Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 York County Campaign For Liberty - the York C4L is a nonprofit group and does not endorse candidates.
In what should be a right as a legal firearms owner anyway, one of our legislative agenda items for 2011, passage of the Castle Doctrine Bill (House Bill 40) was signed into law by the Governor on June 28, 2011.
Please take the time to read the bill, and our current gun laws. Find problems in any of the legislation or items to work on for next year and we will work towards that goal.
Thank you to those that took the time to print out our petition on our web site (or use one from one of our meetings) and send them to your legislator. We can only hope that our efforts made a difference.
Libertarian and Green Parties slam GOP
Judicial Choice
Stabile not deserving for Superior Court Judge
Wilkes-Barre, PA—Pennsylvania Libertarian Party chair Lou Jasikoff declared the GOP’s choice for Superior Court Judge as nothing short of shameful. Mr. Stabile led the charge to get Libertarians knocked off the ballot in 2008 and was recently quoted as being pleased by efforts to keep the Green and Libertarian Parties from appearing on the statewide 2010 ballot. “Mr. Stabile cloaks himself in the American flag while trampling on the very cornerstone of our democracy and should not be rewarded under any circumstance with a judgeship on Pennsylvania’s Superior Court,” insisted Jasikoff.
Green Party representative Carl Romanelli stated, “The last defense of democracy and the Constitution is the judiciary. When it is corrupted or co-opted, it represents the most significant threat to the principles that once made America the grand protector of liberty. The shame and disgrace of Stabile should not only be rejected by victims of his partisan decisions, but also by his peers. The lack of meaningful review reflects as poorly on justice in Pennsylvania as does Stabile’s blatant obstruction of our rights. It is sad to think that the cradle of democracy, Pennsylvania, has now become its graveyard.”
Romanelli, the US Senate candidate in 2006 for the Pennsylvania Green Party, has long contended that his own removal from the ballot could not have been accomplished without the aid of partisan judges. Romanelli, a retired employee of the Luzerne County Courts, added, “Stabile’s comments, and record in ballot access cases, prove that both old parties are equally corrupted at the judicial level. The prevailing attitude is that anything goes in keeping other voices out of political debate and participation. Judges remain in violation of the Judicial Canons with such partisan behavior.”
Ken Krawchuk, the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania Governor in 1998 and 2002, was shocked to hear Victor Stabile was running for Superior Court Judge. “This is the same man who led the failed challenge to have the 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate removed from the statewide ballot. When someone is so ignorant of the law as to mount a frivolous challenge, or so inconsiderate of the voters of Pennsylvania to attempt to limit their choices on the ballot, it’s clear he lacks the knowledge, character and integrity to serve as a judge at any level.” Krawchuk, who is the Libertarian representative to the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition (www.PaBallotAccess.org), added, “If Mr. Stabile had any sense of justice at all, he’d be working with us to reform Pennsylvania’s atrocious ballot access laws, which are among the worst in the nation, not exploiting them for political gain.”
“Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation where judges elected in partisan elections determine which candidates may appear on the ballot,” said Oliver Hall of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Competitive Democracy. “Now that Pennsylvania courts have begun to assess costs against candidates just for defending nomination petitions that they are required by law to submit, it is more important than ever that judges demonstrate a commitment to protecting candidate and voter rights to participate in free and equal elections – rather than the partisan interests of the judges’ campaign contributors.”
Wayne Allyn Root Vice-Presidential candidate on the 2008 Libertarian ticket concluded, “Ballot access is a fundamental right we enjoy as Americans. We can no longer allow or tolerate political operatives like Mr. Stabile to subvert that right; simply put it is Un-American. To purposely disregard laws on the books that allow for candidate substitution, or applaud efforts that totally ignore voter intent is unconscionable. Mr. Stabile is the face of everything wrong with Pennsylvania’s ballot access laws and his flawed and biased judgment should not find its way on Pennsylvania’s Superior Court.”
The Libertarian Party along with the Green Party and groups like the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition, Free and Equal Organization and other liberty groups in Pennsylvania intend to make ballot access a major focus of conversation this election cycle. Only when all Americans can freely compete in the arena of ideas will we be able break the back of corruption that has so permeated our political system.
