Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was a guest on the Washington Times radio show the other day.

BACHMANN: The motherload of all data information will be from the Census. … Unfortunately, the Census data has become very intricate, very personal, a lot of the questions that are asked. I know for my family, the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.

And rightfully so. There’s no reason to answer additional questions.

But the left (including “Think Progress”, Ed Schultz, and various leftist blogs) is attacking Bachmann for “breaking the law”.

For the first six censuses (1790-1840) enumerators recorded only the names of the heads of household and a general demographic accounting of the remaining members of the household.

Let’s go back to that and nothing more. In the case of the census, Bachmann is spot on.

RLC members are all over the libertarian and conservative quadrants, with varying degrees of radicalism. We all also tend to colorful.

Our goal is to influence the Republican Party and its candidates and move them towards a more libertarian worldview.

However, Republicans in general are far more moderate and mainstream than we are.

This means we have to be careful in how we present ourselves, or we risk alienating ourselves from them. We obviously lose our effectiveness if we are perceived as being kooky or extreme.

The party doesn’t care too much about ideology, but it does care about winning elections — and it will reject anyone or any group that it perceives might turn voters away.

What does this all mean?

Well, we need to be very aware of how others perceive us.

I was at a liberty-oriented meeting a couple of months ago where the first item on the agenda was keeping the meeting secret. If you feel you have to keep your RLC discussions secret from the voters, or the press, or the GOP leadership, then you’re discussing stuff that probably shouldn’t be a part of the RLC. If you see people start to slowly edge away from you, that usually means you’ve exceeded their comfort zone.

Don’t take this wrong way! You are free to believe and talk about whatever you want. But please be aware of what hat you are wearing when you talk about it. Please don’t give the RLC the reputation of being kooks and extremists.

Our core principle is limited government, as opposed to big government social conservatism or other forms of big government Republicanism. The limited government part seems pretty mainstream, if presented properly. Not so with social conservatism, which is controversial and divisive. Big government Republicanism is pretty much mimicking Democrats with a different (e.g., “kinder, gentler”) set of moral values.

Another aspect of getting mainstream support is presenting limited government solutions to the problems of greatest interest, rather than running off into the weeds that no one cares about. While advocates of limited government might obsess on gun rights, drug decriminalization, etc, it’s better to focus on a small set of issues that are of greatest interest to mainstream voters.

Recent polls show those issues are (in order): the economy, the federal budget, health care, the wars, education, terrorism, and energy policy. Those are mainstream issues for which we have limited government solutions that should appeal to mainstream voters.

Recent polls show self-described “conservatives” are the biggest voting block, exceeding self-described “liberals” by a huge margin and self-described “moderates” by a small margin. At the same time, self-described “Democrats” and “independents” are the biggest voting blocks, exceeding self-described “Republicans” by huge margins.

Something is seriously wrong when conservatives have turned against Republicans like that.

David Johnson and Bob Giramma are members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California.

I got into a debate last night with a friend.

I argued that, as a movement, we lack a cohesive and comprehensive strategy to gain Senate and House seats (not to mention seats in state legislatures across the country).

I asserted that most of “the liberty movement’s” tier-one candidates are in races that are simply not winnable due to district demographics and voting trends.

In 2008, for example, RLC-endorsed candidate B.J. Lawson ran for Congress in North Carolina’s District 4 [map]. In that race, Lawson — an extremely energetic and telegenic candidate — received 37% of the vote, or 151,672 votes. Price, the incumbent establishment Democrat, received 63%, or 263,151 votes [1].

The fact of the matter is that it is nearly impossible for a Republican to win in North Carolina’s Fourth District. The most recent Republican elected in that district, Fred Heineman, held the office for just two years, from 1995 to 1997. Notably, Heineman was elected during the Republican Revolution of 1994.  But the district’s demographics have radically shifted since that point.

By looking at the Presidential numbers in 2008, we can gauge just how left-of-center the district is — i.e., how unwilling district residents would be to elect ANY Republican, telegenic or not, to Congress.

In Wake County, Obama beat McCain by nearly 64,000 votes (250,891 votes to 187,000 votes). In Orange County, Obama more than doubled McCain’s vote share — 53,000 votes to 20,000 votes. Worst of all, in Durham County, Obama beat McCain by over 71,000 votes — more than tripling McCain’s vote share (103,456 to 32,353).

