Announcing: Rick Williams For US Senate In California

[doctorfunk]

As a longtime lawyer, Mr. Williams should be aware of how often the police abuse the law and the privileges provided them as law enforcement officers. Providing cops with greater police powers inevitably leads to tyranny. What starts as a well-intentioned idea to send illegal immigrants home will lead to major increases in violent incidents and place a great social and financial strain on the system. This will then be used to justify further crackdowns and the escalation of force. It also allows statists to justify a national ID card, something no liberty-minded person should want. As Dr. Paul has stated, those walls used to keep others out can also be used to keep us in. Yes, we should secure our borders and immediately deport violent criminals to their countries of origin. However, it has been shown that a poor economy here greatly decreases illicit border crossings. This means that the desire to come here is based primarily on financial incentives, which can be eliminated by ending the free ride of social programs provided for those not here legally. I won't use the silly argument that these people need to pay their taxes, since the income tax should be eliminated and illegals are already paying sales taxes and other fees. However, they are gaming the system as it is, costing those who are paying their way billions of dollars and this should be stopped. That's where the primary focus should be, not mass deportation, which coincidentally would be prohibitively expensive as well as a gateway to tyranny here. Please consider these arguments.

What's so wrong with a national ID card? It seems like it would just be a cross between a SS card and a driver's liscense.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Thank you all for announcing your candidacy. We should take this discussion to the "2012 Candidates" section of these forums so that we can properly organize to support your campaigns. Keeping the discussion here will cause it to get lost in the "Grassroots Central" soup. I know Grassroots Central is where the best traffic is, but these discussions need to take place in the appropriate section where the lower traffic HELPS us discuss your campaigns and plan for things like money bombs, activist time, etc because there is less topic clutter and less refresh demotions.

The new Rick Williams thread in the 2012 Candidates sub-forum:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365363-Rick-Williams-for-US-Senate-in-California!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rick, you may want to make sure that you get added as a candidate on the Senate Conservatives Fund website. Their endorsement helped Rand and Mike Lee.

http://senateconservatives.com/site/races/2012/ca

 

[tsetsefly]

Hey rick, do you have a facebook page? IF you do put it in the first post and in your sig along with your site... If you dont hae an fb page make sure to make one asap!


As for this thread being derailed, I love how some here are acting just like a lot of libertarians/objectivist/liberty minded act with pro liberty candidates the closer they get to your position the more you find that one thing that makes you absolutely not support them...
Fact is Rick Williams is way better than the current senator and I am sure he is 10x than the other neocons running in the primary...

 

[ForLibertyFight]

I live in Burbank. If you need any help, contact me:

[email protected]

 

[Rick Williams]

I appreciate the interest in my campaign; and the various suggestions here and in the subforum thread. We are early stage in the campaign here in California-- March 9 is the final day for candidates to submit papers, so there still may be additional Republican entrants in the race. I'm anticipating quite a spirited campaign. Many, many freedom people are coming forward as candidates in California-- particularly for Central Committee seats in Los Angeles County and elsewhere. California has become a state that is ripe for new blood; keep your eye on developments here. Change is coming.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

March 9 is the final day for candidates to submit papers, so there still may be additional Republican entrants in the race.

Lol! Tom Campbell again?

 

[tsetsefly]

I appreciate the interest in my campaign; and the various suggestions here and in the subforum thread. We are early stage in the campaign here in California-- March 9 is the final day for candidates to submit papers, so there still may be additional Republican entrants in the race. I'm anticipating quite a spirited campaign. Many, many freedom people are coming forward as candidates in California-- particularly for Central Committee seats in Los Angeles County and elsewhere. California has become a state that is ripe for new blood; keep your eye on developments here. Change is coming.

2 things you must do!!!

1. Have you been in contact with John Dennis? He is running again against pelosi and is an RP republican http://www.johndennis2012.com/. I didnt see him mentioned in your liberty candidates coalition.
2. L.A. native Adam Carolla has the most listened podcast in the US and a large part of that comes from an L.A. audience he has talked favorably about RP before and constantly rants against insane L.A. and California laws, it would be a good idea to get on his show. (Dr. Drew who reuglarly appears ont he show endorsed RP I am sure you could get a bit of publicity from an endorsement from him).

 

[Nathan Hale]

Lol! Tom Campbell again?

I thought Campbell was a decent guy.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

This presents a problem for me...

I spent three years living in the downtown area that could be considered San Jose's Lil Mexico and in this area is more "illegals" than legal U.S. Citizens. The government policies is what created the immigration problem; remember when we subsidize something we get more of it! Free Healthcare, Food Stamps, Education, and Healthcare is what driving people into our state, but it doesn't make all of them dead beats. There is power and support in the message of getting rid of the welfare policies, new immigration policy, no amnesty, but allow people who are here to continue to live their lives. If Republicans offer up a policy of removing all illegal immigrants it will move the support right into the hands of the democrats and condemn us to 6 more years of DF or BB.