Contact: Lou Jasikoff at ljasikoff@gmail.com or 570-677-2607
Carl Romanelli at cjromanellii@yahoo.com
Our guest speaker for our April Meeting was Todd Keefer. He gave an account of research that he has been doing on free market solutions to health care. He presented a good bit of information and stated that he would provide me with the documentation that he had sent to Senator Folmer in reference. If you are interested, that information is now in our downloads section for you to read for yourself. Thanks Todd!
I’m looking for volunteers to work a York County Citizens for Liberty table at the following gun show:
Delta Peach Bottom Fish and Game Association. This gun show will take place at 173 Pikes Peak Road in Delta, PA, from 9:00am to 4:00pm on Saturday, 03/26/11, and 9:00am to 3:00pm on Sunday, 03/27/11.
If interested in volunteering, please email me at ngdiv@verizon.net with the specific days and hours you are willing to work the table.
Thanks,
Norman Dunkinson
This is taken from Congressman Todd Platts’ email newsletter:
Congressman Platts to Hold Next Series of Town Hall Meetings
To give the constituents of the 19th Congressional District an opportunity to share their concerns regarding issues before the United States Congress and the federal government, Congressman Todd Platts will be hosting another series of town meetings in each of the three counties in his district. The dates, times, and locations of the meetings are listed below.
“The ability of elected officials to reach out to the citizens they serve is one of the most important cornerstones of our system of government,” said Congressman Platts. “I look forward to hearing the thoughts and opinions of my fellow citizens.”
Congressman Platts commutes each day from his home in York to ensure that he interacts with the citizens of the 19th Congressional District on a daily basis. He conducts numerous in-person town hall meetings each year as well as telephone town hall meetings. In addition, Congressman Platts held more than 300 meetings with individual constituents and groups in his offices in 2010, while also participating in more than 300 meetings, events, and small business visits in locations throughout the 19th Congressional District.
“Whether at town hall meetings, at public events throughout the district, or informally when we simply cross paths in the community, I look forward to these continued interactions,” said Congressman Platts.
• Monday, February 7, 2011 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the New Cumberland Borough Building, 1120 Market Street in New Cumberland.
• Tuesday, February 8, 2011 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Agricultural and Natural Resources Building, 670 Old Harrisburg Road, Gettysburg
• Saturday, February 12, 2011 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. at Junior Achievement of South Central Pennsylvania, 610 South George Street, York.
• Monday, February 14, 2011 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the South Middleton Township Building, 520 Park Drive, Boiling Springs.
So Tom Corbett hasn’t even been in office for a week yet and he is already on his knees before the president like that little annoying kid in the grocery store begging his mom to buy the cereal with marshmallows. Just who is responsible for electing this child to such a high office anyway? I know I played no part in it, I spent the seven months before the general election campaigning for a Sam Rohrer write-in vote. I made a lot of people angry for taking such a strong stance against this Republican. They told me that Corbett was a conservative and I should support him, they told me I was extreme and out of line for calling him a, “Two-faced, neo-con, liberal, scumbag.” Well tell me this, would a true conservative beg the federal government to give the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a bailout check to help pay for existing programs that our state budget will not allow? I think not!
Just what am I talking about? Currently, Pennsylvania has a program known as Pennsylvania AdultBasic. It is a state run, taxpayer-funded health insurance program for over 41,000 low-income families living within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Basically this is a smaller state-level socialist program similar to the Obamacare plan that Republicans are trying to repeal in the House at this time.
As Attorney General Tom Corbett joined a group of State Attorneys General who threatened to sue the federal government should they pass a nationalized health care plan and mandate that every citizen buy health insurance. I warned the Pennsylvania voters who applauded Corbet’s stance saying that it was nothing more than a publicity stunt to earn more votes and that Corbett would not do a thing to stop Obamacare. Few believed me, most said that I was just trying to smear Corbett’s good name in order to help elect Sam Rohrer. I ask you now in hindsight to review the evidence and judge according as to who was right…
The Pennsylvania health insurance program has been criticized by state Democrats saying that the program is not big enough and it only provides, “bare-bone coverage” to those in need. They say that the program is not effective enough as it does not have enough revenue to fund better coverage.
Shortly after Obama passed the health care bill into law back in the springtime, then-Governor Ed Rendell wasted little time in setting up the groundwork for this by starting a program called Fair-Care which is another socialist option for the Pennsylvania AdultBasic program. Currently Rendell’s program has a cap of 3,500 people that it is allowed to insure. Now governor Tom Corbett is asking the federal government via the Department of Health and Human Services to funnel Pennsylvania more federal dollars so he can expand the program even more and insure more people than the program already allows.
