This week the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus finalized its list of endorsees for state and national office in the Texas Republican primary on March 2nd. The endorsements are based on recommendations from regional RLC chapters throughout the state. The RLC has endorsed more Congressional candidates in Texas than in any other state.

After reviewing the list, RLC Chairman Dave Nalle observed that “Ron Paul and Jerry Patterson have shown us that liberty Republicans can win state and federal offices in Texas and this year the selection of candidates is outstanding at every level. Texas will lead the way to restoring the tradition of liberty in the GOP.”

This round of endorsements includes only candidates who are in contested primaries. We look forward to great success when they carry on to victory in the general election in November.

Debra Medina, Governor (www.medinafortexas.com)

Tyler Russell, US House District 8 (www.tylerrussellforcongress.com)

Joe Petronis, US House District 10 (www.petronisforcongress.com)

Ron Paul, US House District 14 (www.ronpaulforcongress.com)

Stephen Schoppe, US House District 21 (www.schoppe.us)

George Morovich, US House District 25 (www.morovich.com)

Jessica Puente-Bradshaw, US House District 27 (www.texansforjessica.com)

Dick Bowen, Texas State Senate District 19 (www.dickbowen.com)

Holly Turner, Texas House District 47 (www.hollyfortexas.com)

Ryan Lambert, Texas House District 50 (www.lambertfortexas.org)

Stephen Casey, Texas House District 52 (www.stephencasey.net)

Melissa Goodwin, Judge, Third Court of Appeals (www.judgegoodwin.com)

Mike Barré, Travis County Justice of the Peace District 3 (www.barrefortexas.com)

Grant Rostig, Caldwell County Commissioner Place 4 (www.grantrostig.com)

These candidates represent the best that the Republican Party has to offer this year. They are visionary reformers, dedicated to the principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty. They join hundreds of other RLC candidates around the country who are part of our effort to elect a cadre of new leaders who will guide the Republican Party and our government back to the principles on which the nation was founded and which are embodied in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Information on current RLC endorsees can be found on our endorsements page.
A listing of all current RLC office holders by state can be found on our RLC office holders page.

In the 19th century there were ongoing debates about the degree to which government should be involved with money. It was not until the 1930s, more than 150 years after the nation was founded, that government asserted a full monopoly on money by illegalizing the ownership of gold.

By February 1912, about 98 years ago, Senator Bob La Follette, a small business-oriented Progressive and presidential candidate that year, made a speech in which he noted that Wall Street had come to so dominate the media that even recently founded magazines were no longer independent. The next day the New York Times ran an article stating that La Follette had suffered a nervous breakdown, effectively ending his candidacy for president. He continued on as a Senator until the 1920s.

Since then the media has avoided discussion of Wall Street and the Fed. Some, like Glenn Beck, claim ignorance. Others simply kowtow to special interests across the board. Still other media outlets, the majority, do not know what news is, so cannot be expected to discuss a subject like the Fed. Still others are consciously linked to the interests of Wall Street. In any case, Beck is to be commended for being the first to speak on this issue. But is that really a good thing?

Glenda McGee just wrote me this e-mail:

“Glenn Beck and Sarah Palan had me and a few million others THRILLED for many months. The minute the TEA PARTY showed promise in Arizona and Texas they led the movement over the cliff.”

Beck needs to do a better job if he is to remain convincing as a voice for advocates of small government. To do so, he could try a few things:

1. Read a few books on money and banking, including Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money and Hans Sennholz’s Money and Freedom. He might also read some Hayek and learn about the concept of free market money, an institution that existed here in the US for most of its history.

2. He could be playing an educational role. In the videos I’ve seen of him he claims ignorance. If he wants to be a leader, he should take the time to learn the issues. It’s fine to complain about the Fed’s ownership structure, but that doesn’t lead to any policy prescription.

3. He needs to learn basic history. Money has been a traditionally central argument in American politics until the past 80 years. The bad guys won and have been controlling the debate ever since.

