conservatives, Clinton’s sex scandals were a rallying point during the late 1990s.

President George H.W. Bush’s drug czar, Bill Bennett, constantly hammered the notion that America was “defining deviancy down” by being too accepting of Clinton’s shenanigans, or as he wrote in 1998:

It is said that private character has virtually no impact on governing character; that what matters above all is a healthy economy; that moral authority is defined solely by how well a president deals with public policy matters; that America needs to become more European (read: more “sophisticated”) in its attitude toward sex; that lies about sex, even under oath, don’t really matter; that we shouldn’t be judgmental …

Bennett concluded:

If these arguments take root in American soil, if they become the coin of the public realm, we will have validated them, and we will come to rue the day we did. These arguments define us down; they assume a lower common denominator of behavior and leadership … we will have committed an unthinking act of moral and intellectual disarmament. In the realm of American ideals and the great tradition of public debate, the high ground will have been lost … In that sense, then, the arguments invoked by Bill Clinton and his defenders represent an assault on American ideals …

As noted, I’ve made a small career out of pointing out supposed conservative Republicans’ political deficiencies. This is often a thankless task. I’ve learned that if voters like a candidate’s personality or speaking ability — or really dislike the alternative candidate — they’re generally willing to forgive just about anything. For example, in 2009 and 2010 the tea party’s prime issues were opposing TARP and Obamacare. Now, most polling shows the tea party’s support is split primarily between two Republican presidential candidates who supported TARP and a government healthcare plan that Obama considers the blueprint for his own. In their zeal to defeat Obama, many Republicans don’t seem to mind electing a GOP version of him. Personality trumps policy; partisanship trumps principle.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new.

But what is new is what social conservatives are now willing to accept in their determination to defeat Obama. When a thrice-married Newt Gingrich, already an admitted adulterer, is accused by his second wife of asking for an open marriage — and this becomes a positive electoral advantage — the right has entered new and unchartered territory. Social conservatives were always the first to declare Clinton the “philanderer-in-chief.” Many of them now strongly support a known philanderer.

I bought some frosted flakes the other day and failed to notice that they came with a 3rd less sugar. Let me make this crystal clear. There is only one reason why I buy frosted flakes…FOR THE FROSTED PART!

If I wanted frosted flakes with the sugar removed I would have bought Wheaties! My wife tells me the kids can’t bring sodas to school or snack cakes because the school is so concerned about obesity. They desperately don’t want my kids getting fat by food.

They also don’t want them getting fat because of pregnancy but apparently that’s a different fix. Condoms are available so our kids can have sex but it won’t make them fat. THERE’S your moral compass from the secular humanist. Heck if you encourage indulgence without consequences then why not be consistent and apply it to food?

Kids should be taught how to eat whatever and how much they want including snack cakes and Twinkies and then just teach them how to throw up. What’s the difference? Have sex…no pregnancy, or, eat empty calories then we’ll teach you how to remove the danger through the free-choice of purging, heck we’ll even call it your constitutional right! All without inconveniently notifying you’re parents. I mean isn’t that what school was intended for.

Sure we have a problematic national school system that ranks near the bottom in math and such. But I’ll bet we’re at the top of the list when it comes to teaching kids what to eat and how to use prophylactics.

Remember we live in a society whose chief aim is to allow us to indulge our appetites. Whatever I desire becomes my “right”. Really? I desire frosted flakes with a third MORE sugar. I want at least a cup poured at the bottom of the box to ensure my sugar fix; but no, not with big brother at the helm. The new battle cry for school kids is simple,
Don’t deny me and don’t judge me either as my self-esteem couldn’t take the hit. Of course reading and writing and arithmetic have their place, but when I fail at it you can teach me how to sue others for bias or prejudice or emotional distress. That’s what the founding fathers had in mind for school, to teach me and ESPECIALLY others…that no one is more important than me!
Yes school really came into its own when it began to be run by the politically correct and no longer demanded personal responsibility. You removed swats and discipline along time ago and OH aren’t kids nicer now? Finally you created a learning environment where kids can be trusted with automatic weapons.
All of this and you think that the real problem for our kids isn’t moral absolutes; it’s with sugar in frosted flakes? Enough is enough. This is education in America baby! Stay away from my sugar and pass the condoms, just like the founding fathers intended.

The tea party originally stood for one simple but important message: Stop spending. For tea partiers, the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” or TARP was the litmus test and any Republican who supported it faced the wrath of the movement. Explained Utah tea party leader David Kirkham in May 2010:

I think it’s a matter of fiscal or financial responsibility … What the tea party people are about and the vote for TARP and the vote for the bailout was, in our opinion, pretty fiscally irresponsible, and that’s what’s raised the ire of most people.

At the time, Kirkham’s group was working to unseat Republican Senator Bob Bennett, who had voted for TARP. Kirkham’s efforts would eventually help elect tea party champion Sen. Mike Lee. When asked if the TARP-supporting incumbent deserved to lose his seat over just one vote, Kirkham replied:

That one vote was pretty toxic. That one vote affected a lot of things, changed the rules of the game. President Bush said that where we have to abandon free market principles to save the free market, and fundamentally, we just don’t agree. There’s just no way.

Tea Party support for Newt Gingrich in South Carolina and elsewhere marks a new point — a low point — for the movement. When John McCain suspended his campaign in 2008 to go to Washington to support TARP, Gingrich said, “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying ‘I will go to Korea.’”

The tea party believed that TARP represented Washington at its most irresponsible. Gingrich believed the exact opposite. In fact, if you were to make a list of every big-government issue most tea partiers stand against — bank bailouts, healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, you name it — Gingrich has been, or still is, on the opposite side.

Grassroots conservatives want a Republican nominee who will fight President Obama on issues like bailouts and healthcare mandates. Saturday, grassroots conservatives in South Carolina championed a Republican presidential candidate who has agreed with Obama on both of those issues. In the debates, Obama could even say that Newt was for forcing Americans to purchase health insurance before he was against it. And the president will be right.

When Gingrich called McCain’s support for TARP “the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate,” this was classic Newt-speak — Gingrich is a great talker and often speaks in bold and indeed “grandiose” terms. Newt sounds good. People like that. They respond to it. It inspires them. Ask Barack Obama.

But the tea party was supposed to be better than this. The tea party was supposed to stand for something more substantive.

We have proudly affixed our names to this petition and encourage you to do so as well regardless of who you are supporting for the primary nomination. Rob Gleason and his fellow party leaders endorsed Tom Corbett during the gubernatorial primary over Sam Rohrer in 2010. Undoubtedly, Rohrer wants to ensure, by fighting back, that the party won’t destroy his campaign here in 2012. All of the other GOP senate candidates agree that the party should not pick the nominee, so it should be a no brainer for all PA Republicans – sign on to this petition and tell the party that we will choose the best candidate to take on Bob Casey.

And just for the record, the party bosses do not have a great record of “crowning” conservative Republicans. This is the same group of party bosses that endorsed Arlen Specter (who would later become a Democrat). They also supported Tom Corbett over Constitutionalist Sam Rohrer in 2010, going so far as to mail a postcard attacking Rohrer to registered Republicans a week before the primary election.

Stand up for your conservative principles and the belief that the people should make the decision, not corrupt liberal Republican party bosses – go to http://www.dearmrgleason.com, read the letter and add your name to it!

With Education being so important, it’s crucial to know where all the candidates stand on the issue. Now I don’t claim to know everything about all four of the candidates left in the race or every aspect of their education policy but this is what I do know:

Rick Santorum supported and voted for No Child Left Behind. Now he says he opposes it but I’m not convinced I believe him. He has flip-flopped on many issues, as a citizen of PA, I have witnessed this firsthand.

Mitt Romney was never in a position to vote for No Child Left Behind, but adamantly supported it verbally.

Newt Gingrich was also a strong vocal supporter of No Child Left Behind. I haven’t heard Romney or Gingrich change their minds on this either, but that’s not to say they haven’t (after all, now it is popular to be against it, so I would presume they are now opposed).

The only candidate running for President who doesn’t, and never has, supported it is Texas Congressmen Ron Paul. Paul’s stance on education is quite simple: Get the federal government out of it! First of all, there is no Constitutional authority for the feds to be involved, and even more so he believes it would be most beneficial to teachers and students. This would be better for all Americans for as Mark Twain once said, “Out of the public school grows the greatness of a nation.” Regardless of whether you believe in home, private or public schooling our nation as a whole relies on the advancement of a good education and knowledge.

Now for a brief overview of education in America. During the 1950′s, students in the U.S. (state-run schools) were #1 in math and science. Russia was a distant #2. People all across the world were sending their kids to the U.S. to get a good education. In 1953 we established the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Then in the 70’s Jimmy Carter decided to make the Department of Education its own entity and we have now had the Department of Education for almost 60 years and today out of 29 participating countries, we rank 24th in international student assessments.

Many people blame this on teachers and student behavior and lack of funds, but it is Ron Paul’s belief (which I happen to share) that the teachers are not the problem they are the solution. The only real factor between the days when America was number one and now is the creation and involvement of the federal government’s one size fits all education system. Ron Paul seeks to eliminate the Department of Education and return the role of education back to the states where it belongs. This will also in turn allow local school boards, districts, and most importantly parents and teachers, to have more say in what happens in their classroom, similarly to how it was done before the federal government got involved.

If it’s more federal money* you are looking for, Ron Paul isn’t your candidate. If you’re looking for better statewide funding and more liberty as a parent or teacher, Ron Paul is your man! Most people think that we need the Department of Education, in fact, all four of the other remaining candidates including Obama want to keep the department. So if you like Obama, you’ll love Newt, Mitt and Rick! Ron Paul is the only exception, and it’s not that he wants there to be less money in the education system, but better spent money. In the words of the good congressmen, the department of Education “is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.”