This is the same bill he threatened to sue the feds for passing and now he is trying to expand it? It’s hypocrisy at the highest level! But the Tom Corbett camp is trying to justify the contradiction. His spokesman Kevin Harley was out yesterday saying that AG Corbett was threatening to sue because of the mandate in the bill that required everyone to buy health insurgence but,
“He never said that he opposed all of the elements of Obamacare. And unfortunately, the authors of Obamacare did not put in what’s known as a severability clause, which is if one part of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of it would be unconstitutional. They failed to do that when they wrote this bill.”
So it would appear that not only was I right that Corbett would not stand in the way of Obamacare, but he is now trying to expand it. Aren’t you glad we have a Republican governor in PA?
While looking at the news this morning I was watching a video interview of Gerald Celente, CEO and founder of Trends Research Institute, for Russia Today. The main point of the interview was for Celente to showcase his forecasts and trends for the year 2011. Besides the generic forecasts of an increase in cyber wars, renewable energy, and organic foods, he also forecasted that the “youth of the world will unite against glaring inequalities”. While he stated that the revolution will be worldwide the US revolution will be, “slower, a different level”. In contrast to other governments he states that our people have been suppressed and beaten down by the system. But the revolutions, the European austerity-measure revolutions and our slower U.S. revolution, will unite and use new methods to communicate. Blogs, internet journalism or “journalism 2.0″, as well as Facebook and twitter are now being utilized as the “great connector”. In contrast to this he also stated that an increase in cyber wars and hacking will lead to greater government control of the internet. This will most likely add more fuel to the revolution fires and increase not only action but perhaps violence as well.
An increase in anti-government rhetoric, and violence, as well as Celente’s trend forecasting all show that not only a revolution will take place but it looks like it’s going to be bloody, an all out fight between freedom and control over our government and our own persons. My advice? Stock up: seeds, precious metals (gold, silver etc) ammunition, guns, and food. It might seem crazy to many people but to the ones that are involved in groups like Campaign for Liberty we all understand that the government is quickly losing it’s grip on it’s control over us. It’s grasping at straws and subsequently reigning in more tyrannical control over us. Simultaneously, the people and citizens of this country are losing more and more; more of their jobs, more of their finances, their family’s and their homes. Things are looking more and more dismal, and as we all know, when people lose everything, they start to lose it.
Resources:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO45VBO6Swo
Apparently in lieu of the AZ gunmen who shot and killed six people and wounding fourteen others, including AZ Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) has sparked another go at the old debate of, “do guns kill people.” Authorities have made an arrest in the case of the alleged killer, Jared L. Loughne who is being labeled a right wing terrorist and is now in police custody.
Now there are several ways of looking at this debate, it is my belief that the two sides of this debate have their own agenda. The people who generally argue on behalf of the notion that guns do in fact kill people are of the liberal persuasion who always like to make excuses and blame others so that individuals don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. Those who would argue that guns are not the issue, and it is actually people, who kill people are part of the conservative leaning crowed who believe in personal responsibility. Ask a liberal why they support the welfare systems in our country and they will undoubtedly tell you that there are some people why can’t get jobs and can’t support their families. As a conservative why they are apposed to welfare and they will tell you its the private citizens role to take responsibility for themselves, and if not able to for some reason or another the private sector should help out with meeting there needs. These deep rooted ideas also carry over into other topics like drug legalization, and gun control.
Now lets say for the sake of the liberal minded argument that guns do kill people. If this is the case and it is the governments responsibility to punish the guilty party in a crime then lets see to it that the guilty is tried in AZ. I wonder if the still recovering congresswoman Giffords would approve of a harsher gun ban in AZ, if it meant that the shooter, Loughne gets to go home free of charge. After all if it is true that guns kill people and people have no real say in the matter as the liberal humanists would have you believe, than Loughne is nothing more than a victim of a violent and evil gun himself. Maybe even some ACLU lawyer could help him sue the gun manufacturer who made this hanise tool.
