According to the Tenth Amendment Center, last week Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by RLC-endorsed State Representative Susan Lynn. At a meeting several months ago, Tennessee RLC Vice-Chair Matt Collins encouraged Lynn to draft the resolution.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions — Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana — but Tennessee is the first to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.

The Tenth Amendment Center says that “[p]assage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels. Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 36 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.”

Most recently, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure for public approval on the 2010 state ballot that would give Arizona voters the opportunity to nullify, or opt out, of any potential national health care legislation.

The resolution will be forwarded to Congress and the President for their information.

According to CQ Politics, investor and financial commentator Peter Schiff is doing polling in Connecticut to gauge support for a potential Republican Senate run. Schiff has signed on prominent Republican polling firm Wilton Research Strategies to survey the state, his brother and spokesman Andrew Schiff told CQ Politics.

“Peter is a non-traditional candidate,” said Andrew Schiff of his brother, an outspoken libertarian who has gained attention for correctly predicting the collapse of the mortgage industry despite mockery from other industry analysis. “We’re attracting a lot of very fervent believers. The question is whether or not this will all resonate with the voters of Connecticut.”

Indeed, Schiff was not considering a Senate run against five-term Sen. Christopher J. Dodd until he became the subject of an aggressive drafting campaign this past winter. Schiff’s first brush with politics was as an economic adviser to Republican Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. That role linked him into a network of Paul supporters who have urged Schiff to run for office — Andrew Schiff said his brother has been “bombarded with emails and phone calls” over the last several months.

What remains unclear is whether Schiff has a legitimate shot of taking on more traditional politicians like former Rep. Rob Simmons and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri in the Republican primary and Dodd in a general election.

“We do think there’s certainly room for the fiscally conservative, libertarian wing of the party to attract a lot of attention in the Northeast,” Andrew said, adding that Peter is prepared to develop a policy portfolio not just on finance and monetary policy, his speciality, but also on hot-button issue like health care and energy. But economics will remain is major focus.

“We’re leaning towards a run,” he said, however, “Peter doesn’t want to spend a lot of time and money if there’s really no chance.”

Earlier in the month, RLC chapter leaders from the DC, Maryland, and Virginia RLC affiliates gathered in the nation’s capital to discuss strategy for the 2010 election cycle.

Below is a photo from the event.  Thus far in 2009, the RLC has chartered new state chapter affiliates in Maryland, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, and Washington. Additionally, RLC chapters that were previously inactive (at least for a short period) have been revived in New Hampshire, Texas, and Virginia.

Front row, from left: Dave Nalle (National Chair), Aaron Biterman (National Press), Brett Guidry (DC Treasurer), Nancy Sellers (DC Secretary); back row, from left: Daniel Kamerling (guest), Rick Sincere (Virginia At-Large Board member), Steven Latimer (Virginia Vice-Chair), Matt Gagnon (Virginia Chair), Dr. Scott Pearson (guest), John Orlando (Maryland Chair), and Stephen Wright (Maryland Treasurer) plus his wife.

Since 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus has existed as a fairly small caucus within the Republican Party. Since around 2006, the RLC has continued to grow and assert more influence on internal Party politics — including party elections and general elections.

When then-relatively unknown Congressman Ron Paul announced his bid for President in January of 2007, he came to the Republican Liberty Caucus for support. That support was provided.

Dr. Paul’s campaign gained momentum primarily through the Presidential debates, when he was able to differentiate himself from the others running through his consistent message of reduced government and restoration of individual freedoms.  Contrast is always needed in campaigns, and Paul’s stark contrast to the rest of the pack provided the incentive for disenfranchised, liberty-loving Americans to join our movement for a free America.

Last month, financial expert Peter Schiff addressed attendees at the Libertarian Party Convention in Connecticut.

Mr. Schiff eloquently explained the Republican Liberty Caucus strategy and urged the audience to find liberty-loving Republican candidates to support.

From liberals and conservatives, from grassroots activists to lawmakers — the Fed is under attack for its role in aiding Bank of America’s takeover of Merrill Lynch, for which Bank of America received $20 billion in bailout funds. Says The Wall Street Journal:

“House lawmakers aren’t known for bipartisanship, but congressmen from both parties managed to come together from opposite sides at a House Oversight Committee hearing today to besiege Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.”

“The onslaught was near universal, but the attacks came on different flanks. Republicans railed against what they perceived as a government imposing its will on business. Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) kept bringing up the October 2008 meeting where Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, alongside Bernanke, presented bank CEOs with the TARP capital injections. “Do you see how a reasonable person could reach the conclusion that there, in fact, was this pattern of pressure from the government?”

“Ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) took a similar attack, after yesterday accusing the Fed of a coverup. He focused on the Bank of America deal with Merrill, indicating that it was reasonable for BofA to back out, and that government pressure pushed it into the deal.”

Politico features an article that refers to RLC Adviser Ron Paul (R-TX) as a trendsetter on the issue. Paul’s bill to mandate the first-ever audit of the Fed suddenly finds itself with 242 co-sponsors.
“Could it be possible that the Fed not only can cause these bubbles, but they’re … acting on their own?” asks Dr. Paul.

Senator Jim Bunning, who faces a tough re-election campaign, has also been a persistent critic of the Fed. “The Federal Reserve has handed out over $2 trillion to various financial institutions with absolutely no accountability for who they are giving to and how much those institutions are getting,” Bunning said. “I have asked repeatedly for an answer to this — but without success. If the Fed is going to print money hand over fist that the United States government can’t afford, I think the taxpayers have a right to know exactly who they are giving this money to and how much. It’s time for the Fed to come clean with the American people.”

In the Senate, Jim DeMint (R-SC) is the lead co-sponsor of HR 1207. He spoke to Glenn Beck about the bill on Tuesday:

Will the Fed have to finally answer to the people?

Reprinted from today’s edition of The Pioneer Press:

In his opinion piece “Why I am leaving the Minnesota GOP,” Lt. Col. Joe Reypa paints a pretty damning picture of the Republican Party of Minnesota. As Republican grass-roots activists, we have witnessed and experienced what Joe described as “tyrannical domination over the grass-roots” of the party.

We agree with Joe when he says “it is time to stop enabling bad behavior from that party.” Joe is a friend who has been a principled champion of freedom and liberty for many years; he remains a friend. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that “the Minnesota GOP is no longer capable of being saved.”

This is why we are not leaving the Minnesota GOP. Not only can the Minnesota GOP be saved, it must be saved.

While the Republican Party has drifted away from the fundamental principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution — the primacy of individual sovereignty, the sanctity of private property and preservation of the rule of law — the Minnesota DFL has coalesced around the national Democratic Party values: the collective good over individual pursuit of happiness, the property needs of the state over the property rights of the individual, and government power restrained only by the grace of the majority, irrespective of the rule of law. History warns us that a nation so divided cannot long endure.

And this is why we choose to remain in the Minnesota GOP: Despite past leadership flaws, the Minnesota GOP remains the last best hope for resurrecting Quantcast
republican, constitutional government. It is the last best hope for individuals who want to make their own decisions about health care, their children’s education, where they live, what they eat and how they worship. The Minnesota GOP is the last best hope for preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the last best hope for a productive society capable of creating the wealth that makes compassion possible.

The groups we represent — the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Campaign for Liberty, and Minnesotans for Limited Government, and many other like-minded liberty-oriented organizations — are evidence that hope is not dead.

To Joe’s point, many of our groups have sprung up and grown strong because the Minnesota GOP abdicated its role as protector of republican principle — endorsing capital “R” Republicans regardless of their allegiance to small “r” republican principle. But for whatever reason our groups came into being, they exist, and they are making a difference.

When the campaign for GOP officers began, the emphasis was on “Platform Conservatism,” the notion that the “best conservative,” the “best Republican,” was the one who could put the most check marks next to the 171 planks of a 5,100-word party platform. Over the course of the campaign, the debate changed.

Republicans started talking about “Principled Conservatism” as an alternative to the litmus test of platform politics. The grass-roots felt empowered; a candidate for chair was drafted by the party’s grass-roots. With no “old guard” support whatsoever, he nearly pulled off the upset.

A Web site and Facebook group, “Grassroots for an Open Republican Party,” described a Republican Party that doesn’t just win elections, but one that earns respect as a party of integrity and principle. Both the newly elected chair and deputy chair of the Minnesota GOP signed on as supporters.

Campaign for Liberty supporters of Ron Paul (who as Joe notes were systematically shut out of the 2008 GOP State Convention) remain engaged in the Republican Party, actively supporting liberty-oriented candidates and conservative/libertarian principles.

The Republican Liberty Caucus, “the conscience of the Republican Party,” exists to promote individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party.

Minnesotans for Limited Government is educating the party and public on the principles of limited government and supporting liberty-minded candidates.

There is an old adage that describes change as frightening when done to us, but exhilarating when done by us. This is an exhilarating time to be a Republican.