I firmly believe Ron Paul is the best there is when it comes to education because I know teachers and their amazing potential which is often held back by an over reaching federal government. I believe in teachers and I’m 100% confident that they can cater to their students needs much better than lawmakers in Washington who have never taught a class can.

*That inevitably comes with strings attached such as No Child Left Behind and other programs, oversights, and restrictions

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied four candidates’ appeals to appear on the ballot after their glaring failure to comply with the Commonwealth’s stringent, but widely-known, ballot access requirements.

Former candidate Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum did not file signatures with the Virginia State Board of Elections at all. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich did file signatures, but fell short of qualifying. Rick Perry then brought a suit against the state challenging the ballot-access requirements to which all candidates were held, and others failing to qualify joined the suit. When the suit was struck down, an injunction was filed in part to reconcile whether and when paper ballots would be printed, and today the final decision was handed down.

Virginia is the nation’s 12th-largest state and its primary election takes place on March 6th – Super Tuesday. The absence of any other candidates on the ballot aside from Paul and Romney, including serial hypocrite Gingrich and counterfeit conservative Santorum, is sending ripple effects throughout key early voting states including South Carolina where Palmetto State voters now are concerned about how their vote will affect the nominating process going forward.

For example, some voters might vote for a candidate with an organization too weak to comply with ballot access requirements. Voting for that candidate would result in a vote wasted, as were the votes of many for candidates who exited the race like Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman. Others ponder that only one veteran of the armed forces – Ron Paul – will be on the ballot in Virginia, a state so steeped in military tradition. Still others have observed that only one Evangelical Christian will appear on the ballot there. Indeed, there are many questions.

One thing is certain. And that is, the decision has upended what plaintiffs against the Commonwealth and voters nationwide had expected just hours ago when plaintiffs held onto thin hopes of a reversal, or a convenient exception to the rule of law.

“It’s over,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Ron Paul, the candidate of real change, will face off against establishment flip-flopper Mitt Romney in the Virginia primary, making that that Tuesday less ‘super’ for serial hypocrite Newt Gingrich, counterfeit conservative Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry, who I should mention is marginally attached to the presidential race.”

“This legal development affirms that this Republican nominating contest has always been a two-man race between the candidates with the resources and organization required for a 50-state race. Voters nationwide should get behind the candidate of real change as he competes nationwide – and nationwide means a lot of states, including large ones like Virginia,” said Mr. Benton.

“Right now South Carolina voters have vital information helpful for deciding not only who the authentic conservative in the race is – Ron Paul – but whether that candidate leaves South Carolina with a ticket that actually gets him somewhere,” added Mr. Benton.

It seems to me it should have been considered exactly how it felt prior to the apple…GOOD!

I can’t speak for women, but for a man to get to wander around outside nude surrounded by beautiful trees and sky and, oh yeah, a naked lady, would still be paradise in my book.

Men love the outdoors and being naked while there is simply a bonus. Nothing and I mean nothing makes a man feel more like a man than peeing outside.
So, the shame that came with nakedness must have been the beginning of the shyness that comes with others seeing us naked. That “other” being God at the time would make it even more traumatic since apparently he didn’t want us to “know” we were nude.

But it seems to me that takes all the fun out of it. If prior to the apple incident, seeing my wife naked wasn’t exciting, it defeats the purpose of being nude, which as I already said is one of men’s favorite scenarios.
God knew they were nude but wondered how they found out which could only mean that once they did they would feel less comfortable sharing that nudeness with God which is still strange since he made them that way and obviously never felt awkward being around them prior to that.

This fear of nudeness to strangers seems to be common now amongst most civilization’s though there are tribes in south America and Africa that walk around nude or partially so and apparently aren’t ashamed of it.

Even though some of the nude people are 70 year old men and women; which if you’ve had a chance to see them in all their senior anatomical splendor, would cause me, if I was chief, to make my first decree “The gods have spoken to the learned ones in a dream and now demand the sacred elderly to wear some kind of holy bra and loincloth otherwise we will have no choice but to gouge out our own eyes”.

The only time people in western culture are nude in front of a stranger without fear of being arrested is doctor’s visits. Though after the fall aside from being embarrassed at being nude, we as a group are also now going to get sick once in awhile and need to be closely examined preferably by someone we don’t know whose only qualification is they have a stethoscope.

We have all been trained that when a stranger with a stethoscope asks you to remove your clothes we’ll do it.

As a guy part of that consequence, by the way, is to have this unknown assailant, professional though he may be, physically grab, knead, and or examine our manhood from bough to stern while we get to make coughing noises since having your privates groped by a strange man wasn’t as humiliating as it needed to be for 500 bucks a shot so why not make us bark too. Just gives them more funny stories to share at the lunchroom.

So all I’m saying is when God asks you not to eat from a particular tree…your best bet is to take heed or it could lead to doctor’s visits, which, as we discovered can be disturbing.

That is unless having a strange man with a degree touching your junk isn’t disturbing to you…and by the way, if it isn’t …you need prayer.

My good friend, Bernard Von Nothaus has been convicted of counterfeiting in what I perceive to be one of the most blatant examples of fraud this world has ever known. An Alice in Wonderland event where up is down, and nothing is real. Bernard is the genius behind the Liberty Dollar, a private, silver-backed alternative currency to the worthless fiat paper printed by the Federal Reserve. The trial was a white wash of a corrupt economic system, and the jurors were almost certainly bribed or intimidated into presenting a guilty verdict. Bernard is now waiting for sentencing. I’ve included his eMail request for written letters to the sentencing judge, followed by my own letter to Judge Richard Voorhees.

Superman is a work of fiction, which means we can’t rely on him for our truth and justice. Therefore we have to fight for “truth, justice, and the American way” ourselves. Please take the time to write a letter to Judge Voorhees on Bernard’s behalf. If you do, please leave a comment here to show your support for a real American hero.

Alert of January 18, 2012

Please Write to Judge Voorhees

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters!

Now that I am simply waiting for my sentencing date, the time has come for your direct participation in the legal process that will help define your seized property, the future of the Liberty Dollar and possibly the rest of my life.

I know you have been wronged and suffered in many ways due to the government raid and court actions. I know you have been damaged emotionally and economically because of your stand for value and because you have been alienated from your seized property. And I know you have suffered politically over the loss that the Liberty Dollar could have provided to our great country.

Now is the time for you to speak up with a personal letter addressed to: The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees who was my trial judge and the judge who will sentence me very shortly. It is my opinion that the jury erred and the judge was fair and impartial so please address Judge Voorhees respectfully.

Your letter need not be long. Please simply mention that you know me, heard me speak at an event, was a supporter, an associate, RCO or merchant or simply a part of the Liberty Dollar organization, used Liberty Dollars or supported the moral cause for a honest value based currency. And then explain why I should not go to prison because the Liberty Dollar was good for you and our country or that you don’t know of any victims or that I am a good person or that you know I had no criminal intent.

FYI: The sheer number of letters speaks much louder than the size of any one letter. So please share this request with your family and friends. I need individual letters from as many people as possible.

Please send your brief letter ASAP to:
The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees
U.S. District Judge
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.
401 West Trade Street
Charlotte NC 28202
And add: PLEASE FREE BVNH to the bottom left hand corner of your envelope.

After sentencing, the case regarding the seized material will begin the long process that will ultimately conclude with the return of your wrongfully seized property.

Many, many thanks for your kind support and assistance during these trying times. Your efforts and donations to return American to an honest monetary system of just weights and measures will not be long forgotten and hopefully will lead the way towards those goals that we share in common. It is towards that end that I hope and pray.

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
Liberty Dollar
Editor@LibertyDollar.org

Here is my letter to Judge Voorhees

January 18, 2012

The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees
U.S. District Judge
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.
401 West Trade Street
Charlotte NC 28202 Dear Judge Voorhees,

My name is Michael Badnarik. I was a Boy Scout for twelve years, and a Scoutmaster for ten years after that. I was the 2004 Libertarian nominee for President of the United States, a 2006 Libertarian nominee for Congress, and I was elected President of the Continental Congress in 2009. I am also well known for teaching an eight-hour class on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I dedicated my life to the cause of Liberty at a very early age, and my opinion is highly regarded on subjects related to the Constitution.

If I am not holding an apple in my hand, logic and the laws of physics make it impossible for me to hand it to you. I cannot give you what I do not have myself. It is equally impossible for Congress to transfer a power that the people never delegated to them in the first place. The Constitution says that Congress may COIN money. James Madison’s notes from the convention explicitly show that the delegates were strongly opposed to printed money, which always leads to the type of runaway inflation our country is currently experiencing. Paper money unbacked by a tangible commodity (such as silver and gold) is the definition of counterfeit. The Constitution also gives Congress the responsibility of preventing and punishing counterfeit currency and securities, a task which they have failed miserably.

Bernard Von Nothaus is my personal friend, and a hero to millions of patriots across the country. We are grateful to Bernard for offering us an alternative currency that is immune to the ravages of inflation. We are unhappy with the recent conclusion of his trial, and we are hoping that you will suspend his sentence, or significantly reduce it. It is preposterous to think that Bernard is a new type of domestic terrorist as suggested by the prosecution. Your decision will demonstrate whether justice still prevails in the United States, and many of us await it with uncertain trepidation.

Yours in Liberty,

Michael Badnarik
4144 Henry Avenue
Hammond, Indiana 46327

The purpose of this event was to present my class to as many members of the state legislature as possible. From that perspective we missed the mark. The only legislator in attendance was Charles Key, even though six others indicated an interest in attending. We did have two law enforcement officers who reported being thrilled with the class at dinner afterwards. They expressed a desire to have me come and teach my class to their entire department sometime in the future. The fires of Liberty continue to spread.