This idea, if thrown out into the atmosphere would go over like a turd in the punch bowl. Not even the craziest of liberals would support a gun ban if it meant this criminal walks. Because even at the very core of a liberal humanist there is a breaking point that makes common knowledge apparent. You see guns do not kill people, I have somewhere in the vicinity of 5 or 6 guns and not a single one of them has killed a living thing. I have a rifle and I used that rifle as a tool to kill a few deer, note that had I sat that rifle in the middle of the woods and left it alone it never would have done any harm. Even if I chambered a bullet and left it there, had some one or something not turned off the safety and pulled the trigger the gun would have been incapable of firing. With that being said, the opposite must also be true, that if I buy a gun and a box of bullets, and I properly load those bullets into a magazine and I slide that magazine into the grip of my gun. Then I intentionally pull back the slide and chamber a bullet, turn off the safety and point it at a person, and then pull the trigger that means I intentionally did it. If it was intentional then it was on purpose so there fore it was I, Griffin Voorhees who killed that person, just as I Griffin Voorhees killed two deer with my rifle, the gun didn’t do it, I did.
I saw a bumper sticker not long ago that read, “Yeah guns kill people, just like the spoon made Rosie O’Donnell fat.” Rosie is a fat woman and the spoon did not make her that way, the spoon was merely the tool she used to get fattening food down her enormous throat. If she was never given a spoon she would have found a fork, a knife or a shovel. I have a feeling that Rosie may have even used her chubby little fingers to get that fattening food down if all of her other options were take away. Banning guns won’t stop people with ill intent from killing, there are plenty of other tools that one could use with their sick intentions to kill someone. I have a feeling that even if Loughne didn’t have access to a gun he would have used a knife or even his bare hands.
But lets just say the liberal minded humanists are correct and guns do kill people. So they ban guns across the board. It is now illegal to buy, sell, transport or even own any firearms for any reason. Every law abiding citizen goes along to get along. Yes even you turn in all of your deer guns to be in compliance with the new law. But what if, someone decided to break the law what if someone decided to get a gun from out side of the country, or learned how to make their own gun, who is going to stop them? Problem being is, if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Leaving the good law abiding citizens defenseless when someone breaks into their house to rob them. In the words of Brad Stine,
“if banning things work so well why don’t we use it on everything why stop at guns, why don’t we just ban crime?!”
Thats just it, crime is illegal and people commit it any way, just like many guns are illegal and people still obtain them anyway.
Most people wouldn’t believe how many shootings are stopped with the use of another gun, by another person, with good intent. I would go as far as to say most every school shooting has been ended by this equation, sure many school shooters wind up taking their own life, with their own gun, but why do they do it? Id say probably because the reality sets in that what they just did is going to result in their own death by another gunmen or by capitol punishment, so they figure they might as well get it over with. “Oh your just being insensitive” you might think, “You don’t know what its like, you’d sing a different tune if it was someone you knew that was shot.” Well regretfully I do know someone who’s life was cut short because of a school shooting. There was a shooting at the JR High school that I attended less than a year from when I was there. The principal who was shot I very much so knew, and I had a very good relationship with him. Don’t tall me, I don’t know what its like.
The liberal minded argument that guns kill people no mater which angle you explore it is full of error. If you take responsibility away from people your left with a society of irresponsible people, and irresponsible people do irresponsible things. The fundamental truth that needs to be understood is that with every one of your rights comes a responsibility, its like two different sides of a coin, you can’t have a heads without a tails and you can’t have a right without a responsibility.
For more authentic conservative media check out www.conservativedeclaration.com
The recent tragedy in Arizona is reprehensible. Several killed, several injured, a Congresswoman lies in a hospital, fighting for the life she had before. Any time one of these types of incidents occurs, the media finds it necessary to categorize the politics of the person. Many in the media enjoy the term, the “radical right”, or “extreme right winger.” Does the politics of the person really mean anything? I’ve heard hateful speech on both sides of the aisle over the years. The term Nazi is thrown around so often, it is as if they are still high-stepping down the streets in Germany. We all categorize things and people in our lives, and generally do it with everything. We categorize music tastes, books, television news stations, almost each and every thing and person. People and their politics are placed into categories as well, but those categories are all left up to the person doing the categories and they vary widely. The media has the most prominent set of categories, and the average, every day person finds themselves using those categories whether they realize it or not.
Arizona Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, speaking out on the tragedy in Arizona, says that radical anti-government rhetoric is to blame for the incident. Some of the “highlights” of his news conferences can be found here through a Politico video:
Dupnik Comments
Now, because of his comments, the television and radio talk shows are ablaze with talk about free speech, hate speech, etc. There is no doubt that Jared Loughner was mentally ill. All of the details will no doubt be released in the coming weeks. The media just has to talk to the kid’s neighbors to ensure that one of them says that he was a nice, quiet young man. Isn’t that the standard? We must be vigilant however on the potential for new attacks on free speech…ESPECIALLY political free speech.