The frightening change taking place in the country, the abandonment of republican government and fundamental constitutional principles, is a wake-up call. Now is our “Time to Choose.” It is our time to stop an ever-intrusive government from doing change to us. It is our time to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States. It is our time to put American principles to the test. It is our time to reform, re-energize and resurrect the last best hope of American constitutional government — the Republican Party.

That is why we are emphatically not leaving the Minnesota GOP.

David FitzSimmons of Cokato is chairman of the Minnesota Republican Liberty Caucus: rlcmn.org; Marianne Stebbins of Excelsior is coordinator of the Minnesota Campaign for Liberty: www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/MN; and Mitch Imbertson of Maplewood is Communications Committee Chair of Minnesotans for Limited Government: www.mnlg.org.

Like an old joke turned ironically true, it seems that the government is now preparing to actually tax us for breathing. This comes in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) which is likely to come to the floor of the Congress as early as this Friday. It is the legislative culmination of the ongoing eco-madness based on the idea that the carbon dioxide is a form of toxic pollution, despite the fact that it is produced in nature, is part of the atmospheric cycle on which all life is based, and is shown to stimulate plant growth and the replenishment of the atmosphere.

Of course, the truth is that carbon dioxide is not an environmental threat, but is merely being raised as a bogeyman to allow for the passage of laws like this new energy bill whose real purpose is social engineering and anti-capitalism. It’s the perfect bogeyman because it’s everywhere and can never actually be eliminated plus it’s produced by almost every human activity — we even breathe it out with every breath. This means that a “carbon tax” can be applied to almost anything and becomes an excuse for raising taxes on everyone through indirect methods where the taxes end up being passed on to consumers in the form of energy price increases. John Dingell (D-MI) who is the senior Democrat in the House admitted recently that “nobody in the country realizes cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

The heart of this energy bill is the idea of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other more serious pollutants, specifically targeting fossil fuels and making it costlier to use them, thereby pushing energy businesses to move into more earth-friendly sources of power. This is combined with the idea of “cap and trade” which allows companies which produce high emissions to buy offsets from companies which produce low emissions, thereby subsidizing the low polluters at the cost of the high polluters.

This all sounds great in abstract, but the problem is that 85% of America’s energy currently comes from fossil fuels of one sort or another, so the initial aggregate cost of the program will be huge. The other problem is that cap and trade just doesn’t work. As has been demonstrated in those nations where it has been used, energy companies find it more practical to just pass on the additional cost to consumers so the net result of all of this is not a reduction in pollution, just a massive increase in prices for energy consumers — effectively a big additional personal tax on every man woman and child in the nation, something they can ill afford in hard economic times.

Analysis of the consumer cost which this program would create suggests that by 2035 the price of gasoline would increase 58 percent, natural gas would go up 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and the typical electric bill would go up a whopping 90 percent. These would be increases to the baseline price and in addition to added cost from inflation and any natural fluctuation in the price of oil. In addition there would be secondary costs as the higher prices impact transportation and manufacturing and create sudden artificial inflation in almost every area of the economy. The finall cost for consumers would be almost $3000 per year starting as soon as the bill is implemented, and within 25 years the cost per family will have increased to almost $5000.

There are also other secondary costs to the economy in taking such a huge amount of money (almost $400 to $600 billion per year) out of the economy. Companies will look to cut costs and that means cutting jobs and wages. Families will not be able to pay the added energy costs and that means an increase in household debt.

The impact on jobs is particularly troubling and has been explored in depth in a stufy (PDF) done in Spain when they implemented a similar program. The administration is promoting this bill as one which creates more “green” jobs. What they don’t mention is that every one of those green jobs created comes at a cost of the loss of 2.2 existing jobs and most of the new jobs are temporary jobs in construction and installation or jobs which cease to exist when the new technology proves to be inefficient and is abandoned. It is estimated that 90% of the jobs created are temporary, so the long-term ratio is more like 20 jobs lost for every job created. Added to the massive job loss already caused by the administration’s failing economic policies this might be a cost too great for the nation to bear.

Massive job loss and energy cost increases for consumers were the result when Spain implemented a carbon tax with cap and trade, and it is that system which President Obama is using as a model for his program. President Obama regularly cites Spain as an example to look to for energy policy, despite the fact that the economic and human impact there has been devastating, prolonging recession, increasing unemployment and taking money out of the pockets of every consumer. The upside is that it is one of the factors contributing to the crushing defeat of Spain’s socialist government in the latest election which brought in more pragmatic reformers.