However, this is just the beginning of Operation: Domino Effect There are forty-nine other states that have yet to host one of my presentations, but I am already beginning to get some feedback from the letters I mailed to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the other states. The Tennessee Senate is considering my proposal, but the Massachusetts Senate has already declined. If you would like to promote this project, I encourage you to contact your state representative asking them to promote this effort. I think it would make more of an impression if you visited your representative in person, with several other supporters, however the easiest way would be to call them on the phone. I have also generated a phone list for the Speaker of the House and Senate if you are willing to call their office to promote.this project. Please leave comments letting me know who you called so my readers can see how much support there is for this.

Alabama House: Mike Hubbard 334-242-7668
Alabama Senate: Del Marsh 334-242-7877
Alaska House: Mike Chenault 907-283-7223
Alaska Senate: Gary Stevens 907-465-4925
Arizona House: Andy Tobin 602-926-5172
Arizona Senate: Barbara Leff 602-926-4486
Arkansas House: Robert Moore 870-877-1210
Arkansas Senate: Paul Bookout 501-682-2902
California House: John Perez 213-620-4646
California Senate: Darrell Steinberg 916-651-1529
Colorado House: Frank McNutty 303-683-8873
Colorado Senate: Betty Boyd 303-866-4857
Connecticut House: Christopher Donovan 860-240-8500
Connecticut Senate: Donald Williams 860-240-8614
Delaware House: Robert Gilligan 302-744-4351
Delaware Senate: Anthony DeLuca 302-744-4165
Florida House: Dean Cannon 407-623-5740
Florida Senate: Michael Bennett 941-727-6349
Georgia House: David Ralston 404-656-5020
Georgia Senate: Tommy Williams 404-656-0089
Hawaii House: Calvin Say 808-586-6100
Hawaii Senate: Shan Tsutsui 808-586-7344
Idaho House: Lawerence Denney 208-332-1111
Idaho Senate: Brent Hill 208-332-1300
Illinois House: Michael Madigan 217-782-5350
Illinois Senate: Donald Harmon 217-782-8176
Indiana House: Brian Bosma 317-232-9657
Indiana Senate: David Long 317-232-9400
Iowa House: Jeff Kaufmann 563-732.2902
Iowa Senate: Jeff Danielson 515-281-3371
Kansas House: Jene Vickrey 785-291-3500
Kansas Senate: Steve Morris 785-296-2419
Kentucky House: Greg Stumbo 502-564-3120
Kentucky Senate: Katie Kratz Stine 502-564-3120
Louisiana House: Jim Tucker 225-342-7263
Louisiana Senate: Sharon Weston Broome 225-342-2040
Maine House: Robert Nutting 207-287-1300
Maine Senate: Kevin Raye 207-287-1500
Maryland House: Michael Busch 410-841-3800
Maryland Senate: Thomas Mike Miller Jr. 301-858-3700
Massachusetts House: Robert DeLeo 617-722-2500
Massachusetts Senate: Terese Murray 617-722-1500
Michigan House: James Bolger 517-373-1787
Michigan Senate: Tonya Schuitmaker 517-373-0793
Minnesota House: Margaret Anderson Kelliher 507-931-0173
Minnesota Senate: Gen Olson 651-296-1282
Mississippi House: William McCoy 601-359-3300
Mississippi Senate: J.P. Compretta 601-359-3304
Missouri House: Steven Tilley 573-751-1488
Missouri Senate: Charlie Shields 573-751-9476
Montana House: Mike Millburn 406-788-5962
Montana Senate: Bruce Tutvedt 406-257-9732
Nebraska House: Mike Flood 402-471-2929
Nevada House: John Oceguera 775-684-8595
Nevada Senate: Michael Schneider 775-684-6502
New Hampshire House: William O’Brian 603-271-3661
New Hampshire Senate: John Barnes Jr. 603-271-4063
New Jersey House: Jerry Green 908-561-5757
New Jersey Senate: Nia Gill 973-509-0388
New Mexico House: Ben Lujan 505-986-4782
New Mexico Senate: Timothy Jennings 575-623-8331
New York House: Sheldon Silver 212-312-1420
New York Senate: Peter Rivira 718-931-2620
North Carolina House: Thom Tillis 919-733-3451
North Carolina Senate: Phil Berger 919-733-5708
North Dakota House: David Drovdal 701-586-3761
North Dakota Senate: Rich Wardner 701-483-6918
Ohio House: William Batchelder 614-466-8140
Ohio Senate: Keith Faber 614-466-7584
Oregon House: Bruce Hanna 503-986-1200
Oregon House: Arnie Roblan 503-986-1300
Oregon Senate: Ginny Burdick 503-986-1718
Pennsylvania House: Samuel Smith 717-787-3845
Pennsylvania Senate: Joseph Scarnati III 717-787-7084
Rhode Island House: Gordon Fox 401-222-2466
Rhode Island Senate: Teresa Paiva Weed 401-222-6655
South Carolina House: Bobby Harrell 803-606-5749
South Carolina Senate: Glenn McConnell 803-212-6610
South Dakota House: Val Rausch 605-773-3851
South Dakota Senate: Bob Gray 605-773-3821
Tennessee House: Beth Harwell 615-741-0709
Tennessee Senate: Bo Watson 615-741-3227
Texas House: Joe Straus 512-463-1000
Texas Senate: David Dewhurst 512 463-0001
Utah House: Rebecca Lockhart 801-369-6784
Utah Senate: Michael Waddoups 801-355-1136
Vermont House: Shap Smith 802-828-2245
Vermont Senate: John Campbell 802-295-6238
Virginia House: Bill Howell 804-698-1028
Virginia Senate: Charles Colgan 804-698-7529
Washington House: Frank Chopp 360-786-7920
Washington Senate: Margarita Prentice 360-786-7616
West Virginia House: Ron Fragale 304-340-3114
West Virginia Senate: Joseph Menard 304-357-7904
Wisconsin House: Jeff Fitzgerald 608-266-3387
Wisconsin Senate: Joe Liebham 608-266-2056
Wyoming House: Edward Buchanan 307-532-2322
Wyoming Senate: Jim Anderson 307-436-9618

This project already exemplifies the adage, “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.” The original goal was to invite two hundred sheriffs and raise $200,000 to pay for their travel expenses. So far we have will be educating half of the sheriffs with a little more than half of the money. This is a huge accomplishment for the Free America Now organization that is supporting Sheriff Mack’s idealistic plan. Countless hours of preparation have already been invested, and I suspect there were be a few sleepless nights between now and the closing ceremony.

The most exciting aspect of this project has been the unbridled enthusiasm expressed by many of the sheriffs who are planning to attend. My phone number was used as the contact reference in the eMail that was sent to all 3300+ sheriffs across the country, and I have been responding to dozens of requests for assistance. Some of the officers did express some hesitation about attending such a provacative gathering, however more than half stated that they were thrilled that someone finally put together exactly this type of gathering so they can coordinate with other like-minded Constitutional sheriffs. For those of you who are worried that everyone in government is aligned against us, it is time for you to change your perspective. I predict that the next gathering of sheriffs will draw between 500 and 1,000 officers from across the country, spurred by the highly positive testimonials that we will undoubtedly collect before the end of this event.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone who contacted PayPal and theatened to cancel – or actually cancelled – their accounts with that organization. As you are probably aware, PayPal put a freeze on forty thousand dollars in Sheriff Mack’s account that had been contributed to the Las Vegas event. It wasn’t until Richard called regarding a problem transferring that money to his bank account that he was informed that the money was being withheld, apparently because Richard was not working as a 501-C3 charitable organization. It is easy to imagine that the powers that be were hoping to force us to cancel the event all together. Not likely! Richard immediately borrowed twenty thousand dollars to make sure the vent took place come hell or high water. Fortunately, enough supporters called to apply enough political presssure to motivate PayPal to release those funds without any legal wrangling. If you want to contribute to this effort, knowing that any excess money will be used for the next event, please send a check or money order to:\

Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association
112 Ridgewood Drive
Fredericksburg, Texas 78624

For the moment, it appears that the movement toward Liberty is growing in force, and will soon be unstoppable. I will report on the results of the project soon after returning home from Vegas.

In light of this, I’m reminded of the short story by Mark Twain, ‘The War Prayer.’ While we certainly don’t agree with Twain on everything, there is definitely an eerie, unspoken truth to the war prayer for which this story was named:

The War Prayer
by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fulttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came — next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams — visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender!

Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:

God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!

Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory –

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, “Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!”

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside — which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

“I come from the Throne — bearing a message from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import — that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of — excpet he pause and think. “God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

“You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard the words ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory — must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it –

For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits.”

Another week passes without Congress in session. This week I will discuss earmarks, and why certain earmarks need to be banned from all legislation. What is an earmark? An earmark goes by different names, but it is a legislative provision that directs funds to be spent on a specific project. Sometimes bills have earmarks for expenditures in legislation such as a certain amount of money in a defense budget going to a particular item for purchase. Other times, they are seen as “pork barrel” projects. It is these pork barrel projects that can be considered one piece in the corruption in politics.

A good example of a pork barrel project would be the Congressmen and women that were reported to have been “bought off” to pass the health care legislation. Special money was set aside for particular districts in order to buy that Representative’s vote. These types of earmarks should be considered criminal.

Can earmarks be banned? It is my opinion that it would be unlikely, since they would just be called something else. If Congress needs to set aside a certain amount of money in a budget bill, it is technically an earmark. When a bill contains an earmark for an expenditure on a pet project in a particular congressional district, it should be exposed for what it is and this practice must be banned. If one district gets $5 million earmarked to it, then all congressional districts should get $5 million earmarked to them. Anything else is unconstitutional.

Each and every taxpayer dollar must be accounted for. Sometimes the excuse for earmarks is that the money will be spent anyway, why not earmark it for their district to give the taxpayers their money back because any money not earmarked by Congress will be spent by the President on his/her pet projects. If that is the case, then the entire budget making process needs reform. It is my opinion that any taxpayer money not spent in the budget should go to paying off our national debt. Once the debt is paid off, then less money should be collected by the government. Of course this takes into account needed major reform on the size and scope of government and our current tax policy.