From my point of view, coming off straight with the people on the financial crises from the welfare / warfare state and addressing the problems / solutions. Offering up no amnesty, but deporting violent offenders and allowing working families to live their lives without the fear of the ICE hauling them off everywhere they go. Perhaps, be bold and call out other politicians for using illegals as scape goats for a larger problem they created and call out the democrats for just trying to buy votes. Bring the troops home to secure our border and end the welfare programs to illegals, I don't see why we need to round all of them up..

You can't move away from it until you understand what causes it. You have one law saying no to illegal immigration, but on the other hand you have other laws and incentives encouraging it. We can apply the rule of law to Social Security and just end it, but many of us champion the phasing out of social security while taking care of those who have become dependent. I understand these are U.S citizens, but if it is government incentives and laws that encouraged the problem why can't we end all of the incentives, remove violent criminals, secure our border, and let the market for labor level out. If there is no work, no handouts, and no ability to sustain themselves here they will return to Mexico and others will have no incentive to come across. We need to get our house in order, but the money saved from these support programs will save money and avoid having National Guard Units patrolling our streets and invading our property in the search for "illegals."

+1

Thanks for supporting Rick despite disagreements What kills libertarianism is that most people agree on 95% but won't support each other because of the 5% they disagree on, I'm glad you've chosen not to go that way with Rick unlike some others

To commenters who think my immigration policy is too harsh-- I understand your view. But I'm a lawyer, and I believe rule of law (not rule of man) is the single most significant aspect of a free society. When I say "rule of law" I mean principles that will apply with equal force to our highest elected officials and bankers; just as it does to "ordinary" citizens. I don't see how we can then turn around and say we won't apply rule of law to illegal immigrants. Rule of law means nothing if it doesn't apply to all. Guest workers-- for sure; legal immigration-- yes. But defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants? I simply can't support that concept. Over time, we need to move away from the illegal immigration culture that has gained so much prominence in the last few decades.

+1

I'm one of the people described on this forum as anti-immigration but I agree with "truthsaga", firstly, you're not going to dethrone an incumbent Democrat with that policy on immigration, secondly, even I, with my views opposed to immigration, don't think it's feasible to deport ALL of them without invading everyone's privacy & here's the thing, your State is broke, the country is broke & just on that count alone, it'd be stupid of us to waste resources on that

Our goals should be on securing the borders so no more of them come in, don't allow illegals to get welfare, get rid of Federal mandates on schools & hospitals to serve illegals & end birthright citizenship which rewards law-breakers & install Right To Work; the reason there's a market for illegals is because of Minimum Wage prevents Americans from taking up those jobs & then they go on welfare & end up on taxpayers' tit & drive up the debt-problem so if Americans could take up those jobs legally & not go on welfare easily & illegals can't get easy welfare either then they'll just leave, if birthright citizenship is repealed because they can't get anything out of remaining here but finding & deporting each & every one of them will be an impossible & wasteful task that even Ron Paul doesn't approve of

Think thats where your getting it wrong. Its more of we should ENFORCE the law. If someone gets arrested, goes to apply for some Federal or state programs and they come up on the radar as a illegal or unknown status then a investigation with ICE should be done.

Nowhere does he state wanting to have governement assest actively knocking on doors and patrolling streets to deport people. Part of fixing the problem is showing illegals that we will enforce laws on our books.

We need to apply the rule on how we support Ron Pauls foreign policy of what would we feel like if others did that to us. Go overstay time in a another country, they will have no problem rounding you up and escorting you to the airport.

+1

This is a more balanced view, in my opinion

If someone is identified as illegal then the matter should be notified to authorities & then it should be taken to its rightful conclusion but as much as I'm against illegals, an "operation wetback" wouldn't be appropriate or even fruitful, for the most part; more importantly, as Paul says - get those troops patrolling Afghanistan-Pakistan border here on our borders & prevent more of them from coming in & get Right To Work for Americans, make it harder to get welfare, end Federal mandates & end birthright-citizenship

 

[craezie]

I am so grateful to have another liberty-loving candidate to support in this California primary election! We are in the uber-wealthy and uber-Republican District 48, and I don't have a lot of hope for Ron's chances down here. My husband and I have been supporting Ron Paul since 2007, and he is an attorney as well.

I completely agree with your policy on immigration--it is both right to protect the rule of law and national sovereignty, and necessary for winning a Republican nomination. I don't think that the other people understand how big of an issue this is among California Republicans (and even an increasing amount of Democrats and Independents) -- if you are not tough on illegal immigration you have no chance. I think that as long as you avoid making extremist statements that can be used against you in the general -- and don't fire any illegal alien housekeepers before then-- this is a nonissue.

I am sure that you have done your research on demographics, but you cannot win any Republican statewide office without a large percentage of South Orange County and North San Diego. We have the most Republicans by far, and over 85% voter registration rate. Unfortunately this is very much "establishment" country, and there is no great love for Ron Paul, despite a couple of great meet-up groups and local grassroots. His extremely poor 2008 California results were primarily due to only getting a couple of percent in these districts. That being the case, I'm not sure I agree with your prominent billing as a "Ron Paul Republican". Like most places, many will agree with the message but the name "Ron Paul" will cause immediate dismissal without consideration of your positions. I would prefer a little more under the radar and sticking to the issues. Just my 2 cents.

