Here is a very level-headed treatment of Dr. Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate victory:

We won’t tear down the gates of hell with this election. But if we’re lucky we just might be able to make the devil squirm.

Read the entire article here.

In my most recent article at the California Independent Voter Network, I explore how Ron Paul’s “failed” 2008 bid culminated in a 2010 electoral victory for his philosophy and growing political movement. It is so important to read and understand this! This is how electoral and political change happen in this country.

Also–it currently has 49 “likes” (at the bottom of the article, you can vote like or dislike) so people are loving the analysis. Please add your “like” to draw attention to this coverage of Ron Paul’s success.

Visit the article here.

Outspoken Tennessee RLC Vice-Chairman Matt Collins attended Senator Bob Corker’s town hall meeting on the debt crisis in Nashville. Senator Corker is the junior Republican Senator from Tennessee.

Collins said, “Senator Corker, it’s highly hypocritical of you to vote for more debt one year and then rail against the debt the next year. But, regardless, would you support a bill that would allow an unrestricted audit all of the gold held by the federal government and the federal reserve? Don’t you think the people have a right to know how much gold the government is holding?”

According to Collins (listen to the audio here), “He fumbled a bit, obviously not expecting this question and then came back with something to the effect of, ‘Well, I’ve never thought about that — but I’ll take a look and get back with you in writing’.” Collins responded, “Well sir, I have seen your voting record and it’s obvious you haven’t read the Constitution and I would like to present you with a copy now.” Collins walked to the stage and attempted to hand it to him.

Senator Corker then said it was “offensive” Collins had made that accusation and offered him a copy of the Constitution. Several other questioners inquired about the Fed and constitutional authority. And when asked if his vote for the TARP bailout was constitutional, he said that the courts haven’t said it wasn’t and that it’s up to the courts to interpret the Constitution. That didn’t go over very well with the crowd.

Collins received press in The Tennessean and The Nashville Post for his effort to hold Senator Corker to account. In addition to being involved in the RLC, Mr. Collins is also the former Vice-Chairman of the Davidson County Republican Party, which is based in Nashville. He was voted out of his position in 2009 for his outspoken pro-liberty views.

Texas RLC Endorses Ken Paxton for Speaker of the House

Today the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas has endorsed Rep. Ken Paxton (pictured) for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, citing his fiscally conservative record and commitment to principle.

According to Texas resident Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, Paxton is rated 100% by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and widely respected for his integrity and vision. He is not just a fiscal conservative, but also has a strong record on civil liberties, supports school vouchers, affirms the Second Amendment, and opposes the criminalization of non-violent civil disobedience. On many of these issues he has stood on principle against the majority despite criticism and controversy.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is proud to offer its support to Representative Paxton in his campaign for the Speaker’s seat and we hope other Texans who believe in fiscally conservative government and individual liberty will join us in demanding that House Republicans make sure that if Speaker Joe Straus is replaced, the result will be to move towards better government. “Ken Paxton is the real deal,” said Texas RLC Chairman Joey Dauben of Ellis County. Learn more about the Texas RLC at http://www.rlctx.org/.

Texas RLC Hosts Events with Governor Johnson in Austin, Houston, and Dallas

Governor Gary Johnson made a swing through Texas this week and had multiple events set up by grassroots activists throughout the state, including three Republican Liberty Caucus-sponsored events in Austin, Houston, and Dallas.

Last night Governor Johnson ended his tour in Palmer, Texas, a small town outside of Dallas. It ain’t every day that a prospective 2012 Presidential candidate visits the tiny hamlet. Joey Dauben, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, was the event organizer. He’s pictured above with the Governor.

On Tuesday evening Governor Johnson was in Houston in at an event co-sponsored by Southeast Texas RLC and the Houston Liberty Campaign. Former RLC-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, founder of the group We Texans, also headlined the event. Thanks to Corie Whalen (pictured with the Governor below), Texas RLC Board member and regional coordinator, for hosting the event! The RLC brought in several new members as a result of Corie’s efforts.

On Saturday afternoon, Governor Johnson was in Austin for a barbecue at Bartholomew Park sponsored by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central Texas. RLC Chairman Dave Nalle captured the Governor’s remarks on video (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4).