Will Congressman Todd Platts propose legislation to do that? Since he has not done so in over ten years in office, the answer is no. Sometimes I am asked what I hope to accomplish since major change will be met with resistance in Congress. Someone must stand up for what is right and must take a chance that the people in his district will back him. This candidate must be willing to take a national spotlight, take criticism, and weather political attacks to take the message to the people. Once the people hear the message, they will demand the changes and demand that their representatives vote for those changes.

Follow my campaign at mikeforpa.com, Facebook and on Twitter.

You can also follow my campaign and the events of the York County Libertarian Party at yorklp.org and the York LP Facebook page.

For Liberty,

Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives

Make no mistake, the 2012 presidential election is huge but I am afraid it is overshadowing many other races that are going on at this time that are equally as important, if not more so. All across the country there are US senators and congressmen whose seats are up for grabs. Most people are not giving their elections the time of day because they are focusing all of their energy and attention on the race for the White House. This however should not be the case. After all it is these representatives in both chambers of the legislature that will be writing, introducing and passing the very bills that will make it to the White House, regardless of who is sitting in the oval office. And with US Senate seats being six year terms I would say their elections are in many respects more important than the President.

My home state of Pennsylvania is one of the states this year that has the opportunity to toss a liberal incumbent (Robert Casey) and replace him with a fiscally-sound Constitutionalist. I am also pleased to report to you that there is a large number of candidates running creating a great deal of competition and thought-provoking debate.

The Republican candidates for US Senate in PA are as follows:
Tim Burns, businessman and unsuccessful candidate for the 12th district in the 2010 special and general elections
David Christian, businessman and war veteran
Laureen Cummings, Tea Party activist
John Kensinger, pharmacist
Sam Rohrer, former state representative
Marc Scaringi, attorney and former legislative aide to Rick Santorum
Tom Smith, farmer and businessman
John Vernon, retired Army colonel
Steve Welch, businessman and unsuccessful candidate for the 6th district in the 2010 election
Robert Allen Mansfield, retired U.S. Army Sergeant

Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate/forum (held by the York 9/12 Patriots) where these candidates were given an opportunity to present their cases for the future of America. The candidates in attendance were John Kensinger, Sam Rohrer, Marc Scaringi, Tom Smith and Steve Welch. There was also a conservative-leaning Democrat named Joe Vodvarka who was in attendance who I must give credit for having the courage to show up to an event with a primarily Republican audience to discuss the issues. Ted Waga who is running for U.S. Congress against incumbent Todd Platts was also present at the debate.

Now I must confess I was a little leery going in. As many of you know it’s no secret that I have for a long time been a big fan of Sam Rohrer. Sam is a friend of The Conservative Declaration and a frequent guest on our talk show program. However I have been a little disappointed to the vagueness and generality of his issues page found on his website. To me it seems a little like the cut taxes, cut spending, scouts honor cliche that Adam and I were critical of Tom Corbett for when he ran for Governor. However Sam lived up to and surpassed all of my expectations in the forum. I must confess I had the slightest fear that he had been softened by his loss to Corbett and that in order to become more mainstream he would peddle harder to the party line. This was not the case at all. I was unbelievably impressed with his passion and conviction for Constitutional principles.

I also came into the debate not expecting to be very impressed with Marc Scaringi, after all, the only thing I knew about him going in was that he was a former aide to Rick Santorum when he was in the Senate. As a man who has no stomach for Santorum and his brand of big government so-called conservatism, I had very little expectations of Scaringi. These suspicions were also wrong. Scaringi too presented a very strong case for limited government and maximum liberty. He also didn’t hold back in the least bit in expressing differences in ideology between himself and Rick Santorum which was refreshing to hear.

All in all I am very pleased with the appeal of these two men and their message. I am happy to report that neither of my fears came to fruition. Rohrer maintained my passion and Scaringi impressed the socks off of me! Stay tuned to The Conservative Declaration Talk Show Program this coming week as we will be discussing further the substance and general vibe of the US Senatorial debate that took place in York last night.

2012 Federal Candidate Straw Poll
Here are the results for the straw poll taken after the Federal Candidates Forum at the January 12, 2012 912 Patriots Meeting.

U.S. Senate Candidates
Candidate Votes %
Sam Rohrer 75 46%
Marc Scaringi 30 19%
Tom Smith 25 15%
Steve Welch 25 15%
Joe Vadvarka 3 2%
John Kensinger 2 1%
Tim Burns 1 1%
Dave Christian 0 0%
Laureen Cummings 0 0%
Brian Kelly 0 0%
Robert Mansfield 0 0%
Total Votes 162

U.S. Congressional Candidates
Candidate Votes %
Ted Waga 139 92%
Todd Platts 12 8%
Total Votes 151

Do you support either party endorsing candidates before the primary?
Votes %
No 139 95%
Yes 8 5%
Total Votes 162

Who do you support as the Republican Presidential Candidate?
Candidate Votes %
Rick Santorum 15 30%
Ron Paul 11 22%
Mitt Romney 10 20%
Newt Gingrich 8 16%
Sarah Palin 2 4%
Michele Bachmann 1 2%
Hermain Cain 1 2%
Jon Huntsman 1 2%
Rick Perry 1 2%
Total Votes 50

There is a lot to be observed from this election, and I would like to make light of some of these statistics. First of all, Romney’s victory is of little surprise as it is a border state to his home state of Massachusetts, not to mention the location of one of his summer homes. In comparison to his 2008 second place finish in New Hampshire, Romney made a lot more progress in the last four years than he did in Iowa. Romney took 75,546 votes in 2008 compared to his 2012 victory with 95,669 votes.

All in all Romney pulled 20,123 more votes than in 2008 which seems pretty impressive and pessimistic to the authentic Conservative movement, but all in all it’s not that bad. In 2008 Ron Paul’s 5th place finish in New Hampshire earned him only 18,308 votes, compare that to his finish yesterday with 55,455 votes. I would say the statistics are in the favor of liberty! In four years Paul took in 37,147 more votes, more than tripling his support in four years time. Looking at these numbers in percentages you will find that Romney saw an increase of 26.6% and Paul saw an increase of about 302%…again the tide is clearly coming in favor on liberty!

Lastly I would also like to point out that Rick Santorum’s 5th place finish proves further the point that Adam and I made on our last talk show that Rick Santorum finished 2nd place in Iowa because he was simply the flavor of the month. The only thing we were wrong about was the fact that his flavor only lasted for a day instead of a full month.

So all in all what we can take away from Iowa and New Hampshire is that there are only two consistent front runners. I predict that ultimately this election will come down to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Conservatives will have to choose between a RINO who was the grandfather of ObamaCare, or a principled conservative with the most consistent voting record on decreasing the size and scope of government. Who will you choose?

In an interview with Reason magazine in 1975, Ronald Reagan said:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism … The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Says Santorum: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

Santorum is not a Reagan conservative. Not even close.

It surprises people when they learn I’m not a libertarian. As Ron Paul’s official campaign blogger, I’m often perceived as being a libertarian and I am no doubt sympathetic to many libertarian views. But ultimately I’m a traditional conservative — a limited-government constitutionalist of the Barry Goldwater variety. That said, I’m no more offended at being called a libertarian than a heavy metal fan is when called a rock n’ roller — both terms represent far more synthesis than antithesis. Santorum has no comprehension of this basic philosophical and historical truism.

Being against big government does not represent the totality of American conservatism, but it does represent what Reagan called the “heart and soul” of conservatism. Reagan recognized that the “desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom” was indeed libertarianism but that it was also conservatism. This observation was fairly commonplace on the right during Reagan’s time, when “conservatism” was still more of a substantive philosophy than a Republican marketing tool. For example, in his book “Flying High,” a memoir about the 1964 presidential campaign, William F. Buckley repeatedly refers to Goldwater’s philosophy as “libertarian” and his famous book “The Conscience of a Conservative” as a “libertarian tome.”

So, were Reagan and Buckley wrong about libertarianism’s kinship to conservatism — or is Santorum correct to treat libertarianism as something alien to conservatism? This depends on your definition of that term.

Let’s begin with Reagan’s definition. In addition to calling libertarianism the heart of conservatism, Reagan believed that the American right was a three-legged stool consisting of social conservatives, national security conservatives and economic/libertarian conservatives. Lose a leg and conservatism loses a lot, or so Reagan believed.

During the George W. Bush era, social and national security conservatives were represented well, while the economic/libertarian leg of the American right was virtually non-existent. Conservatives now look back and wonder how a Republican president could have spent so much money. They needn’t wonder long. The notion — which has been advanced by Santorum, Mike Huckabee and others — that libertarian influence in the Republican Party poses a problem is absurd. It was the lack of libertarian principles that defined Bush’s “deficits don’t matter” GOP. “Libertarian influence” in the Republican Party is a problem only if one thinks the national debt is not a problem. Before the tea party and Obama, few Republicans seemed to think it was.

And Santorum was their leader. Writes The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney:

As a member of Senate leadership, Santorum literally was an agent of the GOP establishment during passage of No Child Left Behind, the expansion of Medicare, and the overspending of the Bush era.

Red State’s Erick Erickson is even more explicit:

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

Santorum not only rejects Reagan’s concept of conservatism as a three-legged stool, he admits he is eager to kick out the libertarian leg. When Santorum says, “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” he is essentially saying that he fights strongly against what Reagan considered the integral core of American conservatism. This is not to say that Reagan or even Goldwater were libertarianism personified — only that any person who calls themselves a “Goldwater” or “Reagan” conservative also must be a libertarian to some degree in their philosophy. Goldwater would have likely agreed with this sentiment. Reagan certainly did.