So, in North Carolina 4, excluding Chatham County (a small portion of which is in the district), Obama received approximately 407,300 votes and McCain received just around 240,000 votes — a difference of over 165,000 votes [2].

B.J. Lawson is an extremely persuasive candidate, but it would be nearly impossible for any Republican to win in NC 4. In my opinion, Lawson should run for a different (and more winnable) office rather than run again in 2010.

In New Mexico’s District 3 [map], we’ve been hearing a lot about Adam Kokesh, a firebrand running against incumbent Democrat Ben Luján.

It is not clear what party Kokesh plans to run with, but if he runs as a Republican, he certainly has his work cut out for him to make any inroads in this district.

In the 2008 GOP primary for the seat, for example, a tiny number of Republicans turned out to vote in the Congressional primary between candidates Marco Gonzales and Daniel East.  Gonzales, considered the more libertarian-leaning of the two candidates, lost the primary against East.

The Republican primary turnout in 2008 for New Mexico District 3 was a mere 27,400, compared to the 247,910 Democrats who turned out to vote in their primary  — a difference of over 220,000 voters [1].  This information alone tells you that no Republican has any chance of wining this seat in 2010.

Also take into account that New Mexico’s District 3 is over 36% Hispanic and nearly 20% American Indian.  Ben Luján, the incumbent, is both Hispanic and American Indian, so even when we remove party identification as a parameter, Luján would be likely to win the seat based on ethnic identity — especially if his sole opponent in the race is Caucasian.

Obama did even better than Luján (the Democrat incumbent) did in 2008, winning more than 61% of the vote against McCain (171,556 votes to 110,521 votes) [2]. In 1996, a Republican, William Redman, was elected in New Mexico 3.  However, the only reason Redman won is that a Green Party candidate took votes away from the Democrat nominee. Redman was defeated in his next election by ten percentage points.

My point is that this race — New Mexico 3 — is not a good investment for the liberty movement and donors should spend their hard-earned money on a different race.  Even in 2008, with Luján lacking incumbent status and with a third party candidate in the race who received 13% of the vote, the Republican still didn’t come within 20 percentage points of beating Luján.

Finally, let’s look at Oklahoma, District 4 [map], where liberty Republican R.J. Harris is waging a primary campaign against incumbent Tom Cole.

Cole is the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the fourth-ranking Republican leader in the House. Presumably, this means that if he was ever in electoral trouble, he would get a lot of help (read: money) from the NRCC.

The district itself is a safe Republican district, with Bush receiving 67% of the vote in 2004. It is located in south-central Oklahoma and borders Texas (along the Red River, to the south). The district covers a total of 15 counties (in whole or in part).

Cole was first elected in 2002, when he beat his Democrat rival by a fairly small margin for such a Republican district — 15,000 votes.  (As you may recall, 2002 was a year of GOP gains.)  In the last two elections, Cole has received around 65% of the vote in his district [1].

However, Cole hasn’t had to defend himself in a Republican Party primary.  Of the three races I have analyzed, this race makes the most sense for us to target — at least from a strategy perspective.

Tom Cole could be vulnerable because of his vote for the bailouts and his close ties to the NRCC — both of which paint him as an insider.  I don’t know what kind of candidate Harris is or if he has any talent as a spokesman or campaigner, but the demographics of this Congressional district provide a chance of success under the right circumstances and with the right candidate.

Moreover, when compared to the two other districts (NC 4 and NM 3), I think OK 4 voters will better identify with our core message of social and economic freedom.  Of course, it will also be fun to have Tom Cole as our dart board.

Overall, the liberty movement needs to be very careful where we send our money and where we spend our time.  Our resources are far too few to be wasting them on high-profile Congressional races that are being run “to educate voters”.  One Ron Paul in Congress is not good enough!

“The 2010 election cycle is just around the corner,” according to Dr. Paul, so “…[w]e must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.”

Part of waging a successful battle is recruiting candidates in races where we can win!

The liberty candidates our movement supports must be able to win as our liberties slip away at record pace.

Time and resources are scant.  Careful decision-making, meticulous planning, and sound strategy will make the difference.

Will we do it?

With a stroke of his pen, Texas Governor Rick Perry may soon give Child Protective Services a new power: the ability to pick up your kids without your consent.