Anyway, you can count on 2 more votes here!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Has the GOP candidate already been selected?

http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci_20157180/state-gop-endorses-danvilles-emken-u-s-senate

The California Republican Party on Monday endorsed Elizabeth Emken of Danville over several other GOP contenders to unseat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I thought Campbell was a decent guy.

He was decent, but he switched races very late in the game. It reeked of an insider political deal...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

More on this story:

California GOP Endorses Emken for U.S. Senate

First CA Republican Candidate to Earn Statewide Nod
Under New Open Primary Rules
Published: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:01 PM PDT
(BURBANK, CA) - Republican U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Emken, an accomplished businesswoman specializing in efficiency and cost-cutting, and nationally recognized advocate for autism research and treatment, has received the unanimous endorsement of the California Republican Party in her bid to unseat Dianne Feinstein from the U.S. Senate.

“This is the equivalent of winning the primary under the old system,” said California Republican Party Executive Director Brent Lowder.

Under the new open primary system, Emken's endorsement gains the full support and backing of the California Republican Party’s statewide operations. Elected state party leaders met yesterday in Burbank as dozens of candidates from Assembly, State Senate, and Congressional races, as well as the U.S. Senate contest, made their bids for the party’s endorsement.

“This was a humbling experience and a tremendous honor to receive the Party’s endorsement,” said Emken. “I look forward to the challenge ahead and will start right away building a strong partnership with Chairman Del Beccaro and Republican leaders as we work toward victory together.”

Emken becomes the first Republican candidate to earn the Party’s statewide endorsement under a format established as a result of Proposition 14, California’s new open primary that eliminated the traditional ballot process to determine Republican nominees.

http://www.highlandnews.net/articles/2012/03/12/opinion/columns/doc4f5e7236a9210332081965.txt

 

[bluesc]

Has the GOP candidate already been selected?

I don't think so. That was just an endorsement from the state GOP.

The election system in California is all messed up. I don't think there is a primary anymore, at least in the traditional sense.

Chris Mann, Ramirez' campaign manager, said his camp is "disappointed that the Board of the California Republican Party voted to support a candidate we believe cannot be successful against Feinstein. Fortunately this race will be decided by the voters, not the GOP establishment." He said Ramirez is best-positioned to appeal to Latinos and independents, which will be crucial blocs in order to beat Feinstein.

The party in the past hasn't made primary election endorsements, but state's new "top-two" primary system necessitated a change. In this system, all voters choose from among all candidates regardless of party, and the top two vote getters advance to November's general election -- even if they're of the same party.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think so. That was just an endorsement from the state GOP.

The election system in California is all messed up. I don't think there is a primary anymore, at least in the traditional sense.

The party in the past hasn't made primary election endorsements, but state's new "top-two" primary system necessitated a change. In this system, all voters choose from among all candidates regardless of party, and the top two vote getters advance to November's general election -- even if they're of the same party.

From this, it looks entirely possible that after the Primary, there could be two Democrats running for US Senate with no GOP choice at all. So the GOP Party has instituted a smoky backroom deal process where they will choose a GOP candidate and "tell" all Californians who they should vote for in the Primary. Nice.

 

[Rick Williams]

The endorsement of one Republican candidate by the GOP Insiders at the start of the primary process is yet another effort by fading Party "leaders" to hang onto some relevance. The new "open" primary model in California means that Democrats and Independents can vote along with Republicans to decide who the second "slot" will go to on the general election ballot. The Republican insiders fear that Ds and Is will swamp the Republican Party voters, and choose either Orly Taitz or me for that second slot. Neither Orly nor I are beholden to the Party insiders; and the insiders want one of their own. The candidates that are hurt by this endorsement are the other Republican insider types (there are 5 insiders running). The Party is eating its own by choosing one insider against the others; and the net effect is that the Party itself is weakened by this sort of action. They simply don't trust their own voters-- quite a viewpoint for a political party to have, when you think about it.

 

[sailingaway]

The endorsement of one Republican candidate by the GOP Insiders at the start of the primary process is yet another effort by fading Party "leaders" to hang onto some relevance. The new "open" primary model in California means that Democrats and Independents can vote along with Republicans to decide who the second "slot" will go to on the general election ballot. The Republican insiders fear that Ds and Is will swamp the Republican Party voters, and choose either Orly Taitz or me for that second slot. Neither Orly nor I are beholden to the Party insiders; and the insiders want one of their own. The candidates that are hurt by this endorsement are the other Republican insider types (there are 5 insiders running). The Party is eating its own by choosing one insider against the others; and the net effect is that the Party itself is weakened by this sort of action. They simply don't trust their own voters-- quite a viewpoint for a political party to have, when you think about it.

They were very unhappy with us when we went to the state GOP convention and voted for Ron in the state straw poll, I do remember that. Very prunish looks. And I was nothing but nice, honest!

 

[PolicyReader]

bump for supporting our own and liberty

 

[Vet_from_cali]

wish you well on your campaign