During the ABC News debate on January 7, 2012, the moderator brought up a statement Ron Paul had recently made regarding “chickenhawks,” or politicians who are hawkish about going to war but personally shirked the opportunity and dodged the draft and/or chose not to enlist to serve in the U.S. military.

When asked if he would recant this statement, Dr. Paul stood his ground and said, “I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments have no right to send our kids off to war,” in a clear reference to Gingrich.

Gingrich responded: “I was married with a child.”

To which Paul shot back: “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

Paul finished his sentence with pursed lips and a steely gaze. The crowd was silent for a moment, then broke out in applause.

Earlier in the exchange, Gingrich tried to use the excuse that he was an “Army brat”, as though his step-father’s service in the military somehow was equal to actually serving himself. Then he tried to explain how being a politician serving on committees and boards related to military make him as good as a veteran. He also tried to blow off the charge that he got deferments, even though it is a well-documented fact that he did. Check out the article from the PBS program Frontline from 1989 entitled “Good Newt, Bad Newt.” A snippet from the article:

His singular determination was perhaps best seen in his first successful romance, a schoolboy crush he developed on his high-school math teacher. Lots of boys get romantic notions about pretty young teachers, but Newt Gingrich didn’t let go of his. After graduation, when she moved to Atlanta, he went to Atlanta too, enrolling at Emory University. Gingrich pursued his former math teacher, seven years his senior, until Jackie agreed to become his wife. They were married at the end of his freshman year, and soon they had their first child, Kathy. Gingrich then entered that hazy passage through ambiguity experienced by the majority of young American men during the 1960s. Like most of his generation, Gingrich was moderately anti-Establishment (he tried pot, and participated in a campus protest at Tulane University) and chose not to go to Vietnam, opting for deferments available to him as a father and a student. But unlike most young men his age, Gingrich would be haunted by his decision.

So in the early 1960′s Newt was pursuing his bachelor’s degree from Emory University, raising his newborn daughter with his first (of three) wife (his former teacher), experimenting with marijuana and participating in hippy protests on campus. Meanwhile, Ron Paul was married with two kids and working on completing his medical degree and he did not take a deferment – he chose to serve his country in the Air Force when drafted, even though he was a father and a student like Newt.

Early 1960′s photograph of Ron Paul and a young Rand Paul:

The House of Representatives is not back in session until January 17th, and the Senate not until January 23rd. A nice break for the people. We cannot lose any more of our liberties while they are away! One of my inspirations into becoming more informed and active in politics died a few days before Christmas. Ron Smith of WBAL in Baltimore was a true independent and was the most well informed, well read, principled radio talk show host that I have ever heard. Rest in peace “The Voice of Reason.” He always felt that the best we could hope for in the U.S. Congress was gridlock. One party being the “stupid party,” and the other, the “evil party.” Bipartisanship was considered both stupid and evil. A cynical view certainly, but until things change, and we vote for someone outside the two party dichotomy, perhaps gridlock is the best we can hope for.

Since the House is not in session, I will review a bill that Congressman Platts is currently listed as a co-sponsor. H.R. 998, the “Student Non-discrimination Act of 2011.” Congressman Platts is one of two Republicans sponsoring this bill with 148 Democrat members. Currently the bill is still before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Here is the summary from The Library of Congress:

“Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.

Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.

Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.

Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.

Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney’s fees should they prevail.

Deems a state’s receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.”

Discriminating against anyone for their beliefs, religion, race, sexual orientation is of course morally wrong. When Congress creates distinct “protected” groups with extremely vague legislation like this, it is destroying the integrity of the legal system and the base belief that all everyone is created equal. Legislation like this is government protected discrimination in and of itself! The key to this legislation however is that it is for pubic schools. Since the federal Department of Education exists, and all public schools are dependent on government funding, Congress feels that it has the right to write these types of laws. My belief is that we should eliminate the Department of Education all together, but let’s take a look at a few pieces of this legislation, and show why that should be done.

“Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.” A school administrator can therefore decide their own set of rules on what is discrimination in their school. For example, think of having a child in second grade in a school under this law. Playground nonsense occurs, and your child says to another child, “You’re gay!” The vast majority of kids in second grade have no idea what that means, yet your child is expelled according to an overzealous school administrator that takes this legislation to heart. Months of hearings go by before a school board. Perhaps your child is then found to be “not guilty” and is readmitted. What if that process took a year and you attempted to sue the school administrator? Sorry – this legislation “prohibits retaliation.” Perhaps the school board will seek to terminate this administrator after several nonsensical expulsions/suspensions? Sorry – “prohibits retaliation.”

“Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.” This is the catch all piece in a vast amount of legislation that allows the federal government to bully states and municipalities into doing its bidding. Be it discrimination laws in public schools like this, or speed limits on highways, or disgusting pictures on cigarette packaging, if the federal government can coerce by threatening to withhold money, then it is “legal” blackmail.

“Deems a state’s receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.” I did not realize that the federal government could make the states waive the 10^th Amendment at will? We know that it pays no mind to the Amendment at all, however this legislation spells it out in black and white. Again, the government is advising that if you take its education money, you waive your rights to oppose what it wishes to legislate. That is tyranny, not a constitutional republic.

Follow my campaign at mikeforpa.com, Facebook and on Twitter.

You can also follow my campaign and the events of the York County Libertarian Party at yorklp.org and the York LP Facebook page.

For Liberty,

Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Does anything more need to be said? This is a probably a staggering punch in the stomach for Rick Santorum supporters who thought they were backing a freedom-loving, small government, hardcore conservative – and it should be. Luckily, for everyone except Iowans, there is time to get behind a different candidate. Perhaps a candidate who has a stellar, decades long record of voting in unison with the US Constitution. Someone who always supported individuals over government, bottom-up over top-down, and freedom over tyranny.

After seeing this quote directly from Rick Santorum’s mouth, some of his liberal votes in congress begin to make more sense. Santorum has voted to:
set gun lock requirements,
voted for Campaign Finance Reform in 2001,
voted to double the size of the Dept. of Education by supporting No Child Left Behind,
voted for the 1996 minimum wage increase,
voted to increase the debt limit 8 times,
and to establish the big brother Dept. of Homeland Security.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Ideologically and in his voting record, Santorum proves to be a big spending neoconservative who says one thing while doing another.

Below is the written endorsement in its entirety. It is excellently written and Mr. Scheuer hits numerous nails on the head. For all those who like Ron Paul on economics but are leery about his foreign policy views, this is a must read. One of the foremost experts on middle eastern terrorism explains why Ron Paul’s foreign policy would be the best thing for America.

Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines
by Michael Scheuer | Website

Two recent experiences underlined for me what Iowans will vote for next week in the field of foreign policy if they do not vote for Dr. Ron Paul. On Christmas day, I heard Chris Wallace’s program on FOX. He had a guest — Mr. Charles Lane — who made the false and scurrilous claim that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy was the same as that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s America-hating policy, a doctrine that appealed to Barack Obama for more than twenty years and which the president and his party are now implementing. Following this imbecilic assertion of Mr. Lane to its logical conclusion, U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines also must be ardent devotees of Rev Wright’s anti-Americanism as they donate many times more money to Dr. Paul than to all the other Republican candidates combined.

Then on 26 December, I visited Mount Vernon’s new and extraordinary multi-media museum documenting the life of George Washington. At the end of the exhibition there is video of U.S. Senators reading Washington’s Farewell Address into the record, something they appear to do every year. When I arrived in front of the video Senator John McCain was reading Washington’s clear warnings about the dangers of foreign intervention and the fatal impact of mindlessly favoring one country over another. To hear this from McCain’s interventionist, war-mongering, and Israel-is-always-right mouth was sound evidence of his hypocrisy and deceitfulness, as well as his and his senatorial colleagues’ ignorance of Washington’s ideas and U.S. history generally.

Based on these two experiences, let us look at what Iowans not voting for Ron Paul will help to inflict on an America already terribly wounded by the Republican and Democratic interventionism in the Muslim world.

1.) A foreign policy that will complete U.S. bankruptcy. While there is a lot of talk about cutting domestic spending to bring the federal debt under control, it is obvious that neither party is willing to make substantial cuts in that area. Indeed, both are counting on drastic cuts in defense spending to help reduce the federal debt. While they may agree on and even make defense-spending cuts, any such reductions will be short-lived and then restored to much more than current levels. Obama and any Republican save Dr. Paul will continue to intervene in the Muslim world and so will motivate more Muslims to fight us. A third-grader could tell you that you cannot cut defense spending when Washington’s unrelenting interventionism is cultivating new enemies who are intent on attacking U.S. citizens and interests. If you are being attacked, our third grader would patiently explain, you have to spend whatever it takes to defend yourself. And there is no doubt that we and our vital interests are going to keep being attacked by Islamists as long as we continue to intervene in their world.

2.) Obama’s return or the election of any Republican but Dr. Paul means the continuation of the State Department’s not-so-secret computer/Facebook/Twitter proselytizing campaign to incite people to overthrow their governments in places like Iran, Russia, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. [NB: Three offices of Mrs. Clinton’s elitist democracy/feminism crusade in Cairo were raided and shut by Egyptian authorities on 28 December 2011 for intervening in Egypt’s domestic affairs.] This mindless promotion of anarchy alienates the governments targeted and will motivate them to harm the United States in some manner. Of no concern to Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Senators McCain and Graham, of course, are the thousands of young and naive people who will die at the hands of the regimes they are instigated to overthrow by the democracy-pushing federal bureaucrats and their elitist political masters, all of whom are safe and secure here in North America. Dr. Paul’s non-interventionist policy will allow foreigners to work out their political destiny in their own way and at their own pace; prevent unnecessary additions to America’s growing list of enemies; and save countless young lives.