So the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, along with the Texas Home School Foundation and the Free Market Foundation, are waging war against SB 1440. The bill features a last-minute amendment tacked on by Democratic Rep. Patrick Rose that gives Child Protect Services the power to transport a child for purposes of an investigation without a hearing or parental consent. Instead, the agency needs only an affidavit that says there’s a “fair probability” of abuse.

If the bill became law, a judge would be able to grant Child Protect Services a court order similar to a criminal search warrant, allowing a CPS worker to immediately enter the home and, if necessary, remove the child and secure medical and mental-health records as part of an investigation. It could be done without notifying the parent in advance.

In the below video, Texas RLC member Pierre DeRochemont speaks at a June 10 Houston rally in opposition to the bill.

Recently, Newsweek featured a headline claiming that “We Are All Socialists Now.” Perhaps it should have featured a picture of Demetrius Poliorcetes on the cover instead. The history of the ancient Hellenistic cities in what is now Arabia and Turkey might provide more useful knowledge about what is happening in the United States than one can find in newspapers, magazines or on television.

Michael Rostovtzeff was a Ukrainian-born archaeologist and professor of ancient history at Yale beginning in 1925. He died in 1952. He was among the first historians to study the ancient world’s economies and to emphasize the role of capitalism in the rise and decline of ancient societies.

I have just started reading Rostovtzeff’s monumental Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire*, one of a number of massive books that he authored. The text runs to 488 pages but there are in addition more than 200 pages of footnotes. Friends of liberty will do well to consider Rostovtzeff’s work.

He starts the book by discussing the history of Greece and the Hellenistic city states that Greeks founded in what is now Arabia and Turkey. He notes that “class warfare” was common in classical Greece proper. “This class-war made the growth and development of a sound capitalistic system very difficult.” In classical Greece there were widespread movements for redistribution of land and abolition of debts. The problem was so widespread that Athens and Itana in Crete required citizens to swear that they would not put redistribution of land and abolition of debts to the vote. It seems that ACORN has precedents.

Rostovtzeff writes:

“Revolution and reaction followed each other with brief delays, and were marked by wholesale slaughter or expulsion of the best citizens…What was lost by the Greek cities of the European mainland and most of the islands was gained by the Hellenistic monarchies and more especially by the Greek cities of the East.”

Unlike the democracies in Greece proper, the eastern Hellenistic kings of the fourth and third centuries BC were anti-libertarian capitalists, much like more recent rulers of Chile and post-Mao China. “The result was that every attempt at a social revolution within their gates was stopped by the strong hand of the Hellenistic monarchs, and that the cities were very rarely involved in external warfare.”

The kings’ anti-libertarian suppression of revolution had a libertarian effect, at least temporarily. “The accumulation of capital and the introduction of improved methods in trade and industry proceeded more freely and successfully in the East than in the cities of Greece proper. Hence the commercial capitalism of the Greek cities of the fourth century attained an ever higher development, which brought the Hellenistic states very near to the stage of industrial capitalism that characterizes the economic history of Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”

That is mind blowing. In the fourth and third centuries BC Greeks in Asia Minor were attaining 19th century levels of industrialization? In other words, from the year 300 BC until 1900 virtually no consistent economic progress was made? And how easy might it be to revert to the decline that followed the fall of the Roman Empire roughly 1500 years ago? True, these societies depended on slave labour. But recall that the American economy also so depended until 1862.

Rostovtzeff notes that the Greek cities not only had a large internal market and a large, competitive trade, but also:

“They gradually improved the technique of agricultural and of industrial production with the aid of pure and applied science…and they employed both in agriculture (including cattle-breeding) and in industry the methods of pure capitalistic economy based on slave-labour. They introduced for the first time a mass production of goods for an indefinite market. They developed banking and credit and succeeded in creating not only general rules for maritime commerce…but also a kind of common civil law, which was valid all over the Hellenistic world. The same tendency towards unification may be noticed in attempts to stabilize the currency, or at least to establish stable relations between the coins of the various independent trading states.”

These impressive advances, a globalization that occurred nearly 2,500 years ago, very quickly “stunted” and then was “atrophied” by “constant warfare which raged almost without interruption all over the Hellenistic world.” It didn’t take long for the military-industrial complex to assert itself.  ”The wars forced the Hellenistic states, both great and small, to concentrate their efforts on military preparations, on building up the largest possible armies and navies, on inventing new devices in military engineering, and thus wasting enormous sums of money as, for instance, in the case of the siege of Rhodes by Demetrius Poliorcetes.”