In an event co-sponsored by the Samford University Republicans and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Alabama, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be speaking at Samford University on Wednesday, November 17. The university is located in Homewood, a suburb of Birmingham. Learn more about the event.

Additionally, Governor Johnson will address the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida (Melbourne/Brevard) at a location to be determined on Friday, November 19 from 6:30pm to 8:30pm. You can RSVP to the event on Facebook.

A successful small businessman, triathlete, marathon runner and mountain climber, Governor Johnson is a Tea Party favorite and a likely 2012 Republican presidential candidate. He currently serves as the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative. He is also an Advisory Board member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Please join liberty advocates in Alabama and Florida at these events. Please also consider making a monthly pledge to the Republican Liberty Caucus.

As I embarked on writing an article about my opposition to the idea that newly elected conservative legislators should budge on issues like spending, debt, or health care, I began searching the Internet to see what others had to say. Almost immediately I came across an article — see below — which reflects my perspective.

Election’s Message Was ‘No Compromise’
by Jerry Haas
Athens Banner-Herald (GA) • November 7, 2010

In 1963, California surf rock band The Surfaris released a song that begins with a roll of laughter, followed by the words “wipe out.” That lyric is a fitting description of the Nov. 2 election results, in which Republicans thoroughly drubbed Democrats to take an overwhelming majority in the U.S. House and make significant gains in the U.S. Senate, as well as in numerous other state and local political races.

Some may say Republicans were the big winners Tuesday.

It might also be said the big winners are Americans who believe the socialistic programs initiated and enacted during the past 20 months of President Barack Obama’s administration need to be stopped and eliminated.

And, it might be said that the big winners are the more than 10 percent of our population who are unemployed, or have given up searching for a job, and as a result of Tuesday balloting, now believe that economic growth to create private sector jobs is just around the corner.

Finally, some may say the big winners are those small business owners and entrepreneurs who need to fuel our economic recovery but who have been paralyzed by the Obama administration’s failure to extend the expiring Bush tax cuts that will trigger the largest single tax increase in the history of our country.

Actually, there are no big winners coming out of Tuesday’s elections.

What happened on Nov. 2 didn’t create winners. What it did create was opportunities.

There’s an opportunity to stop the largest tax increase in American history. There’s an opportunity to shrink the federal government, balance the budget and begin reducing the national debt. There’s an opportunity to free up the private sector to create jobs. There’s an opportunity to repeal the governmental takeover of America’s health care system.

There’s an opportunity to once again have a government that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people.

However, these opportunities may not be realized if the Obama administration and Senate liberals don’t understand that the giant iceberg of conservatism now sits in the path of the Titanic-sized push to grow the federal government. Even in the face of the political “shellacking” – the president’s term – administered Tuesday, Democratic leaders still expressed pride in what had been done legislatively in the past 20 months. This doesn’t bode well for any substantive conservative changes in the 112th Congress.

But make no mistake: Republicanism didn’t produce the largest swing in House seats in 70 years; it was conservatism. So, it’s tragic that Senate leaders are sending the message that Senate Republicans must cease saying “no” to the Obama administration initiatives Americans loudly proclaimed Tuesday they did not want.

The newly elected conservative members of the House and Senate aren’t being sent to Washington to compromise. Tuesday’s message was loud and clear: Shrink government and create an environment that enables the private sector to once again become the greatest economic engine in the world, and while you’re at it, repeal the health care overhaul. With Obama still president and the Senate lacking a conservative caucus of at least 60 members, the probability of significant strides toward accomplishing any of these is doubtful.

Regardless of that dismal outlook, conservatives must bring these issues to the floor continuously for a full vote. If measures passed in the House are held up or not passed in the Senate, or after being passed by Congress are vetoed by the president, it will set the stage for those who did not get the message from the collapse of liberalism on Nov. 2 to once again try and defend their record during the 2012 election cycle.

The people have spoken. The mandate is clear. The opportunity to begin moving a conservative agenda forward has been generated. It is up to those who now represent us to do what we want them to do – without compromise.