3.) All the Republican contenders and the Obama administration are whole-hearted believers that the Arab Spring will bring the installation of secular democracy across that region. This has been and still is a nonsense that only adolescent idealists — or deliberate liars — could believe, and one that has been proven fatuous by the fact that Islamists have won every election held since the start of the Arab Spring. Neither the Obamaites nor the Republicans will admit they are wrong on this issue and they will pump billions of dollars in foreign aid into the Arab-Spring countries in a feckless, Muslim-alienating effort to build secular democracies and install the crazed feminism of Mrs. Clinton. Such aid not only will be wasted, but it surely will cause more Muslims take up arms against America. Indeed, the continuation of this bipartisan cultural/feminist war on Islam is likely to start the clash of civilizations Professor Huntington predicted.

4.) Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States. Any other Republican candidate or a reelected Obama will keep lying to Americans by claiming that we are being attacked because of our liberties, gender-equality laws, and elections rather than because of Washington’s constant intervention in the Islamic world. This now two-decade-old lie — which is abetted by most of the media — has hidden from Americans the fact that all of the would-be Islamist attackers who have been captured in this country were motivated by the invasion of Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, or some other U.S. government action in the Muslim world. As Dr. Paul has explained, our Islamist enemies are motivated by Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy, and as long as that foreign policy does not change the number of young, U.S.-citizen Muslim males willing to attack their fellow citizens will keep increasing. For those who doubt this reality, a quick look at the recently adopted Defense Appropriations Act will clear their eyes. That Act’s authorization for the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens in the United States is clear evidence that the leaders of both parties know that their foreign policy is going to bring war to America’s streets and towns and that the U.S. military will be called on to fight Islamists militants here at home.

5.) Obama and any Republican candidate, except for Dr. Paul, will slavishly obey the U.S.-citizen-dominated, pro-Israel lobby that bribes and suborns them by getting into a war with Iran. Indeed, Washington, Tel Aviv, and London are already conducting a lethal, covert-action war inside Iran which is killing Iranian nuclear scientists and destroying nuclear-related facilities, as well as trying to goad Tehran into reacting with violence and thereby give the West a casus belli. Such a war would be a financial and military disaster for the United States, and would be watched with glee by Russian and Chinese leaders who — while their countries would lose some trade with Iran during a war — would applaud another U.S. self-inflicted would that further erodes the already failing economy that is the base of American power. Moreover, if U.S. political leaders would not permit the U.S. military to defeat Afghan and Iraqi mujahedin armed with Korean War-vintage weapons, they surely will not allow the military to defeat a much better armed nation-state like Iran. Thus we would have yet another politically imposed defeat for the U.S. military. More painful for Americans will be the Iran-sponsored attacks that will occur in the United States if Washington and/or Israel launch a first strike on Iran. The only serious threat Iran poses to the United States is the result of more than 35 years of near-criminal bipartisan negligence by the U.S. executive and legislative branches in the fields of border control and domestic security. Both Iran’s military and intelligence services and their Lebanese Hizballah surrogate have created clandestine entry points along our southern border, as well as a large clandestine infrastructure in the continental United States, one which works with similar networks in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Iran is too smart and fearful of U.S. military power to use this apparatus to strike first in North America, but the network clearly is meant to allow Tehran to respond violently here if Iran is attacked by America and/or Israel.

6.) While all of the Republican candidates and Obama talk about their plans to make America energy self-sufficient to the greatest extent possible, there is no reason to believe any of them. In the past 40 years, the two parties have made virtually no progress toward this goal, unless you count moving up Daylight Savings Time by three weeks as a major gain. Both parties have taken the easy and profitable route: dependence on oil-rich Arab tyrants, a policy that mandates that the U.S. military spends billions each year to defend the Arab Peninsula’s fundamentally anti-U.S. police states. Only Dr. Paul could be counted on to allow the unfettered development of all domestic energy resources to promote energy self-sufficiency and allow the gradual abandonment of our mujahedin- motivating exploitation of Muslim oil. But even Dr. Paul cannot prevent the United States from fighting an oil war that the Republicans and Democrats have fixed on the national agenda, one that America will wage in the Niger Delta region — from which we will soon get 20-25 percent of our crude — because of the Islamist insurgency that is gathering steam in Nigeria and threatening the oil-rich Delta region’s stability.

Notwithstanding the damnable lies about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy constantly proclaimed by his fellow Republican candidates, leading pro-Israel/pro-intervention U.S.-citizens and their journalist friends, and most of the media, only the gentleman from Texas speaks for the Founder’s non-interventionist vision of America’s role in world affairs and for plain common sense. In the Founders’ non-interventionist design for U.S. foreign policy that is championed by Dr. Paul, Iowans will find a proven road to the maintenance of America’s sovereignty, independence, peace, and prosperity. In the realm of common sense, Dr. Paul beats his fellow candidates, the Obamaites, and the media hands down. Dr. Paul challenges the interventionists in both parties on their plans for spreading secular democracy — and causing wars thereby — on historical grounds that are irrefutable because they are just good commonsense. We, the British, the Australians, and the Canadians have been building our republics/democracies since Magna Charta in 1215 — that is for nearly 800 years — and we are not yet quite perfect. If Iowans and all Americans truly think about what Dr. Paul is saying — and not what the interventionists say he is saying — they would respond favorably to the Texan’s logical conclusion that what we have not fully accomplished in eight centuries cannot possibly be attained in Egypt, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the Muslim world in 6 weeks, 6 months, or six years, not least because none of those places separate church from state. Dr. Paul’s precise use of history and commonsense exposes the exorbitantly costly effort to build democracies in the Islamic world for what it is; namely, Washington throwing money down the drain for a cause that is impossibly lost from the start and one that will involve us in wars where we have no interests.

In the words of Dr. Paul’s Republican opponents, the Obamaites, and most of the media, on the other hand, Iowans ought to easily be able to hear the elitist, racist, and war-causing Wilsonian doctrine of intervening abroad to impose democracy and secular social beliefs on foreigners at the point of bayonets. Indeed, the national-security policy advocated by Dr. Paul’s opponents and critics boils down to the clear and absurd argument that: America needs more and more wars — and the dead/maimed military personnel attendant thereto — that are motivated by Washington’s intervention abroad if Americans are to be safe and secure at home.

For Iowans and Americans as a whole, then, the best choice for their children, grandchildren, and country clearly lies in the Founder’s foreign-policy wisdom and Dr. Paul’s sturdy advocacy and promised application thereof.

But I would like to take a minute to analyze the results of this primary and how it truly has a slim chance of making a huge impact on the winner of the GOP Presidential Nomination. There are only two repeat candidates from 2008 – Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. In 2008 Mitt Romney took second place, winning this year you might be led to believe he is better off than before, but when you look that the facts you will find that Romney took in 30,015 votes in 2012 and in 2008 he took in 30,021. This year Romney took in six votes less than he did four years ago. He is actually losing support. Now sure its only six measly votes and I am sure hundreds of people who voted for him in 2008 died in the last four years and hundreds more became eligible to vote creating a bit of a fluctuation, but let’s look at the other side of the token considering the same variation. In 2008 Ron Paul finished in 5th place with only 11,841 votes, this year he took third with 26,219 votes. So while Romney lost votes, Ron Paul’s support has more than doubled in just four years time.

To me this is a huge sign that the American people are beginning to wake up. The RINO’s in the party are maintaining approximately the same amount of support, but the authentic conservative movement of small government, free markets and individual liberty is growing by leaps and bounds. Iowa is a very important state because it is the first and most Americans look to Iowa and wait until the final vote is tallied before they even start looking at the candidates. But just because Santorum and Romney took first and second does not give them any sort of speakable edge over Paul. Moreover, Paul’s third place finish does not put him out of the running. I would remind you that John McCain finished fourth in Iowa in 2008 with just 15,536 votes and he went on to win the nomination. Most people didn’t expect him to go anywhere but he maintained top three and top five finishes in most of the primary elections and it was that steady support that put him over the top in the end. This year Paul earned more votes than the 2008 GOP nominee did in Iowa and that’s enough hope for me. This race is far from finished. Paul was one of three candidates on the ballot come the Pennsylvania Primary in 2008, and I predict he will be one of two this election cycle.

Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter… the key Senate vote to pass Obamacare, is becoming a key issue as the Iowa caucuses near…

Santorum’s support of Specter was cited as a key help to the liberal Specter… Santorum’s support for Specter proved crucial in the primary, in which Specter defeated (Pat) Toomey with just 50.8 percent of the vote.

Conservative criticism of Specter appeared justified. Specter backed Obama’s healthcare program — giving him the swing vote to pass the legislation in the Senate.

In 2009, Specter faced likely defeat in the GOP primary, once again challenged by Toomey. Specter decided to leave the Republican Party and ran for re-election as a Democrat. Obama backed him strongly.

Specter was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Joe Sestak, who then lost the general election to Toomey.

The fight for the 19th Congressional District has now become the fight for the 4th! Governor Corbett signed the bill into law from the Pennsylvania legislature just days before Christmas. The new District still includes all of Adams and York Counties and loses parts of Cumberland County, but it now also adds all of Harrisburg City.

Congressman Platts most likely did not want the new district to include Harrisburg (due to its overwhelmingly Democratic registered voters), however I welcome our State’s capital city. With the addition of a 2nd financially cash-strapped city into the district, I would relish the opportunity to speak with York and Harrisburg leaders about free market/Austrian economics. In York and Harrisburg City politics, it is all about one political party. Ideas, and other issues, take over conversation from partisan politics. As a Libertarian, conversations about issues can take place, as opposed to them being Republican or Democrat in nature. Perhaps real solutions to the problems we face can be found working together instead of divided by party.

The biggest concern Congressman Platts seems to have with the new district is the realignment in Cumberland County which removes the Army War College, Army Heritage Education Center and Carlisle from the district. I do not think that the lost area will be misrepresented by Congressman Lou Barletta, however one has to remember, these new districts are made by the PA legislature. The election in 2010 brought a Republican Governor and Republican majority legislature, and gerrymandering this time, fell to the Republicans. It will certainly be a breath of fresh air when Libertarians (and other 3rd parties/Independents) start winning seats. Gone will be the days of the senseless “two party system” and blatant pandering.

Finally this week, I believe that it is time for the one district office in Washington, D.C. to work with one district office in the new 4th District. Currently, Congressman Platts has a district office in York, one in Adams County and one in Cumberland County. With the availability of telephone and email, it does not seem that an office in each district best serves the citizens. I would propose having only one full time office, somewhere in the center of the District. This cuts down on staff and office costs on all levels (rent, personnel, gas/electric, telephone, internet, etc.) I believe that a true Representative of the people of the 4th District should be in that district as often as possible. Town hall style meetings can be held in a different area of the district once a week. This would ensure that everyone has an opportunity to address their concerns with their Congressman. Currently, Congressman Platts seems to hold two sets of town hall meetings a year. This plan would result in better communication and ensure that your Congressman addresses your concerns.

Until next week, I wish you and your families a safe and happy new year!

Follow my campaign at mikeforpa.com, Facebook and on Twitter.

You can also follow my campaign and the events of the York County Libertarian Party at yorklp.org and the York LP Facebook page.

For Liberty,

Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives

The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows. And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.
Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

The evidence is clear… he has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians.

And expect the worst attacks to come from Republicans.

Let’s cut the crap. The GOP establishment’s main beef with Ron Paul is his foreign policy. This ideological chasm is the subtext to most attacks on Paul from the right. To their credit, some of Paul’s critics are man (or woman) enough to confront the congressman on this subject directly. Paul welcomes these challenges and wants his fellow Republicans to debate what a true conservative foreign policy should look like. But the members of the Republican establishment do not want any such discussion. In fact, they fear it. Most of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders subscribe primarily to a neoconservative foreign policy — the reflexively pro-war, world-police dogma that has been the dominant view in the Republican Party for at least a decade. When Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” in October, “Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?” Cain replied: “I’m not sure what you mean by neoconservative … I’m not familiar with the neoconservative movement.” Cain was being honest — he simply knew how most Republicans viewed foreign policy and generally agreed with them. What was this “neoconservatism” Gregory spoke of? Said Cain: “I’m a conservative, yes. Neoconservative — labels sometimes put you in a box.”

“Neoconservative” certainly is a label that puts you in a box. The prefix alone invites curiosity (which is why neoconservatives don’t like it) and the term itself suggests that it represents something different from plain old conservatism (which is why neoconservatives really don’t like it). Neoconservative Max Boot outlined the ideology in 2002: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad … [The] agenda is known as ‘neoconservatism,’ though a more accurate term might be ‘hard Wilsonianism’ …” Of President Bush’s “hard Wilsonianism,” columnist George Will and National Review founder William F. Buckley said the following during an exchange in 2005:

BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative …The fact that a significant part of Ron Paul’s campaign has been to constantly point out distinctions between how past conservative Republicans have approached foreign policy and the current neoconservative approach that dominates the GOP irritates those who’ve spent their careers trying to blur these distinctions. Wrote the neoconservatives’ intellectual godfather Irving Kristol in 2003:

One can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills …

That Herman Cain had never heard of neoconservatism until his interview with Gregory is a testament to the neoconservatives’ success. That Paul might now be “converting” the GOP back toward a more sober or traditionally conservative foreign policy threatens that success.

The first domino in this chain is the Oklahoma legislature. Representative Charles Key has invited me to teach my Constitution class on the floor of the Oklahoma State House on January 14th. The class is open to the public, and will cost four ounces of .999 fine silver, or the near equivalent in FRNs (currently equal to $150). Attendees will spend the day sitting in the same seats used to vote on legislation for Oklahoma. More importantly, Representative Key is inviting all the sitting members of the Oklahoma legislature to attend this historic event. Here is the website with more information. Seats are filling up fast, so if you would like to tell your grandchildren that you were there at the beginning, please be sure to call Kaye Beach (405-818-3224) or Howard Houchen (580-317-5058) to reserve your seat today.

I have mailed a personal invitation to all one hundred members of the State House explaining what to expect in class and inviting them to attend. I have also written a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore (Speaker of the Senate) for the other forty-nine states. I am inviting them to organize a similar class in their own state, delicately suggesting that it would be a shame if Oklahoma had the only patriotic state legislature in the country. During these classes I plan to emphasize the importance of the Tenth Amendment, explaining that the State legislature has the Constitutional authority to expel federal agents from the state. In fact, Charles Key is the man who sponsored the Tenth Amendment resolution passed by the Oklahoma legislature, and copied by thirty-six other states.

I never had the courage to dream this big before. I was thrilled beyond words to learn that I was confirmed for my class in Oklahoma City, but I was even more surprised when people began to contact me to find out if I would be willing to present a similar class in other states. Thus was born “Operation: DOMINO EFFECT”. I am asking my supporters to write a letter to their local state representative politely requesting my Constitution class in their state. If I can teach my class in ten states in 2012 I will consider myself a success, but – if you’re going to dream, you may as well dream big. I would like your help in making sure this happens in all fifty states. (Please don’t worry about over working me. I’m happy to go the extra mile to make this happen.)

If you have any comments or encouragements, please feel to include them here.

Many Americans are standing outside their foreclosed homes, watching as the bankers sell off the property to someone else. Fortunately for patriots, the “big cannon” in each county is the Constitutionally elected Sheriff. The Sheriff’s job description is to defend the lives, Liberty, and property of the citizens from the rapacious appetite of the state and federal governments. The Sheriff has the legitimate authority to expel federal agents from the county. Many of them have actually had the courage to do exactly that. Imagine what life would be like if we could multiply that effect nationwide!

Sheriff Richard Mack is about to do exactly that. I am one of several people helping Richard organize an event in Las Vegas on January 30th. The plan is to invite two hundred county sheriffs from around the country to reinforce their understanding of the power they legitimately have. The all day program will begin with a one-hour presentation on the Bill of Rights that I will have the privilege of presenting. I will focus on the philosophical principles of our republic, and end with the Tenth Amendment. Sheriff Mack will begin his presentation which focuses on the Tenth Amendment, and the implications of his successful Supreme Court decision which upholds the states power over the federal government.

Several other speakers will present important information on the Second Amendment, the proper role of government, and the history of the sheriff. There will also be several Sheriffs who have been invited to tell their personal stories of confronting tyranny – and successfully repelling it. Everything is coming together to equal the nearly impossible feat of Henry Knox. The only thing we still need to guarantee the success of this project is a contribution from YOU! We are marching ahead as planned, but we need money to fly the sheriffs who accept the invitation to the event and provide them with food and lodging. We can “reclaim the city of Boston”! We have the “cannons” in the form of Sheriffs willing to defend the Constitution, but we need your “gunpowder” in the form of numerous financial contributions. Please visit www.CountySheriffProject.org to make as generous contribution as you possibly can.

Please watch this newsletter for my report on the event shortly after it happens.

Hello Two-Thousand-Twelve! You cannot get here fast enough. My fellow patriots and I have been waiting for you for a l-o-n-g t-i-m-e! Some of us have been waiting thirty or forty years! But now you are here. The Tipping Point. The year the pendulum swings the other direction. The Beginning Of The End for the totalitarian police state. This is the year that Ron Paul surprises the Good Old Boy Republicans by winning the nomination in spite of the blatant bias and corruption. This is the year that Sheriff Richard Mack wins a victory even greater than his Supreme Court decision against the Brady Bill. This is the year Sheriff Mack inspires the Sheriff of hundreds of counties nationwide to stand up against the encroachments of the federal government. Not to sit idly by and let Sheriff Mack restore Liberty by himself, this is the year that I begin teaching my eight-hour Constitution class on the floor of several state legislatures. This is the year when patriot groups with different priorities begin to work together for a common cause: self-determination. This is the year that evil begins to self-destruct.

It is too early to break open the champaign to celebrate a victory that hasn’t been realized yet, but it is not too early to make New Year’s resolutions that will contribute to the overall success of the freedom movement. Too often we make well intentioned resolutions that are destined to failure before Valentine’s Day. “I’m going to lose 20 pounds.” “I’m going to put 15% of my weekly earnings into my retirement plan.” “I’m going to quit: smoking; drinking; eating fast food; procrastinating.” This year, with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor at stake, we need to make resolutions that we are actually going to keep. Here are a list of mine.

I resolve to carry my gun concealed as often as possible. Given the increase in government violence against my fellow Americans, it is more and more likely that I will personally witness the abuse of government authority. It may be inconvenient to check my pistol through airport security, but it would be far more inconvenient to watch my friends die because I wasn’t brave enough to protect them. I also resolve to speak slowly and calmly as I explain to police officers why I refuse to be disarmed. I promise I will not be the first to escalate violence, although I plan to be the first one to pull the trigger if that becomes necessary. (Note to the SPLC: I am not advocating for violence against the government. I am advocating for self-defense against government initiated violence. There is a distinct difference that your organization seems incapable of understanding.)

I resolve to resist pessimism and promote optimism about the future. For thirty years I have insisted that most of what our government does is unconstitutional. Regrettably, I have developed a habit of focusing on the corruption hidden beneath the thin veneer of respectability displayed by our government representatives. After years of campaigning for office, only to be criticized by the very people I thought I was championing, I had given up hope for the success of Liberty. Fortunately a new friend dragged me out of my despair, and restored my confidence in the will and determination of the American people. Henceforth I will assume the responsibility of doing the same for others. Yes, we still have economic and political problems ahead of us, however the American people are a dragon that is stirring from its slumber. I don’t even feel sorry for the evil people who will be dragged from their homes and taken to trial before being sentenced to life in prison. That is a far more humane treatment than they have perpetrated on us for over a century.