4. Thus Beck could teach his viewers about: (a) the basic policy options, including competing, free market monetary systems and metallic-backed currencies and (b) the historical process by which centralized monetary control was rejected, re-adopted because it facilitates war (specifically the War of 1812), rejected again by Andrew Jackson, reinstated again in small part by the Republicans in order to finance the Civil War, rejected again during the Gilded Age , rejected by the public in the election of 1896, and then adopted by subterfuge in 1913 and re-enforced through fear tactics in 1932.

Shedding crocodile tears about the Fed’s ownership structure is a good way to seem like you oppose something that your boss at Fox really favors.

Let’s hope for a better performance from the undoubtedly theatrical but so far unconvincing Mr. Beck.

I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout.  In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout.  But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.

Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed.  One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.  This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.

A reader suggested  this blog by the Alantic Magazine‘s Andrew Sullivan.  Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists.  Sullivan writes:

“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”

I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York.  I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government.  There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations.  These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.

Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party.  However, Sullivan makes a good point.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced.  Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government.  They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush.  They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama.  The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again.  This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention.  Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.

I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right.  However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush.  The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party?  I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government.  Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.

Liberty Republicans have a communication challenge. That is, the concepts of limited government, freedom and liberalism are difficult for most people to understand. It is easier to understand the claim that you are helping someone by handing them money than the claim that by limiting government you unleash entrepreneurial energy. Add to that the socialists’ habit of co opting phraseology that characterizes the advocates of freedom, for instance, socialists’  purloining of the word “liberal”.

Nowhere is the challenge facing liberty Republicans greater than with respect to money and banking. The systemic lying about the role of the Federal Reserve Bank in the media and the misleading way in which the topic is taught in basic college courses in economics contribute to the problem. But the reality is that the subject is too abstract for Americans brought up to believe in “experts” and in the word of the federal government. Thus, a malaise of contradictions, confusion and just plain dumbing down makes it difficult for liberty Republicans to discuss economic and monetary issues.

The bailout was a major blow to freedom. Supported as it was by the media, university academics and most Republicrat socialists, it would take someone committed to freedom to say that they opposed. it.

Moreover, because the pro-banker socialist establishment from George W. Bush to Barack Obama favored the bailout, while the general public opposed it, it is a handy campaign issue. A candidate who can say they opposed the bailout and that there will be no more trillion dollar welfare plans for wealthy bankers can win.

Thus, we of the liberty Republican philosophy have a handy litmus test. We can oppose any candidate who favored the bailout, and favor candidates who opposed it.  This simplifies communication and offers a galvanizing campaign issue.  Moreover, the public is likely to be susceptible to our message. The likes of Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have revealed their socialist core.

And we can stop them.

Has the Tea Party Been Hijacked?

by Aaron Biterman

Origins of the Movement

I have been active in libertarian circles for more than a decade, so when Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign raised more than $6 million in one day for our Presidential candidate, I was jumping for joy. That was in December, 2007, and was in conjunction with a nationwide “Tea Party” protest of Big Government. At our local event in Georgetown, Ron Paul supporters hosted our own fundraising event in which we wrote “Income Tax”, “Federal Reserve”, and “Invasion of Iraq” on boxes and tossed them out the 2nd story window of the event venue onto the streets of Georgetown.

The “Tea Party” was a nationwide event organized by Ron Paul supporters. Therefore the original concept of the Tea Party was libertarian — in favor of individual liberties (including personal freedoms and the ability to make any choice that does not harm another), limited government, and free markets.

The summer after the MoneyBomb fundraising success, in 2008, I participated in a Revolution March with Ron Paul supporters in DC (that’s me, with the Ron Paul sign, below right).  The march was quite massive, likely with between 7,500 and 10,000 participants from all across the country. It ended with a concert in front of the nation’s capital which lasted all day.