Jerry Haas, a local Banner-Herald columnist, is involved in Christian ministry. Send him email here.

by Jay Bailey

I’ve noticed a pretty contentious divide between so-called principled non-voters and so-called principled voters. Here I will lay out the arguments for both sides and arrive at a conclusion.

Many libertarian or anarcho-capitalists refrain from voting because they, as anti-statists, do not want to consent to the system to which they so vehemently disapprove. In other words, they oppose the existence of the state because they view it as an illegitimate monopoly on the initiation of force. They view it as an inherently coercive institution and they, like all libertarians, oppose coercion on principle. These democratic republics are based on citizen involvement and supposed consent.

In the principled non-voters’ view, it is inherent in democracy that people are pinned against each other based on their interests and elections are nothing more than a means for one group of citizens to coercively enforce their point of view onto others. Therefore, they say that voting is actively consenting to the institution that you should oppose. Some take this farther and claim that voters indirectly are committing an act of violence because by aiding and abetting an inherently violent organization — government.

A separate argument is not philosophical but instead economic. It is based on two main ideas: the probability of one vote being decisive and opportunity cost. The more people that vote in a given election, the less likely it is that your single vote will be the decisive vote in that election. If it’s not, then your vote didn’t matter. Also, they believe that voting is not worth the time it takes to do it — opportunity cost. There are other things that you could be doing instead of voting and most of these things (for example, not having to take time off of work) tend to bring you more personal satisfaction than the act of voting. Voting also includes risks such as driving to the polling place, standing in a line, participating in the sometimes aggravating process, etc.

The principled voters counter these points. On the first philosophical point, I think it’s a fairly strong argument, but only if you’re an anti-statist. If you’re not, then this does not provide you a reason not to vote. I can see why it would be important for these individuals to campaign against voting — because the fewer people who vote, the less legitimate the government becomes. Much like agorism, though, the practical effectiveness of this idea is doubtful. Is it not better to vote and at least do SOMETHING than it would be do to literally NOTHING? Further, if voting is considered an act of violence, then isn’t it just self-defense to vote in retaliation? And what about those who don’t consider themselves voluntaryists? For the disillusioned minarchist, this is where the economic argument is put to play.

The voter will suggest that obviously voters are perceiving the personal satisfaction of voting as greater than the opportunity cost — else they wouldn’t do it. Even if it’s just to fulfill societal pressures, they are increasing their own personal satisfaction by satiating the guilt that would accompany not voting.

I don’t necessarily think all of the pro-voting responses are sound, either. I don’t believe the answers to key questions such as “Why vote?” or “For whom should you vote if you do vote?” should be assumed. These are important questions that can only be answered subjectively by each individual in their own locality. For me, though, the main question is: If you do vote, for whom should you vote and why? My answer is this: It’s only worth the opportunity cost to vote for candidates that you genuinely think are worth the time and effort to vote for. For me, voting against the greater of two evils is not good enough, because you’re still supporting an evil — just a lesser one. I would never support with my vote someone I would not support with a donation or by campaigning for them.

My problem with many pro-voters is that they tend to be vote-promiscuous, to avoid more misogynistic terms. They will vote for the Rick Scotts or the John McCains just because of the letter next to their name or the opponent they are facing. My problem with non-voters is that they become principled to the point of irrelevance — not voting for the type of candidates that would try to take the country in a direction even the anti-statists should support (less government in all ways).

Sure, your one vote probably won’t make a difference, but there is a chance that it will. Don’t believe me? Well, Ron Paul lost the straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last year by a single vote, and guess who was supposed to go but couldn’t make it? Here’s a hint: me. So, yeah, one vote really can make a difference. The larger point is that the state of mind of “one vote doesn’t matter” — while perhaps true in national elections — creates an aggregate effect. If all the anti-statists that don’t vote on principle would have gone out and voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, he would have done substantially better. I’m not saying he would’ve won, but the point is that the effect is not just one vote.