Let’s not forget the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” H.R. 1955. This passed the House with 404 Ayes! Let’s keep in mind that the label extremist is one of those labels I mentioned earlier. These are subject to the person’s own views. Submitting this blog about Congresswoman Giffords’ shooting and the relation it has to new thought police would probably brand me an extremist in most normal circles I would imagine. Do not forget the Missouri MIAC report that listed Ron Paul supporters as potential domestic terrorists either!
We must keep an eye on any pending legislation coming out soon. This incident was horrible yes, but this time a person from Congress was shot. People die in the streets everyday, but this time it was one of their own that was wounded. It is nearly a guarantee that new legislation will appear as a result. To close, read this “extremist’s” (my sarcasm!!) views on the last thought police bill that was introduced: “Submit ye citizens….”
I wish the Congresswoman a quick recovery, and I hope that she speaks out in a constructive way, instead of what others are trying to do: turn this into an outcry against “hate speech,” a call to lock up all those with mental illnesses, or a new thought crime bill or Jim Brady handgun type bill.
It was just the other day when I went out to the mailbox to check my mail and I came across an envelope from a conservative magazine who was trying to get me to subscribe to their catalogue. The cover of the envelope said, “For conservatives Sick & Tired of…” and they listed five bullet points that are clichés when it conservative rhetoric. One of the bullet points, in fact the very first one is, “The, “Rights” of Illegal Immigrants.”It got me thinking, I have for a long time now been a vocal opponent of illegal immigration but I am not sure I would go as far as to say I am sick of hearing about illegal immigrants rights. Let me explain.
Weather or not most conservatives would like to emit it or not, illegal immigrants do have rights, in fact they have the exact same rights as we the sovereign citizens have in this country. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that, “we hold these truths to be self evident” the original draft said sacred and undeniable. In other words these truths are not to be debated; they are not opinions but facts. “that all men are created equal” all men was a frequent generalization in olden days to refer to all people regardless of gender. “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So as our nations first and arguably most popular founding document says, all people were created equal, every one with an equal amount of rights that were given to them as individuals by their Creator, and its not something that is up for debate.
So lets examine this for a moment… We as conservatives believe that our rights are given to us by God, and they can not be taken away by our government or any other men for that matter, which is why our founders set up for us a Republic. In our republic it is to be understood that the sovereign people have all the power as they are the ones who created government and the government is to work for them and serve their sacred trust known as the constitution. Now if we are to understand that God gives us our rights and government has no say in the matter why is it that we go around protesting illegal immigrants rights? Are we to believe that our creator gave them less rights because they were not born here? Are we to believe that being a citizen of the United States somehow grants us more rights then the rest of the world? Heaven forbid it!
The problem we are dealing with here is not an issue of weather they do or don’t have rights, because it is self evident that they do. The question that needs to be addressed is what is a right? Well in all the extencive studies I have done on the topic of rights and privileges there are three things I have found to be sacred and undeniable about the two.
1. Rights and Privileges are opposites! Black and White, Right and Wrong, East and West. They are completely different.
2. A right is something you can do because it is yours and you don’t need to seek the approval or permission of someone else. Example: you have a right to walk around on your property because you own it.
3. A privilege is something you have to get permission to do and without that permission you can not do it. Example: you do not have a right to walk on my property because its not yours. You would need to get my permission to walk on my property and even then you don’t have a right to be there, you have the privilege
I believe Ronald Reagan said it best in 1964 when he said, “Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this time.”We are going to loose all of our country, our freedoms and our liberties if we continually talk like this. We need to stop talking about rights as if they can be granted or denied. Don’t get me wrong Illegal immigration has its problems and they need to be addressed but we can not do so by grouping our rights in the category of government issued. The problem with illegal immigration is not that these people have rights its that they have government issued entitlement programs that aren’t theirs to begin with, in fact their not ours either. Illegal Immigration is not really the problem; it’s a result a side effect of socialism. The problem that really needs to be dealt with is the fact that you can not tell one person illegal or not that they are entitled to something that they did not earn, without telling someone else they are not entitled to something that they did earn! If we would put an end to all the entitlements in our Nation, then and only then will you find the sea of people invading this country and milking off the system go away. And what we will be left with is individuals, who are here to work, not work the system but actually work. That’s the real problem with illegal immigration; it has nothing to do with their rights.