I also resolve to brighten my corner of the world by offering everyone I meet a warm, genuine hug. Not the artificial, Hollywood “kiss, kiss” hugs you see on television. I mean a genuine, “I’m glad that you are in the world and are a part of my life” type of hug. I used to be famous for the intensity of my hugs, but over time I have become cynical and jaded, erecting psychological barriers to protect myself from the hostility around me. I have no doubt that my feelings will be hurt eventually, but if I can spread love and joy, and inspire others to do the same, then it will all have been worth it. Besides, when my feelings get hurt I’m sure I can find a few people willing to return the hugs I gave them originally. That will help to heal my emotional trauma much more quickly.

What about you? Are you willing to make resolutions to hasten the return of our Liberties? Please let me know if you’re willing to adopt any of the resolutions above. Let me know if you can think of things that I might add to this list. We the People are the source of all political power in this country. As someone once said, it’s Good to be King!

Merry Christmas to everyone! I hope that you can find the time to sit back, relax, and enjoy some of your time during the busy holiday season. Decorating, buying presents, preparing dinners, and everything else that goes with this time of year should emphasize what is really important – spending time with your family and friends. I also want to wish everyone a happy and healthy new year that is filled with hope that our government can be returned to a limited, constitutional one, and that our long lost liberties can be returned to us.

One bill that requires discussion that was missed in last week’s Platts Report is H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011. This legislation was passed on December 14th, with Congressman Platts voting to pass the bill. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen Iran sanctions laws for the purpose of compelling Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and other threatening activities. This is one piece of hypocritical legislation! When one reads through the official summary of the bill, various pieces of the legislation stand out:

• “Authorizes the President to provide financial and political assistance to certain foreign and domestic type individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy in Iran.” – Are we paying off other countries and organizations to “promote democracy” in another country and support our sanctions against Iran?
• “Directs the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Congress regarding the promotion of Internet freedom and information access in Iran.” – From the government that wishes to prosecute Wikileaks for providing information to the public, and conducts closed door meetings to craft legislation that the public can only read after it is passed?
• “Terminates the provisions of this Act when Iran: (1) has dismantled its efforts to develop or acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; (2) no longer provides support for acts of international terrorism; and (3) poses no threat to U.S. national security, interests, or allies.” – To not pose a threat to U.S. national security, interests or allies would most likely never be accomplished without complete destruction of Iran.

There is no doubt in my mind that this bill, and the sanctions it imposes, is a prelude to another war. Is the reason for ending the war in Iraq, to free up resources to invade Iran? We cannot afford another unconstitutional war. We must cease being the policemen of the world.

In other legislation, what can be said for all of the political grandstanding this week on H.R. 3765, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011? This extended unemployment benefits, a payroll tax holiday and prevented planned cuts to reimbursements for Medicare physicians. A week’s worth of grandstanding for two months of “kicking the can down the road.” The President has already signed it into law, and has touted this bill’s passage as a political victory.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) stated, “I know that the American people are pleased that we have come together to agree on this extension to give certainty and peace of mind to 160 million Americans who are concerned about losing their tax cut, the 48 million seniors who are concerned about their Medicare and the 2.3 million people who are unemployed and seeking work who are fearful of losing their benefits.”

Certainty and peace of mind? Hardly. Since no one objected, the bill passed by an implied unanimous consent as most everyone in attendance was already giving their holiday well-wishes while walking out of the door. Democracy in action ladies and gentlemen = the grandstanding of the week ended without a whimper.

This week was yet another week lost without Congressman Platts submitting a bill to return our lost liberties, regain fiscal sanity, bring our troops home, or return our government to its Constitutional limitations. This is one of the main reasons that I am challenging him in the 2012 elections. To my knowledge, he has never submitted one bill that would greatly affect a return to the principles above. He consistently submits or supports small pieces of legislation that further regulate every facet of our lives.

Follow my campaign at mikeforpa.com, Facebook and on Twitter.

You can also follow my campaign and the events of the York County Libertarian Party at yorklp.org and the York LP Facebook page.

For Liberty,

Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives

Ron Paul is racist
The first of the attacks has been debunked time and time again and only recently has it come back into the public light when talking head ‘conservative’ Sean Hannity interviewed a liberal who revisited the issue. The basis of the argument is that Ron Paul published a newsletter that had articles which had statements that were offensive. The argument is pointless because Ron Paul did not write the articles, some political nobody did and Paul didn’t read or even know about the article until approximately 10 years after the fact. Calling Paul a racist for the association is as invalid an argument as saying Cal Ripken, Jr. uses steroids because his teammate Rafael Palmeiro was caught using, or saying the manager of the Orioles during the 1995 season, Phil Reagan, used steroids too.

Ron Paul is an anti-Semite
The second argument is just as invalid as the first. Ron Paul is supposedly anti-Semitic because of his lack of support of welfare for the nation of Israel. Paul’s stance has nothing to do with a hatred for Israel but a recognition that there is no Constitutional authority to do so. No where in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does it give congress the privilege or responsibility to lay and collect taxes to provide for the national defense of other nations, only the national defense of the United States. It doesn’t matter if that country is Israel, China, or Mexico, unless they are a part of the United States and are paying for the services via taxes they have no more entitlement to the support then illegal immigrants have to sign up for Social Security benefits. Calling Paul anti-Semitic is as disingenuous as calling those opposed to affirmative action racist. It’s a rather simple concept actually, but it is downplayed by the people who believe Israel needs our support or they will be wiped off the face of the planet by Iran*.

Ron Paul has said:

“I think that Israel should be in charge of their sovereignty, and we should never intrude on what they do. And if they want to attack Iran, we shouldn’t tell them what to do or what not to do.”

Paul has also said that Israel is more than capable of defending themselves and that they don’t need our help because they have their own nuclear weapons and are much stronger a nation that Iran who isn’t even close to having nuclear power. These beliefs are constantly called naive by the Republican war hawks who insist that Israel can not survive in the middle east without us.

Ironically the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu echoed what Ron Paul has been saying during his most recent address to the U.S. Congress on May 24, 2011:

“My friends, you don’t have to — you don’t need to do nation-building in Israel – we’re already built (Laughter, applause). You don’t need to export democracy to Israel – we’ve already got it (Applause). And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel – we defend ourselves (Cheers, applause).”

Israel does not want, nor do they need our help, but the Republican party has recently adopted the belief tha, individuals don’t know whats good for themselves and that they need to be saved. Sadly these principles are socialist in their nature, but the GOP has accepted them on behalf of most social issues and then applied them to Israel. It is the GOP that has taken the pompous attitude that says that ‘they need us’, similar to how Democrats have taken the position that the poor need them. We have taken Israel’s sovereignty away and it is embarrassing to them. We have assumed the role of telling Israel what they can and can’t do militarily, and it is this arrogant mentality that has led to many nations around the world growing to resent us. Paul also says this and is labeled insane by the Republican party establishment even though it were these very same ideas George W. Bush campaigned on when he won the presidency in 2000. Don’t believe me? Consider the following quotes…

“I don’t think our troops should be used for what’s called nation building.”
- George W. Bush, 2000

“I’m going to be judicious as to how I use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest; the mission needs to be clear; and the exit strategy obvious. I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly America is for us to go around the world saying, ‘We do it this way. So should you.’ ”
-George W. Bush, Oct. 11, 2000

“If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us.”
–George W. Bush, Oct. 12, 2000

Ron Paul is part of the ‘Blame-America-First Crowd’
Lastly, the belief that Ron Paul is part of the ‘Blame-America-First Crowd’ because he says that 9/11 was a result of “blowback” from our involvement in the middle east for decades before 9/11. This argument comes from the pro-war, any-war right that is somehow under the impression that America was attacked on 9/11 because of our freedoms. Who is right here? Well ironically America has NOT ranked in the list of top 10 freest countries on the globe for years and yet we are the only Western nation who have been attacked by these terrorists on a large-scale level. So maybe these self-proclaimed Islamic experts should look a little further into the issue.

But first let’s examine this term blowback that Ron Paul uses and its origins. “Blowback” is the word that the CIA invented in the 1950′s describing unwanted and unexpected consequences of foreign intervention. Blowback was also one of the primary causes the 9/11 Commission Report listed as cause for the attacks on 9/11. Also it is interesting to note that the CIA cites Osama bin Laden as saying that the pre-9/11 American foreign policy was a primary reason for radical Islamic outrage that prompted them to attack us.

If you ever take the time to read the report you will find that it details every major U.S. strike in the middle east throughout the 1990′s and says that these attacks in Afghanistan offered “little benefit, lots of blowback against [a] bomb-happy U.S.”
Page 120 of the U.S. 9-11 Commission Report

Now there are a groups of people who believe that what the 9/11 Commission Report says is all lies and government coverups. These are the people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job and these people are known as “Truthers.” But those of us who believe the official US statement are forced to believe that we were attacked because of ‘blowback’. Most Republicans pretend the word doesn’t exist and they will claim that Ron Paul himself invented it. But I assure you he didn’t and he’s not the only person who talks about it.

Michael Scheuer is the Former head of CIA bin Laden unit. It is arguable that there isn’t a human being alive, save for those who were in bin Laden’s inner circle who knew the man and what made him tick better than Michael Scheuer. Now let’s see what Scheuer has to say regarding the attacks of 9/11:

“On no other foreign policy issue since the Cold War’s end has the truth been so easy to establish on the basis of hard facts but so hard for Americans to see … that Muslim hatred is motivated by U.S. interventionism more than any other factor… Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home.”

But why is it that you will never hear the Republican party mentioning these facts? Because these facts contradict their neo-conservative agenda which is deeply rooted in power, the almighty dollar and a quest for empire.

*Most of these people support the Nation of Israel for religious purposes, ironically these religious warmongers must not have finished reading the book of Revelation, because had they finished it, they would have realized that’s not how it ends. Moreover if they have read it they are of little faith to believe that Ahmadinejad somehow has cosmic power and that God in his infinite wisdom couldn’t foresee it 2,000 some years ago.