It was Bob Murphy (himself an anarcho-capitalist) that used what he called the Star Wars example. He said that in order for Luke and Han to destroy the Death Star, they had to dress up as Star Troopers. The point is that in order to bring about the change you want to see, sometimes you have to work within the system to bring it down. Had Luke and Han sat in the Millennium Falcon with their arms folded, would their smug self-satisfaction — due to their strict adherence to principle, of course — have made them feel any better as they watched entire planets be destroyed?

My final point is this: Look at what Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign did for the liberty movement. In 2005, when I first started calling myself a libertarian (though at that point I was more of a neolibertarian), the liberty movement consisted of a few people in a room that they called the “Libertarian Party National Convention” and this one Congressman in Texas who always votes no. Yeah, the Kochs were doing stuff too, and Cato and Mises were around. All true. But look at how the movement has blossomed since Dr. Paul’s presidential run. Are you going to let your principled adherence prevent you from supporting his campaign, or campaigns like his (Gary Johnson, for instance)?

The fact of the matter is that we are stuck in our current situation. These “vote for nobody” campaigns, as fun and thought-provoking as they may be, are doing nothing to advance liberty. Ron Paul did. His message resonated with people across the country, and I would say that just from his 2008 run, there will be a large liberty movement thriving within both parties within 10 years. That movement will be larger — and perhaps will come about sooner after he runs in 2012. You can be a part of that — or, you can sit on the Millennium Falcon with your arms folded and pretend that the move toward liberty had something to do with your unwillingness to participate.

As for me, I didn’t vote this time around. Why not? Because I had no one to vote FOR. There is a liberty-ish candidate in my district, but he has no chance of winning (third party). I simply can’t support either of the candidates for Governor of Florida. You can criticize me all you want, but as a principled selective voter, I am content with my decision. I wouldn’t want to support someone who would vote or act in ways with which I did not agree. That’s my subjective assessment of the candidates in my state and locality. Ultimately the choice is yours, but realize that your voting choice, no matter how irrelevant (or relevant), does affect other people. Something to consider.

With the Republican takeover of the U.S. House on Tuesday, there is some reason for advocates of limited government to be hopeful as the coalition of Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed legislators has grown.

Additionally, 57 House incumbents lost reelection — 53 on Tuesday and four others in their primary. The list of losing politicians includes 10 Democratic Congressmen who have served since at least 1992 and several who have been in office for more than twenty-five years.

In the below video, John Stossel and Congressman Ron Paul discuss prospects for the new Congress.

In one of the most exciting victories for the RLC this November, former Chair of the New Hampshire RLC and its PAC, Jim Forsythe, won election to the 24-member State Senate. Before winning election, Forsythe also chaired the Strafford town GOP and the Strafford Taxpayers Coalition. His campaign focused on making the state more business friendly, cutting spending, and ending the structural deficit.

Another former RLC Chairman in New Hampshire, Dan McGuire, was elected to the 400-member State House. He will join his wife Carol there.

In addition to these important victories, the following 81 New Hampshire RLC candidates were elected on Tuesday. Those with a star (*) are Officers or Board members, past or current, in the Republican Liberty Caucus.

David Wheeler, Executive Councilor District 5 (Milford)
Jeanie Forrester, State Senate District 2 (WON)
Jim Forsythe*, State Senate District 4 (WON)
Andy Sanborn, State Senate District 7 (WON)
Raymond White, State Senate District 9 (WON)
Gregory M. Sorg, State House Grafton 3 (WON)
Lester Bradley, State House Grafton 4 (WON)
Paul Mirski*, Grafton 10 (WON)
Charles E. Sova, Grafton 10 (WON)
Rob Huxley, Hillsborough 3 (WON)
William L. O’Brien, Hillsborough 4 (WON)
Bob Mead, Hillsborough 4 (WON)
Stephen Palmer, Hillsborough 6 (WON)
Gary Daniels, Hillsborough 6 (WON)
Robert H. Rowe, Hillsborough 6 (WON)
Mark Warden, Hillsborough 7 (WON)
Calvin Dean Pratt, Hillsborough 7 (WON)
Cameron DeJong, Hillsborough 9 (WON)
Mike Ball, Hillsborough 9 (WON)
J. Gail Barry, Hillsborough 16 (WON)
Jerry Bergevin, Hillsborough 17 (WON)
Keith R. Murphy, Hillsborough 18 (WON)
John Cebrowski, Hillsborough 18 (WON)
Lenette M. Peterson, Hillsborough 18 (WON)
Jeanine Notter, Hillsborough 19 (WON)
Sean McGuinness, Hillsborough 20 (WON)
Carl Seidel, Hillsborough 20 (WON)
Timothy Hogan, Hillsborough 23 (WON)
Bill Ohm, Hillsborough 26 (WON)
Kevin J. Brown, Hillsborough 26 (WON)
Jonathan Maltz, Hillsborough 27 (WON)
George Lambert, Hillsborough 27 (WON)
Andy Renzullo, Hillsborough 27 (WON)
Lynne Ober, Hillsborough 27 (WON)
Laurie Sanborn, Merrimack 5 (WON)
Jenn Coffey, Merrimack 6 (WON)
Seth Cohn, Merrimack 6 (WON)
Tony F. Soltani, Merrimack 8 (WON)
Brian Seaworth, Merrimack 7 (WON)
Carol McGuire*, Merrimack 8 (WON)
Dan McGuire*, Merrimack 8 (WON)
Jon Richardson, Merrimack 8 (WON)
J.R. Hoell, Merrimack 13 (WON)
Tom Keane, Merrimack 13 (WON)
Kathy Lauer-Rago, Merrimack 2 (WON)
Walter Kolodziej, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Charles E. McMahon, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Gary S. Azarian, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Jason P. Antosz, Rockingham 9 (WON)
Al Baldasaro, Rockingham 3 (WON)
D.J. Bettencourt, Rockingham 4 (WON)
David Bates, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Donna Mauro, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Rick Okerman, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Will Smith, Rockingham 18 (WON)
Bob Fesh, Rockingham 5 (WON)
Marilinda Garcia, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Mary E. Griffin, Rockingham 4 (WON)
John Sytek, Rockingham 4 (WON)
John Reagan, Rockingham 1 (WON)
Jim Headd, Rockingham 3 (WON)
Andrew Manuse, Rockingham 5 (WON)
Daniel Itse, Rockingham 9 (WON)
Daniel Tamburello, Rockingham 3 (WON)
Kyle Tasker, Rockingham 1 (WON)
Kevin Waterhouse, Rockingham 4 (WON)
Robert Introne, Rockingham 3 (WON)
Stella Tremblay, Rockingham 3 (WON)
David A. Welch, Rockingham 8 (WON)
Gary Wheaton, Rockingham 14 (WON)
Laura Jones*, Strafford 1 (WON)
Kyle Jones, Strafford 1 (WON)
Susan DeLemus, Strafford 1 (WON)
Warren Groen, Strafford 1 (WON)
Thomas W. Laware (WON)
Steve Cunningham, Sullivan 2 (WON)
Spec Bowers, Sullivan 3 (WON)
Steven Smith, Sullivan 5 (WON)
Colette Worsman, Belknap 3 (WON)
Robert Luther, Belknap 4 (WON)
Bob Greemore, Belknap 3 (WON)

Congratulations to the New Hampshire RLC for running such a great slate of candidates!

Amidst the biggest mid-term shift in party political power since 1938, voters in several states approved propositions related to the Obamacare health law passed earlier this year.

Arizona and Oklahoma voters voted 55 percent and 65 percent, respectively, not to enact the individual mandate contained in the health care law. Seventy-one percent of Missouri voters endorsed an anti-mandate statewide constitutional amendment in August.

State legislatures in Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have all passed laws that would similarly stifle Obamacare by granting citizens freedom of choice in health care.

According to columnist Deroy Murdock, the Republican Party’s conquest of 19 previously Democrat state-representative chambers, 10 full legislatures, and 11 governorships gives state-level Republicans brand-new opportunities to hammer ObamaCare.

Additionally, Republican control of the most state-legislative seats since 1928 could spawn fresh anti-ObamaCare lawsuits beyond the 21 that states have filed. According to national exit polls, 48 percent of voters surveyed want Congress to repeal ObamaCare.