Rostovtzeff notes that this led to:

“Nationalization of both production and exchange, which was carried out in some, at least, of the Hellenistic monarchies, especially Egypt. By nationalization I mean the concentration of the management of the most essential branches of economic activity in the hands of the state, that is to say, of the king and his officials. Profitable at first for the state, this system gradually led to dishonesty and lawlessness on the part of the officials and to the almost complete elimination of competition and of the free play of the individual energy on the part of the population.

“Hand in hand with this tendency towards state control went the minute elaboration of a highly refined system of taxation, which affected every side of economic life. It was based on the experience of the Oriental monarchies, but it went much farther both in inventing new taxable objects and in improving the mode of collecting the taxes. The burden of taxation lay heavily on the population of the Hellenistic world…

“This disastrous economic system of the Hellenistic monarchies produced ever-growing discontent among the masses of the natives. From the end of the third century onwards the native population of Egypt, for example, rose repeatedly against its foreign oppressors…”

Naturally, the warfare and economic dislocations due to taxes and socialism in the Greek world opened the city gates to a rising new republic: Rome. Might the United States’ ever-expanding government spending; subsidization of corrupt and inefficient financial institutions and corporations; and its military-industrial complex open the door to the ascendancy of a new power, this time from the east?

*All quotes in this blog are taken from chapter 1, “Italy and the Civil War”.

Mitchell Langbert can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

For the second year in a row, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Utah endorsed a slate at the state GOP Convention.  Below is a Utah RLC flyer handed out at the state GOP Convention this past weekend promoting the RLC-endorsed candidates.

Of the endorsed RLC candidates, only one — former State Representative Morgan Philpot — was victorious.  Philpot challenged the incumbent Vice-Chair of the Utah GOP and was successful in his bid for the office.  In the photo below, RLC members rally around Philpot (center) to help his candidacy:

At it’s annual Convention earlier in the month, Charity Davis of Highland was elected Utah RLC Chair.  At the Convention State Senator Howard Stephenson and State Representative Craig Franks addressed the Utah RLC.  In the below photo, outgoing RLC Chair Lowell Nelson is presiding over the business meeting.

Watch Charlie at the NW Indiana Patriots Tea Party meeting in News |  

Last week, Charlie Kochenash, a rising star in Indiana politics and Chair of the Indiana Republican Liberty Caucus, addressed attendees at a Tea Party organizing meeting in Northwest Indiana. In the above video, Charlie Kochenash explains the RLC principles, the trouble that the GOP has encountered, and introduces attendees to the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.

Mr. Kochenash cites page 28 of the Republican Party platform from 2008, which says: “We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in markets exasperates problems in the marketplace and causes the free-market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free-market as the best tool to sustain property and opportunity for all.”

Since chartering its affiliate in September of 2008, the RLC in Indiana has also chartered regional RLC organizations in Hamilton, Lake, LaPorte, Marion, and Porter counties. Learn more about the RLC at www.INRLC.org.

Last April, the Republican Liberty Caucus encouraged its members to participate in Tax Day Tea Parties across the country — and many RLC members did so, as evidenced by these member photos.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 11, 2009

CONTACT: William Westmiller, (866) 752-5423

_______________________________________________________________________________

Republican Liberty Caucus Encourages Mark Sanford to Pursue Presidency
South Carolina Governor Would Restore American Commitment to Founding Principles

Thousand Oaks, CA — The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus has passed a resolution encouraging South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to seek the Republican nomination for U.S. President in 2012.

“Governor Sanford had an outstanding record in Congress, often voting his conscience on tough issues rather than just following the party line,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. “In Washington, Sanford opposed pork barrel projects even when they benefited his own district and he honored his term limits pledge and stepped down in 2000. In his two terms as governor of South Carolina, Sanford has shown independence and creativity and acted as a vigilant guardian of taxpayer interests,” said Nalle.

Sanford was the first U.S. Governor to reject a portion of the federal stimulus money earmarked for his state last March. Sanford also worked out a compromise with state legislators to accept federal funds, provided that the politicians eliminated the state’s debts.