Fear-mongering about “catastrophic global warming” is being used by powerful lobbying groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council to drive support for this bill with no consideration of the damage which will be done to the economy and to consumers. And when you look at the bottom line, the projected outcome of all of this cost and suffering is estimated to be less than two-tenths of one degree in worldwide temperature change by the end of the century. Meanwhile the nation is enjoying what is reported to be one of the the coolest summers on record and a growing group of scientists led by Edward Teller are speaking out against climate change hysteria.

With a floor vote possible Friday, now is the time to contact your representative in congress and urge them to vote against HR2454. Remind them that you can’t afford to pay thousands in additional taxes to underwrite speculative technology and gratuitous expansion of the power of government. Tell them that carbon taxes and cap and trade have been a failure in Europe and that we can’t afford them here.

Last August, I blogged at RLC.org about Cheye Calvo, the Mayor of Berwyn Heights in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Last year, Calvo was sitting at home when a SWAT team barged into his home, shot his two dogs, and accused him of being a drug dealer. Calvo and his mother-in-law were handcuffed and interrogated for hours while surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of blood.

Police shot the Mayor’s seven-year-old black Labrador retriever, Payton, near the front door and then his four-year-old dog, Chase, also a black Lab, as the dog ran into a back room.

It became quite clear to everyone almost after-the-fact that the Mayor and his family were not drug dealers and Calvo says that he doesn’t even think the police considered that possibility before raiding the home.

Recently, the Maryland legislature passed a bill that was inspired by the SWAT team raid of Calvo’s home, called HB 1267, on SWAT Team Activation and Deployment Reporting.

The bill, also signed by Governor Martin O’Malley (D-Baltimore), requires any police agency in the state to review and report on SWAT team raids every six months. It also requires specifics about any raid, such as the reason for the deployment of the SWAT team, the legal authority for the SWAT raid, and the result of each activation and deployment.  Law enforcement agencies also have to report on whether a weapon was discharged by a SWAT team member, a forcible entry was made, or whether any person or domestic animal was injured or killed by a SWAT team member.

If local police agencies do not comply, then they will be reported to the Governor and the Legislative Policy Committee of the General Assembly.

This legislation will hopefully prevent future unncessary police raids on citizen’s homes.

Kudos to Maryland Republican Delegates Smigiel and McConkey for sponsoring the legislation along with the Democrats.

The Mayor and his wife, with their now-deceased dogs.

Voters are increasingly turning away from the Republican Party, as voter registration and voter identity polls increasingly illustrate. And there seems to be few voices of reason on where the Republican Party should go from this point forward.

Voters under 30 voted 66% to 32% for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 – part of the biggest age disparity the exit polls have ever measured in a race for president. Young voters were the GOP’s worst age group in 2006 and 2004 as well.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “History suggests that an entire generation’s partisan profile can be shaped in the first decade of voting. Imagine a Democratic-leaning millennial generation (those born between the late 1970s and the year 2000) adding 4 million potential voters a year to the U.S. electorate over the next decade.”

Young voters are less socially conservative than the electorate as a whole on issues ranging from homosexuality to immigration. They are also more secular and participate less in organized religion. In a recent Pew poll, 25% of Americans born since 1976 were atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – compared with 13% of baby boomers.

“Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes,” Republican consultant Mike Murphy wrote in Time magazine this month, lamenting in the same column that “A GOP ice age is on the way.”

The GOP also has to find a way to appeal to non-white voters.  In 2008, voters under 30 were 62% white while voters over 30 were 77% white .

So how can the GOP simultaneously attract black, Hispanic and Asian voters, continue its appeal to white voters, and also capture young voters?

Voters are looking for consistency — a cohesive vision for peace and prosperity — and solutions to our problems.

The Republican Liberty Caucus offers the solution: less government, more liberty.

Government at every level in this country continues to be too big, too intrusive, and too expensive.

Solutions we seek — from our nation’s dwindling health care system and dilapidated schools to our meddlesome foreign policy and increasing civil liberties violations — can be found when government is reduced or eliminated from the issue.

As a RLC Adviser Ron Paul has repeated time and again, liberty is the great unifier.  A vision of limited government unites all Americans in the great purpose of our nation’s government: to protect the rights of all American citizens and to be limited in scope and size.

Is there any vision more empowering than that?

by William Westmiller

I’m not persuaded that the proposals to audit or abolish the Federal Reserve are properly grounded in reality.