2009 Resurgence

Things went quiet for a while, until early 2009.  That’s when Rick Santelli drew attention for his remarks made regarding the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan in February of last year — from the floor of the CME Group during pre-market hours.  Santelli accused the government of promoting bad behavior and called for a Chicago Tea Party in response. Scattered cheers, whistles and applause could be heard from some of the personnel around the floor.

I participated in my second tea party event when I was asked to speak at the Reston Tea Party (in northern Virginia) on April 15 of last year. My speech focused on an economic issue that I believe important on tax day: repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. In my speech, I discussed how I never was duped into voting for George W. Bush, but that those who did can now redeem themselves by working for liberty in 2009, 2010, and beyond. I was well-received despite the hard rain pouring down on me as I spoke. At the time of my speech, I could tell that a broad coalition of folks were attending the Tea Party, and I surely realized that not all of them would agree with me — especially on social issues. So be it.

Hijacked Tea Party?

But it’s now a year later, and the Tea Party seems to be transforming from a libertarian gathering to promote less intrusive government and celebrate our freedoms to a neo-con group promoting War in Iran, criticizing immigrants and diversity, and persecuting those with different religious views. Rachel Maddow and David Weigel from The Washington Post have provided excellent coverage of this transformation from the very beginning, interviewing libertarian bloggers like Steve Gordon and Jason Pye and even interviewing Congressman Ron Paul to gain their perspective on the Tea Party hijack. Maddow was shocked to learn that three so-called Tea Party supporters challenged the inspiration behind the Tea Party — U.S. Rep. Ron Paul — for Congress in his rural Lake Jackson/Victoria area district in Texas.

The “far left media” recently crowned Sarah Palin the new mother of the Tea Party movement. This is problematic for several reasons.

First, Palin is employed by FOX News, which has a history of propping up increased foreign intervention — including the War in Iraq. Second, Palin is closely associated with people who support increased interventionism abroad. In her most recent trip to Hong Kong, she brought a prominent media relations strategist/lobbyist named Randy Scheunemann. Third, there is a correct perception that Sarah Palin is scripted — she’s using talking points from people writing speeches for her rather than sharing what she really believes. (I’m sure she has some core beliefs, but what are they?)

Increased foreign interventionism, bigger military budgets, and sending our troops to more countries abroad is the exact opposite of what the original Tea Parties were all about — so libertarians, paleo-cons, and traditional Goldwater conservatives should be rightful skeptics of the strategists who have put into motion the hijacking of the Tea Parties.

There are several national groups claiming to lead the Tea Party. These include:

* The Tea Party Express, which created a campaign called Our Country Deserves Better. Of the $1.3 million raised for their campaign from July to November, $870,000 plus of it went to a single Republican campaign firm in California.

* The Tea Party Nation, run by Judson Phillips, which organized the recent Convention in Tennessee. Libertarian-leaning groups like Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and Eric Odom’s American Liberty Alliance decided not to participate after dealings with Phillips and his co-organizers.

* The Tea Party Patriots, which is working with FreedomWorks — headed by former U.S. Rep. Dick Armey.

Be wary of any national group trying to control local Tea Party organizations.

How Do We Proceed?

This is not the first time a libertarian concept has been adopted by others. It was libertarian economist Milton Friedman who developed the concept of school vouchers, but most of the credit was never given. The same is true of the Cato Institute, which developed the concept of Social Security privatization but is rarely credited with it. And who was it that was actively calling the War on Drugs a failure from the early 70s onward? Despite that most people recognize the failure of the War on Drugs, the Libertarian Party rarely receives credit for popularizing what is now plainly obvious: that the War on Drugs has not worked.

The original message of the Tea Party — let’s take our government back! – still rings true. It’s up to us to keep fighting to reclaim our personal and economic liberties — and that includes a humble and logical foreign policy.