Mark Sanford has consistently been one of the strongest voices in the nation for fiscal and individual responsibility. At a Cato Institute event in 2008, Governor Sanford explained that “there’s a battle line in our society: with government on one side and liberty – the hallmark of the American experiment – on the other.”

He also earned the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus when running for Congress and Governor. Consistently ranked at the top of the RLC’s “Liberty Index” – which began tracking votes in Congress on social and economic liberty in 1991 – Sanford’s overall rating was 82%.

“The nation needs a champion of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty now more than ever,” added National RLC Secretary Aaron Biterman, and “Sanford has demonstrated his commitment to those ideals and an ability to communicate them to voters.”

Although it is still early in the process and Governor Sanford has not yet announced his intentions for 2012, the Republican Liberty Caucus urges its members and other concerned citizens to encourage Governor Mark Sanford to seek the Republican nomination for U.S. President in 2012.

Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus exists to promote individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party by promoting those ideals among Party officials and its various organizations, identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with them, and promoting Caucus membership among Republican Party registrants, officials, and officeholders.

###

RLC SANFORD RESOLUTION

Adopted by the RLC National Committee on 6/8/2009

WHEREAS Washington is fundamentally broken;

WHEREAS wasteful government spending is out of control;

WHEREAS puppet politicians are promising to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have;

WHEREAS Americans continue to lose their freedoms as our nation creeps toward socialism;

WHEREAS the American people are looking for bold leadership to renew our republic; and

WHEREAS the Republican Liberty Caucus Statement of Principles should be implemented to solve these problems;

RESOLVE THAT the Republican Liberty Caucus Board of Directors encourages Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina to run for President of these United States in 2012;

That Governor Sanford is a bold, independent leader who is able to fend off Washington’s culture of corruption;

That Governor Sanford has a vision that will protect America while safeguarding individual liberty and reducing government power;

That Governor Sanford has a stellar record as South Carolina Governor and a former member of Congress;

That Governor Sanford has not only embraced the label ‘libertarian’, but his actions logically follow his words; and

That Governor Sanford should be the choice of all Americans who want to return the country to its Founding principles.

Obama has been meeting with top officials to map out a strategy for a new health regime for the Nation, much of it mandatory.

According to CBSNews.com, any health care reform plan that Obama signs is almost certain to call for nutrition counseling, obesity screenings and wellness programs at workplaces and community centers. He wants more time in the school day for physical fitness, more nutritious school lunches and more bike paths, walking paths and grocery stores in underserved areas.”

“The president is filling top posts at Health and Human Services with officials who, in their previous jobs, outlawed trans fats, banned public smoking or required restaurants to provide a calorie count with that slice of banana cream pie.”

The whole situation has libertarians craving a basket of onion rings and a beer.

“If you care about the sorts of things I do, then you are going to be losing big-time for the next four to eight years,” said David Harsanyi, a Denver Post columnist and author of the book “Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America Into a Nation of Children.”

Don’t get them wrong, critics such as Harsanyi say — they like broccoli and they lift barbells and they have no particular beef with a healthy president who was once described by his physician as having “no excess body fat.”

Says the paper, “They just don’t like it when government becomes the messenger and the enforcer.”

You can say that again.

An excerpt from an article by new RLC member Roderick T. Beaman:

“Is there another way? Yes. The Republican Party must ask what any measure does for freedom and the Constitution. This is the antitheses for any of the Marxist proposals which will come from the Democrats. They are the weapons to be used. Parry, thrust and ‘Touche’.”

“The RLC is growing across the country. There is a rising tide of resentment that is shaking the Republican leadership to its very core and which it will not be able to deny much longer.”

“This past weekend, along with many other members of the Jacksonville RLC, I attended a ‘Drive the Discussion’ meeting conducted by the Florida GOP in Lakeland. It was obvious that the rank and file were upset by the direction that party has taken, especially over the past eight years and as worried as those in attendance were over that, they are horrified at what has happened in just 21 weeks under a functionally Marxist president and Congress.”

“Thus, the opportunity strengthens along with this perfect economic storm that we are in the midst of. This is a radical problem and with radical problems come radical opportunities for radical solutions.”

Read the full article.

Dr. Roderick T. Beaman is an osteopathic family physician practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Born in New York City, he attended New York University as an undergraduate. He is a recipient of a 2003 Ron Paul Liberty in Media Award.