LOLA created a panel for CPAC called- Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism. This instruction gave clear and concise understandings as to why anyone that believes in Liberty should be against the war on terror and any aggression against others

Is America’s current “War on Terror” essential to keeping our nation safe? Or is it yet another vehicle for the federal government to increase its power over our lives and take away our liberties? Is the “War on Terror” actually weakening our national defense and increasing opposition overseas?

The panel, Created by LOLA and co-sponsored by The Future of Freedom Foundation, Ladies of Liberty Alliance and Campaign for Liberty, included:

# Karen Kwiatkowski — retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

# Jacob Hornberger — founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation

# Philip M. Giraldi — former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer, current Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance

# Bruce Fein — former associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration

CPAC 2010: "Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism, Part 1" from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

All of our appeals aren’t going to be to the intellectual circles in the country and so trying to explain the Austrian theory of the business cycle in economic jargon and going up against the Keynesian orthodoxy, which most people don't understand themselves, isn't exactly the way to go. Heck, I’m not even sure I understand it. There’s some stuff about saving being bad, spending being good, digging holes to fill them back up helping the economy and if you aren’t confused yet, wait until you get to the part about the animal spirits. No, when I talk to people about the Fed, (which I find myself doing increasingly...Jesus, I used to be cool) I explain it in simple terms by trying to create a narrative which people can understand and I try to dispel any fears they might harbor about change, by giving what seems like middle of the road options but which are quite revolutionary in truth.

My explanation of the Fed goes something like this:

The Federal Reserve is allowed by the government to create money out of nothing and to charge us interest on it. Yes, that's right; interest on nothing. But aside from the obvious injustice of that, whenever the Fed creates new money they create inflation, and as Ben Bernanke said during a Congressional hearing not too long ago, inflation is a tax! The Fed is allowed to tax the citizens through inflation without any authorization by the representatives of the United States government. Revolutions have been started over "taxation without representation".

But if that isn't enough, it's the worst sort of tax because it's highly regressive. The Fed creates the new money and gives it to the government, Wall Street and/or connected enterprises. New money in the economy creates price inflation because of increasing demand. There's more money in the economy, but the goods in the economy stay relatively constant. The result is higher prices. However, the government, Wall Street, and connected businesses get to spend the money first before the higher prices kick in. By the time the money trickles down to the middle class and the poor, that is if it ever reaches them (many people have fixed income and wages that won't likely increase to absorb the inflation) the higher prices have set in and they must now pay more of their income for the same goods. The Federal Reserve has stolen away the value of the money we work hard for and given it to its favored groups. Exasperated yet? Is this the type of trickledown economics Reagan had in mind. And people wonder why there's a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor...

The establishment Republicans like this system because it allows them to spend spend spend on foreign military excursions...and while you may believe there are arguably some valid operations that the US government takes part in around the world, no one is in disagreement that we are spending too much and doing too much in other countries while neglecting our own. But hey, the American people don't even realize they are paying much higher taxes than the amount they can visibly see going directly from their paychecks to the government’s military adventures. Is it any wonder that they’re all swooning over Ben Bernanke? It allows them to be the constant advocates of war irrespective of the economic costs. Just ask Sarah Palin—the HTIC (Head Tea Partier in Charger).

The democrats really love it too. The Federal Reserve can fund all their little pet projects to save the poor on the one end, while it makes the poor poorer on the other end, creating a populace that is increasingly reliant on the government. This solidifies a voting block for the liberal democrats who want to be all things to all people and who care little about cultivating the independence and ability that is suppressed in so many American men, women and children because of their ill-conceived policies. Where is the outcry from the Democrats about the Fed's money creation? I mean, I know many of them think it is okay to steal from the rich, but I don't know hardly anyone that thinks it is okay to steal from the poor! Well, except the Federal Reserve. You have to question what the goal of the Democrats is when an institution like this exists without challenge or at the very least...competition!

The goal of our movement is freedom and independence for all. It's the reason that former (and hopefully future) Presidential candidate Ron Paul introduced the Freedom of Currency Act. It's something we all should support. There are many people out there calling for an End to the Fed. Ending the Fed to me means ending its dominance in my life. Every business has a right to operate so long as it is non-violent, operates without fraud, and can attract patrons; so too does the Fed. But it should operate under the same conditions that you or I must. It must satisfy its customers and mustn't use the government to force people to do business with it. H.R. 4248, the Freedom of Currency Act would allow individuals to choose to do business with the Fed or not to do business with the Fed. It would allow people to protect their savings and investments and earnings by diversifying the ways in which one can save and earn money. It would allow people to protect their wealth, however small or large, from theft. Isn't that the proper role of the government?

H.R. 4248 may or may not be a solution, but the bigger point here is that we should be discussing ideas like this to introduce freedom into our economy. We have seen the results of restricting it. The Fed may not like it. We don't expect them to. It is difficult to let go of privileges, especially so great a privilege as control over the world economy, but we have outgrown it. Whatever may have been the reasons for passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and handing the economy over to the private banks, we have over the past one hundred years gained enough wisdom through our experiences to know that this antiquated institution can no longer exist with such an awesome power over our lives. It simply is not the American way.

by Stacy Litz

"I freed a thousand slaves . . . I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
Harriet Tubman

Black History Month, for me, is usually spent reflecting on the legacies of many influential people in the civil rights movement for their bravery when combating such horrible injustice. However, it is interesting to see the many methods that were taken to reach a level of equality, and it hurts to see many fall into a trap of a collectivist mindset while fighting for freedom.

Just recently, I saw the first chairwoman of the Black Panther Party, Elaine Brown, speak at my university. After reading her book, Taste of Power, I knew what to expect -- a socialist mindset with hatred towards free markets, laws for affirmative action, "free" housing, health care, and food. All of this came out in her speech, which ended with a Che Guevara quote and a thunderous applause from the audience. I felt incredibly out of place and the anger that had built up throughout the speech put me at a tipping point.

After cooling off, I realized that instead of being angry towards this woman, I should feel sympathy, if anything. She spent her entire life fighting and fighting and fighting -- and her method of choice? Politics. She had run for office several times, even running for president in 2008 with the Green Party. While she tirelessly battled for equality using the same very governmental system that enforced inequality and that continues doing so to this very day, she has not had any of her goals reached.

I feel sympathy towards Elaine Brown for another reason, too, and this is the fact that she had become a complete martyr for the black man, and in her book, she mentions how many times she neglected fighting for women's rights and simply sacrificed herself for men, with no value for herself as an individual. The Black Panther Party represents the anti-thesis of LOLA, that's for sure.

Sadly, this is not the first time that I have heard minorities beg for a socialist government to force equality, and I have heard it many times in other regards. The problem with this argument is that it fails to strike the root of the issue of inequality. Many fail to note that it is only government that forces inequality to exist -- and while we are all different, in freedom, we would not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of their character (thanks, MLK).

While I am not a huge fan of Glenn Beck, I heard that he had a special called the "Revolutionary Holocaust" on why minorities, the poor, and the oppressed should not believe that socialism and communism will solve all their problems.  I have yet to see the special, but I hope it does the topic justice!  I feel as if many fall into the trap of  socialism because offers a sense of equality through a system of each receiving a measured collective share, but it has been tried and tested to have failed in several countries. Freedom, however, is restrained as much as possible, and has never gotten a chance to show off its possibilities for equality.

As I've said, striking the root of the inequality problems is the best method to finding the solution. And the root is big government. The war on drugs, prohibition, lack of self ownership, not teaching personal responsibility in public schools, victimless crimes, subsidizing poverty . . . all of these things hurt minorities in their current state and all are based on government. Instead of lobbying for more laws and more regulations for equality, let us try a new approach -- removing these laws and regulations that only make sure inequality exists!

We can all be equally free, but not equally enslaved.

An example of when individuals make decisions in the name of "government," rather than thinking with their own rationality.

By Allison Gibbs

Sometimes we blindly accept what agents of the state (police officers, congressman, anyone paid by the government) tell us is lawful.
We as women have learned a few different scenarios of getting out of tickets or run ins with these individuals. Let's learn what is lawful and what isn't so we don't have to succumb to relying on flirtation, stupidity, ignorance, or the bat of an eye. Lets educate ourselves and know our rights!

Thank you to Flex Your Rights for this!

I am working on a script today for a video on "How To Petition." Of course, laws governing petition circulators differ from state to state, but there are some basic things I'd like to go over. At first, it was intimidating to me.

I know many people, women especially (judging by our numbers when I am petitioning), are still intimidated by the idea of asking people for their signature to say, get a candidate or a ballot measure on the ballot.  But once you see someone do it, it really seems easier! Anyone can do it, and I'll show you how! Stay tuned...