I would encourage people who share the Republican Liberty Caucus commitment to limited government to attend local Tea Party meetings to get a flavor for what your local branch of the Tea Party is like. Certainly the flavor of the local Tea Party depends on who is leading it. The local Tea Party objectives should determine if it’s a good fit for you. If it isn’t, start your own Tea Party.

If more libertarian-leaning Republicans were leaders in the Tea Party movement, perhaps the Tea Party movement would have a decisively more libertarian flavor.

Overall, the credit for the Tea Party concept goes to the most innovative thinkers in politics today: libertarian Republicans and Ron Paul supporters. The current Tea Party is heading in the wrong direction, but whether it can reverse its course is up to us.

There’s never been a better time to get involved in the movement to change our government to one of, by, and for the people. I challenge you to become active in your area. Joining the Republican Liberty Caucus is a great place to start.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Aaron Biterman is Vice Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He is the Founder of LibertySlate.com.

I’m not going to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this month because of work difficulties but I urge those who are going to raise to two questions of all potential political candidates, and to do so publicly:

1. Where do you stand on the Bush/Obama subsidies to Wall Street?  What would you have done instead?

2. What specific action plan do you have to offer to overcome Congressional and bureaucratic resistance to termination of programs? The emphasis is on specific.

Last night some members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of DC braved the 20 inches of snow that hit the nation’s capital this weekend to hear remarks from former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Below are Bradley Jansen, Governor Johnson, and Pranav Badhwhar.

In the first primary race of 2010, David Ratowitz carried the cause of liberty to victory in the GOP primary for the 5th Congressional District of Illinois. Ratowitz was the only candidate for federal office officially endorsed by the RLC in Illinois and won his race by a solid margin over two opponents.

In November Ratowitz stands a good chance of beating big government Democrat incumbent Mike Quigley in a district which is mostly middle class Chicago suburbs and leans Democrat, but was held by a Republican during the mid 1990s.

Ratowitz commented after the final results were announced, as he and supporters celebrated at Wise Fools Pub in Chicago:

“My campaign was consistent, informed and relentless in its delivery of a limited government and free market message to the people of Congressional District 5. Ultimately, the voters – both in the city and the suburbs – roundly accepted that message as their own.

“I stand with the independent businesses and working families of the 5th Congressional District who are insisting, in no uncertain terms, on a far less intrusive federal government and increased fiscal responsibility at all levels. This victory is a decisive win for liberty, the first of many that will propel our campaign to success in November.

“I thank my family, supporters, staff and, most assuredly, my fellow citizens of Illinois District 5.”

The RLC looks forward to supporting Ratowitz through the general election and in bringing the liberty message to Washington DC after he wins in November.

Adam Andrzejewski is one of six Republicans running to become the standard bearer for the party’s upcoming statewide gubernatorial race.

Unlike each of his opponents, Andrzejewski is a common citizen — a father and businessman rather than a career politician.

The Illinois primary is today, ridiculously early, and catches us all off guard.

Illinois politics is unique, to be sure. It’s filled with a corrupt cesspool of self-aggrandizing politicians — in the Rod Blagojevich mold — each hoping to out-power one another to become king of the citizenry. It’s power politics, to be sure, and is filled with name-calling, manipulation, and maneuvering.

Adam Andrzejewski is a rare political outsider with common sense and commitment to limited and transparent government.  All of this is rare in Illinois politics, which is usually filled with special interest candidates or those with a solid family tree of political history.

Whatsmore, Adam is gaining traction and could be the GOP nominee for Governor.

As the Republican Liberty Caucus choice for Governor, we hope Illinois voters see in Adam what Rush Limbaugh and former president of Poland Lech Walesa see; both endorsed his candidacy in the last week.

In addition to being profiled at the popular conservative blog RedState, Adam was recently featured in Politico article and at National Review online.

Depending on what poll you believe, Adam is either in first or second place in the tough primary field.

Will the Tea Party impact today’s Illinois GOP gubernatorial race? If so, Adam will be the Republican nominee.  Illinois will be a better place if that happens.