The Founders said very little about the specific powers granted Congress, but they clearly did NOT intend an unlimited power to create and manipulate currency: “… The authority of the existing Congress is restrained to the regulation of coin STRUCK by their own authority, or that of the respective States. It must be seen at once that the proposed uniformity in the VALUE of the current coin might be destroyed by subjecting that of foreign coin to the different regulations of the different States,” according to James Madison in Federalist 42.

In other words, the ONLY “money” they were authorized to create were gold and silver coins. Which is why the power to “coin” was included with the establishment of standard weights and measures. The ONLY “regulation” authorized was to ensure that coins were what the claimed to be (e.g., 1.0 troy ounce of .999 pure gold). The accuracy of value representation was the only thing to be “regulated.” Unfortunately, the clear and obvious meaning (at the time) of those sharply limited powers were not made explicit in the Constitution, although they were implied by the Section 10 ban on states coining money, or accepting anything other than gold or silver coins as legal tender.

So, what happened? For more than a century, all U.S. currency was denominated in gold or silver coin, even if it was a printed depository note for a fixed quantity of precious metals. Over time, the *notes themselves* became “dollars”, with the presumption (correct for a long period) of inherent worth.

Then, on the pretext of “expanding commerce”, Congress authorized more notes to be printed than the actual quantity of silver and gold that they claimed to represent. In other words, Congress decided to lie. The notes were no longer “certificates of demand deposit” for actual gold and silver, but were simple contrivances and fabrications. The actual gold and silver reserves were used to pay foreign debt, but the number of claims on those assets (”dollars”) were never reduced to match the actual reserves. In other words, the politicians decided that they could “create monetary value” out of thin air, or at least cheap paper.

That Congress was perpetrating a fraud on everyone who used the “dollar” – on the presumption of some inherent reserve value of hard assets – became evident when the “price” of gold in dollars (which had been roughly 1/35th an ounce) could no longer be sustained. Foreign governments noted the fraud first and started demanding actual gold for their U.S. paper certificates.

When domestic banks started noticing that redemption, they followed suit. In other words, they “called the bluff” of Congress: the notes being printed did NOT actually correspond with the precious metal assets. Their only protection from congressional profligacy was to actually redeem dollar certificates for actual gold and silver. So, the federal government had no choice but to “free float” the “dollar” relative to gold. They abandoned the implied Constitutional restriction, so that they could “create more monetary value” (and spend it) without actual increasing asset deposits. Thus, inflation was born from the political craving to produce “something from nothing.”

When the inflationary consequences of this fraud became evident in the rising price of gold, legislators all agreed that they simply couldn’t control themselves. So, they handed over their imaginary power to create fiat currency to an independent body of bankers, with instructions to do it right: keep inflation low (”sustainable”) without adversely impacting employment (just enough to maintain the illusion of government’s claimed ability to “create jobs”). Thus, the Federal Reserve was founded, with a mandate to use this fabricated federal power to create “money” from nothing … in a “responsible” way. Of course, that was an impossible assignment.

Which (finally) leads to my concern.

IF the Federal Reserve is abolished and Congress “re-claims” the imaginary power to fabricate “money”, how does that solve any problems? Absent a “reconstruction” of the original intent of Article 8, who do you trust more: Ben Bernanke or Barney Frank? A handful of people who have some interest in a stable money supply (required for the maintenance of any common sense in banking), or a handful of politicians who really believe that government CAN create something from nothing? Shouldn’t the point be that NO politician should have ANY control whatever over the money supply? Short of jailing people who perpetrated monetary fraud (most of whom are long dead), what are the chances that Congress (or the Supreme Court) will actually acknowledge that their SOLE power is to coin true money, denominated in precious metals, that are actually held as reserves against paper depository notes?

IF the Federal Reserve is audited, what will that disclose? It certainly won’t reveal the fundamental fraud which average Americans take for granted (that “dollars” ARE “money”), nor will it encourage any kind of dispassionate analysis of “sustainability” or constraint. It will simply insert Congressional “oversight” and superficial “review” of the banker’s best judgment (judgments they shouldn’t be making in the first place). What will voters “demand” of their legislators: more “money” or less “money”?

Audit or abolish the Federal Reserve and you are almost surely guaranteed to have massive runaway inflation in short order. Maybe a “good thing” for the gold bugs who imagine that the “dollar value” of their assets is anything more than illusion (just like the artificial “growth” in GDP), but it will certainly be a very bad thing for every other American.

Rather than attacking the Federal Reserve “bogeyman”, we should work to educate people about the actual limited constitutional powers that Congress should not be allowed to abridge. That may be more difficult than attacking powerful icons or cloistered financial celebrities, but that is the ONLY real solution.

Mr. Westmiller is the past Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus.