As a result of aggressive efforts by grassroots groups in Texas, Governor Rick Perry has offered to put Rep. David Simpson’s TSA anti-groping bill on the agenda for the upcoming legislative special session which starts this coming week if certain conditions are met. Although threats from the Justice Department and the TSA temporarily stymied bill sponsors in the state Senate after it passed the House with an overwhelming majority, they are now ready to put it through both houses in the special session where rules require only a simple majority of both houses for passage. Governor Perry has promised to put the bill on the agenda if there is a guaranteed majority supporting it in both houses and to sign the bill if it passes. A good summary of the situation can be found in the Washington Times.

Simpson’s HB 1937 (now SB29 and HB41) would make it a felony for TSA agents operating in Texas to engage in certain forms of intimate touching during the course of an “enhanced pat down” of an airlin

You are cordially invited to join us at our next event. The details follow. An RSVP is appreciated and may be made by email or via our Facebook event. Also, you are welcome to share this invitation with others and we’re grateful for any help to promote it.

I hope you can join us.

On behalf of the Board,
Norann Dillon
Chair, RLCMN
___________________

Wednesday, June 22 · 6:30pm – 9:00pm
Lorraine Park
756 3rd Ave South
South Saint Paul, Minnesota

Join us at the picnic shelter for food, fellowship and a lively conversation on the National Popular Vote initiative. Former Rep. Laura Brod and Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen (25A) will be our guest speakers.

RLCMN will provide pork chops, soft drinks and dessert. Guests are invited to bring a side dish to share.

$5 members and Legislators
$10 non-members and guests, children free
(family limit of $20)

Facebook link

Please note: There will be a softball tournament on the same evening as this event. Parking may be tight.

Liberty Republicans, given our belief that wealth creating market based initiatives are superior to those subsidized by taxpayers via government, are often accused of opposing green energy and other so called pro-environment schemes. Many on the left seem to believe that if you’re for the pro-growth policy of letting investors and entrepreneurs hash it out in the private sector without government interference, it in turn means you must have no regard for the environment.

As a libertarian who is very much pro-environment and extremely interested in alternative energy and ecological stewardship, I of course reject that premise. I’d contend that part of the problem with our energy and environmental policies are the fact that as government gets bigger, elected officials don’t hesitate to jump into bed with giant corporations, in turn, yielding a firestorm of status quo protection behind closed doors. Yet in the meantime, to coddle various constituencies, while the aforementioned cronyism disguised as capitalism distorts the market, politicians offer shallow “green” initiatives subsidized by redistributing our money, all while suppressing legitimate alternatives that could potentially compete in the market.

For example, the 2006 documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, points out the fact that the oil industry, through its lobbying group Western States Petroleum Association, financed campaigns to suppress the EV1 car in the marketplace, and worked closely with the federal government to see that its needs were met. If an electric car cannot compete in the market on its own, or without the aid of a legislative mandate (as in California), then it should fail. But if legitimate greener alternatives are being suppressed by corporatism, that’s highly problematic. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that more intervention from the federal government of the United States, the world’s most powerful monopoly, will solve the problem of giant corporate interests, who are friends to DC politicians, suppressing market competition.

However, despite, if not directly in protest of the aforementioned distortions, I’m extremely interested from a free market perspective in the work that Patrick Cox, a technology watcher and self-described “transformational profit seeker” with Agora Financial, who has worked extensively with an up and coming energy alternative based on thorium. In the wake of the Fukushima meltdown disaster in Japan, Cox believes that despite negativity about nuclear power, the use of thorium as opposed to uranium is a game changer.

As the Baltimore Sun recently reported:

“Patrick Cox remains bullish on a nuclear renaissance despite Fukushima, and his reason is about the size of a golf ball.

‘Imagine,’ he says, ‘a piece of rock the size of a golf ball giving a person a lifetime supply of electricity. A piece the size of an SUV could give a lifetime supply of energy to a town of about 50,000 people.’

If there is ever going to be a nuclear expansion sufficient to significantly reduce coal-fired (and greenhouse gas-producing) electrical generation, thorium may be the answer, say its supporters. It can solve a lot of the problems associated with the present generation of nuclear reactors and instill public confidence in atomic energy as the long-term alternative to fossil fuels.”

Sounds interesting. But, can thorium compete in the market with cronyism distorting outcomes? Will it inevitably end up incorporated into a program rife with federal subsidies because government regulation of energy will never allow for real market competition? What does the future hold for this potentially world altering silvery metal?

Patrick Cox was kind enough to provide the Republican Liberty Caucus with his insights.

RLC:

Mr. Cox, as we’re sure you’re quite well aware of, there’s been a lot of buzz about green energy coming from DC politicians. However, it seems that so many of the initiatives they champion rely heavily on government subsidies. For example, Section 1603 of the Recovery Act gave programs direct cash grants for “green jobs”, and it is estimated that this legislation led to one fourth of all wind power capacity installed in the United States in 2009. Given your career as a technology watcher and the work you’ve done researching and working with thorium, do you believe that thorium ultimately has enough inherent value to compete in the market as a legitimate, and greener, energy alternative?

Cox:

I’m not actually sure what “green energy” is. As Bjørn Lomborg and many others have pointed out, air and water quality in the developed world is better than it has ever been. In fact, the correlation of high environmental qualities with economic progress would indicate to me that the best way to assure a clean environment is to allow the economy to grow.  Because energy is the largest sector of the economy and energy costs are included as a major component is virtually all product sectors, the best way to encourage economic growth is to lower energy costs. Raising the cost of energy acts as a subtraction to economic growth. Forcing the use of higher cost energy slows economic growth and therefore makes it more difficult to implement expensive pollution control measures.

I don’t consider CO2 a pollutant, by the way. Having seen CO2 models fail spectacularly in the last few years, I think it’s pretty obvious now that the scientists who have been saying that solar cycles are the primary climate driver were correct. I speak regularly with some very wealthy investors and the really smart money has been betting that we are entering into a period of global cooling for some time. Recent announcements by the American Astronomical Society reinforce my projections of global cooling, bolstered by falling ocean temperatures.

As for government subsidization of so-called green energy, the Spanish experience has shown that you cannot create wealth by raising the cost of energy, which is the practical effect of green energy policies. While consumer prices might appear to be competitive, the actuality is that total costs are higher despite subsidies.

The associated Keynesian argument that “green make-work” creates employments also discredited, though it was never believed by anyone with any actual economic educational background. Even the president’s ex-advisor Christina Romer has pointed out that there is a significant and negative multiplier effect caused by the transfer of resources from the economically self-sustaining private sector to the government sector. Green energy is a transfer of resources away from markets to non-market activities and, as such, is a drag on economic growth. Subsidies and tax incentives slow economic growth and create unemployment.

Thorium, however, is ridiculously abundant. America has all of the mineral it needs for many thousands of years of electrical power. It is also inherently safer than current nuclear technologies for many reasons including proliferation resistance, waste elimination and reactor design. Even current uranium nuclear technologies, by the way, are safer than many other energy sources, including coal. Read my old friend Petr Beckmann’s work in this regard.

RLC:

Do you agree that corporatism, or rather, a strong relationship between big government and big corporations, plays into the suppression of potentially successful alternative energy initiatives? If so, do you believe this, at least in part, debunks the claim that looking to government as the exclusive provider of green energy alternatives is the wrong path for America’s future?

Cox:

Of course, corporatism is a huge drag on innovation. Existing industries naturally use their clout with government to squelch competition and innovation. This is particularly true with regards to nuclear power, which is far more regulated even than pharmaceuticals.

RLC:

Given significant increases in gas prices recently, there’s no doubt that general discussions about energy policy will play a large role in the 2012 elections – particularly the Republican primary. Do you think discussions about thorium, especially as a way to offer an alternative to current policy, will be on the table? If so, do you see thorium being dealt with from a top down, federally subsidized approach, or do you think that thorium will rise to prominence on its own merits through free market initiatives and private investment?

Cox:

I have no idea whether or not thorium will become a political issue. I expect you’re a much better judge of such matters than me. Incidentally, “than” is both a preposition and a conjunction. Even in England where it is considered to be only a conjunction, “than” requires the object pronoun. Anyway, there will have to be at least some top-down change before thorium can compete iin the marketplace simply because nuclear energy is so regulated.

RLC:

Do you think that political opponents of nuclear power – both those who are against it for environmental and/or safety reasons, and those who oppose it to protect their own interests in the energy industry  – will come out against thorium, or stay silent on the matter? Given your prediction, how will the outcome impact energy policy moving forward?

Cox:

The usual suspects have already come out against nuclear power of any kind, which axiomatically includes thorium. The coming elections will undoubtedly play an important role in determining whether American energy policies are aimed at reducing energy costs or achieving “green” fantasies.

Fortunately, the rest of the world is pushing thorium hard right now. Red Star in Russia is the largest supplier of reactors in Asia and they’ve got a prototype thorium reactor running now. Recently, the French reactor company, Areva, began developing thorium plans. Areva sells most of Europe’s reactors. India is now burning thorium commercially and China has announced intentions to rapidly develop thorium reactors.

Thorium will be used in the next generation of reactors regardless of what Americans do. As an investment adviser and economist, my focus has to be on helping my people prosper, not on American policy. Given the global electronic community, there are many ways for individuals to profit from this technological revolution.

Personally, however, it irks me. We are being left behind, which is ironic because Americans Edward Teller and Alvin Radkowski were the original proponents of thorium nuclear energy. In fact, the first full-scale civilian power plant, designed by Radkowski, came online in 1956 and burned thorium. When you hear people saying that it will take many years to develop, you can rest assured that they are wrong. It may take many years for the bureaucrats to approve thorium fuels and reactors but it’s not a difficult on a technical basis.

Unfortunately, “progressive” anti-nuclear activists allied with the traditional uranium reactor industry have successfully kept America from implementing thorium power. There is no physical energy shortage. We have government created shortages. There’s more than enough affordable energy in America if we were allowed to develop it. We could then stop sending trillions to foreign sources unfriendly to democracy and American interests, by the way.

When I and many other self-described liberty Republicans heard that there would be two candidates bearing the liberty standard in 2012 we didn’t know what to think. Would there be a civil war to divide the liberty movement which even still is only in its infancy, or would two candidates bring the liberty message legitimacy?

Early indications were not good. Powerful advocates of Ron Paul, most notably Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, started running hit pieces on Gary Johnson as soon as he announced his candidacy. Authors at The American Spectator and The American Conservative wrote slightly less vicious pieces along the same lines. On the other side institutional libertarians at such places as Reason, the CATO Institute and the Republican Liberty Caucus appeared to be rallying around Johnson, blowing off Paul as either less libertarian or as less electable. (Editor’s Note: The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidate.) The battle lines were drawn: The R3volution vs the “libertarian power elite” (as the late Murray Rothbard called them).

For all of the antagonism, there was little animosity between the actual candidates themselves. As Ron Paul was mulling over an entrance into the race he was asked whether he would endorse Johnson if he decided not to run. His answer was simple: “I can’t imagine endorsing anyone else.” Likewise, when Gary Johnson is asked why someone should vote for him over Ron Paul, as he was on Stossel’s program recently, his canned answer was “I would never make that case.”

Luckily for our cause of liberty, a de facto truce seems to have developed between the two camps. This is a fortunate development indeed, considering the degree to which the liberty movement has succumbed to infighting and self-destruction in the past. Ron Paul enthusiasts can identify with being locked out of a debate, as Gary Johnson was in New Hampshire. And Gary Johnson followers, who were mostly Ron Paul followers less than three years ago, have given up converting any who still identify more with Paul’s brand of libertarianism. Presumably they have come to realize that his candidacy is only useful to the degree to which he attracts new voters to the cause, and dividing the fledgling movement serves no constructive purpose.

And as the race has developed and the message and rhetoric from each candidate has further evolved, it seems that the two standard bearers for liberty have tailored their message to vastly different constituencies. Beginning in March, at The Family Leader Presidential Lecture Series, Ron Paul began targeting his stump speech towards religious groups and family values voters. He makes a fantastic case for liberty based on the experience of the Israelites in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 (which he aptly points out is closely related to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). The 75 year old has also lead a personal life that is very much in line with the values of social conservatives. He has only had one wife, he has five children, many grandchildren, and even a few great-grandchildren. It‘s clear to anyone who hears him speak that his faith plays a significant role in his life.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson has not lead such a Christian conservative life. Divorced, he has two children and, while raised Lutheran, does not attend church (although he believes in God and will even “admit to praying once and a while”). To the Christian conservative base to which Ron Paul has tailored his message, this would be a huge negative. But not to the pragmatic liberals who are itching for a candidate who understands economics but are wary of the caricature Bible-thumping snake oil salesmen which have sadly become associated with “Republican.” Being a two term governor of a blue state in which he remains popular, Johnson also brings credibility to the notion that a liberty oriented candidate could actually govern if elected. As an entrepreneur who grew a one man handy-man business into one of the largest construction firms in his home state, he also has credibility with small-business types. In addition, Governor Johnson has been able to take arguably even more liberty oriented stances than Paul on such issues as abortion and immigration, stances that Paul simply could not take if he wished to maintain his appeal with Christian conservative voters even if he did agree with them himself (and there is no indication that he does).

The contrast between the two liberty candidates extends into core philosophy. Ron Paul is what a “rights-based” libertarian who advocates for liberty on the basis of the morality of personal property rights. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a “consequentialist” libertarian who would claim that everything government does should be looked at from a cost-benefit analysis. The fact that these two different perspectives arrive at the same policy conclusions should not be surprising: a geometric proof and an algebraic proof of a mathematical theorem should arrive at the same conclusion. Otherwise there is something wrong with that theorem.

Practical implications of this slight difference are significant even on issues which the two candidates largely agree. Ron Paul, for instance, would never admit to supporting “gay rights” because even though his policy would be very friendly toward gays, as a rights-based libertarian he does not believe that any group has specific rights and he is loathe to spin his rhetoric in a way that implies this is the case. This could confuse some voters who do not understand rights-based libertarianism. As a consequentialist libertarian, however, Gary Johnson is proud to say that he supports gay rights and voters who support gay rights but may not understand the issue deeply enough to take a second look at Ron Paul could be drawn towards Johnson’s campaign. Likewise, Paul’s message retains more credibility with social conservatives if he refrains from talking about “gay rights” as such.

In a similar fashion, when it comes to foreign policy Gary Johnson will not admit to being a non-interventionist. He even appears to be insulted by pundits who identify him as such. In order to stay philosophically consistent, as a consequentialist libertarian he has to view each potential conflict from a cost-benefit standpoint. Johnson will not even rule out intervening in conflicts for humanitarian purposes if he thought such an intervention would yield greater benefits than costs. That being said, he has decided virtually every conflict we are currently involved in fails the cost-benefit analysis test. He believes that much of our military spending, many of our strategic alliances, and scores of overseas military bases fail the test as well. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a strict non-interventionist. As a rights-based libertarian, he sees intervention in the affairs of other nations as inherently illegitimate. This distinction between the two candidates may lead hardcore anti-war voters to be naturally drawn to Paul while Gary Johnson is more open to receive the support of voters who are receptive to more moderate rhetoric when it comes to national security issues.

Rhetorical and philosophical differences between the two liberty candidates naturally lead to slightly different geographic constituencies as well. Whether or not the candidates have understood this and communicated it to each other, they seem to recognize it. Ron Paul has made a strong effort in Iowa, where religious conservatives who will understand his references to the Old Testament and the founding documents are likely to grasp his ideas and hopefully identify with them. Being a caucus state, Iowa is also a naturally favorable state for a politician with such fanatical followers as Paul. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has pinned all of his hopes on a strong finish in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state where thousands of liberty loving activists have moved as part of the Free State Project. With a broader, simpler message of the “religion of the pocketbook”, Johnson hopes to make a big impact on a state which is known more for its appreciation of distilled liberty than its appreciation of religion.

Looking onward to the next two primary states, it is my opinion that the same strategy of “divide and conquer” should be employed in a similar way. Nevada, much like New Hampshire, is a state which is famously liberty oriented and not known for its conviction to religion. In stark contrast, South Carolina is a famously religious state and member in good standing of the so-called “Bible Belt.” By defining themselves slightly differently, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should be able to appeal to these two states in a way that a single liberty candidate would be unable to do. It should also be noted that, as a Congressman from a southern state, Ron Paul may be able to make a close connection with voters in another southern state. Likewise, as the former governor of a western state, Gary Johnson may be able to make a connection with voters in another western state.

This is not to say that Gary Johnson should abandon Iowa and South Carolina, or that Ron Paul should completely give up on New Hampshire and Nevada: there are vast numbers of individuals in each of these states who do not fit the general character of the state who would identify better with the opposite candidate. With that clarification out of the way, it is in the interest of the liberty message that each of these candidates focuses their efforts in the state most likely to be receptive to their rhetoric in order to maximize the degree to which the message of liberty resonates.

Each candidate should recognize that it is unlikely that a liberty candidate will win the nomination this time around, but it is important that the message gets out and that a liberty loving base for future liberty candidates is built. We can only win the battle for the presidency once we win the battle of ideas.

Kyle R. Johnson is a masters student in chemical engineering at the University of Idaho. He is originally from Richland, Washington.

Federalism has to rank near the top when compiling a list of American principles fallen by the wayside.

The weak central government envisioned by the Constitution’s framers was designed to grant states considerable leeway. Though not as powerless as the apparatus set up by the Articles of Confederation, the United States nonetheless was to be a nation of localized, diverse governments. This kept in line with the individualism that defined early America, but has become a casualty of America’s post-Civil War centralization.

Health care, morality, insurance programs, education. All these things existed in the 18th century, yet the federal government was given no authority to become involved in their implementation. As Louis Brandeis once noted, the states were “laboratories of democracy” — and this was the beauty of the American experiment.

With Congress and the president possessing few powers, most authority would be left to state legislatures and governors under the 10th Amendment. Localism, not federal fiat, was supposed to be a defining American characteristic.

Unfortunately, neither political party nor ideology has been immune from abandoning our federalist mind set. Democrats and Republicans alike now universally look to D.C. for the answer to an assortment of questions. Marriage laws, abortion, countless social issues; an alarming number of Americans now assume not wanting a federal ban on a behavior is equivalent to approval of it. Likewise, it is sadly believed that not seeking a federal subsidy for something is tantamount to opposition towards it. The Constitutional prescription, never considered, would simply give Congress no say on issues not specifically mentioned in that document.

Most conservatives recoil at the thought of ending the federal drug war, failing to consider that this power was never given to Washington. Due to this, measures aimed at curtailing drug use would correctly be handled at the state or local level under the Constitution. Some jurisdictions would continue to criminalize it, while others might try the public health approach or outright legalization. The point is not the particular measure each of the fifty states would adopt (there would assuredly be a mixture of them, with some being hit and miss) but instead that finding something detestable is not synonymous with federally sanctioned action against it.

The Prohibition era is a perfect example of this, as Congress recognized it must seek a Constitutional amendment prior to banning alcohol. Today, many do not even bother to give it a second thought that Congress may ban substances on a whim. No matter the moral issue, allowing each state to mold their own approaches makes infinitely more sense than forcing one approach down 315 million throats.

When it comes to confusing personal priorities with federal agendas, liberals are equally, if not more, guilty than their conservative counterparts. Suggest that education should be a function free from Washington’s reach to a liberal and the reaction could be scripted; many on the left are unwilling to acknowledge that this issue is unaddressed by the Constitution. Many social liberals applaud the Roe vs. Wade decision, never fretting that even an intellectually honest pro-choice individual should have qualms about its centralizing, unconstitutional nature. That pesky “leave it to the states” thing is discarded as archaic by most liberals the moment it becomes a hindrance.

It is time for Americans to have a mature discussion about what the proper limits of federal power truly are. Letting emotions substitute for sound Constitutional examination has led to both parties citing our founding document only when it is convenient toward end goals. With a country as diverse and large as ours, keeping decision making local is the common sense and Constitutional answer to navigating the confusion we currently find ourselves wading in.

Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member Dr. John Hospers died at the age of 93 yesterday, June 12, 2011.

Dr. Hospers was the Libertarian Party’s first presidential candidate, running in 1972. He appeared on the ballot in just two states, but made history by receiving the electoral vote of one of the RLC’s distinguished founders, Mr. Roger MacBride of Virginia.

A professor of philosophy at California State University-Los Angeles, Dr. Hospers had a sharp mind until his resting days. Last year he had this to say about the Republican Liberty Caucus: “I’m honored to be on the RLC’s current Board of Advisors, along with many associates, colleagues and other esteemed defenders of liberty. I support the RLC’s 2010 endorsed candidates, and am encouraged with the prospects of returning power to the people.”

According to Ayn Rand’s biographer Barbara Branden, Hospers met Rand when she addressed the student body at Brooklyn College. They became friends and had lengthy philosophical conversations. Rand’s discussions with Hospers contributed to her decision to write nonfiction. Hospers became convinced of the validity of Rand’s moral and political views but disagreed with her about issues of epistemology, the subject of their extensive correspondence. Rand broke with Hospers after he criticized her Harvard talk on “Art as Sense of Life” before the American Society of Aesthetics.

In 2002, an hour-long video about Hospers’ life, work, and philosophy was released by the Liberty Fund of Indianapolis as part of its Classics of Liberty series. His passing was three days after his 93rd birthday.

Professor John Hospers will be remembered for his many philosophical and political contributions to the libertarian movement.

Former New Jersey Senatorial candidate Dr. Murray Sabrin, echoing Milton Friedman’s famous advice, told Republicans to work to reduce all taxes, everywhere, in his address to the Republican Club of Central Palm Beach County on June 2.

In his manifesto-like address, “The Case for Zero Taxes,” Dr. Sabrin drew on his professional experience as finance professor at Ramapo College in New Jersey and political experience as an RLCer and Republican candidate to make his seemingly radical case to mainstream Republicans. He said this is only possible by drastically reducing the scope of government, returning it to the Founders' limited, Constitutional vision.

The four major classes of taxes under fire included direct taxes (income tax), indirect taxes (tariffs and excise taxes), regulation and inflation.

Dr. Sabrin warned Republicans not to get enthused about some novel new tax, like the Fair Tax, but instead should focus on cutting spending and taxes, not adding or shifting or improving them. “Taxation is not a solution,” he said, “It’s the problem."

He noted that noone in Washington – “except for Ron Paul and maybe a few others” are serious about cutting spending and, hence, taxes. In his run for the U.S. Senate, Dr. Sabrin was endorsed by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and has served on the national board of the RLC.

MADISON - On Thursday, June 9, 2011, the Joint Finance Committee approved revisions to a bill lifting Wisconsin’s ban on concealed weapons. In a 12 to 4 vote, the revisions would require mandatory training and permits. In addition, the WI Department of Justice could charge people applying for permits up to $37, plus $13 for a background check, and would maintain a database of all license holders.

RLC-WI Chairman, Michael S. Murphy, sent a response email letter to the 12 Republican JFC Members who voted for the revisions to the bill, which was originally authored by Sen. Pam Galloway, R-Wausau. The letter read as such:

Dear Republican Members of the Joint Finance Committee,

As you may recall when you first took office, you took an oath as defined in the Wisconsin Constitution, Article IV, Section 28, which states:

Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.

The oath that you swore to uphold is the very foundation your job as a member of the WI legislature truly rests upon. To swear by an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States – the Supreme Law of the Land – is an oath that shall not be taken for granted.

On behalf of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, we are very disheartened to have learned today that you, members of the Republican Legislation, failed to abide by the very oath you swore to uphold.  The Second Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Permits, government fees, mandatory training, and maintaining government databases are infringements!

Back on January 20, 1982, while acting as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch had this to say regarding the 2^nd Amendment:

“When our ancestors forged a land ‘conceived in liberty’, they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.”

So true Senator Hatch’s words really are.

For so long, the citizens of the State of Wisconsin have been denied the very right granted to us by the US Constitution; the right of the people to bear arms without infringement.  Today, when you could have made a difference by defending our constitutionally protected right, you failed at this simple task. It was your job to see that our 2^nd Amendment right was protected, not “permitted” slightly with restrictions and infringements. I can only hope that now, once this bill reaches the full legislature, that it is corrected to abide by the true intent of the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers who wrote those very words.

A couple of you will possibly be up for recall shortly.  If that be the case, maybe we can find someone who will answer the call of duty and uphold the oath to the Constitution?  Maybe we, as Republicans, would be better served with someone else in your seats? Just because you currently have an (R) after your name, does not mean you actually serve as one.  In just one short month after the 2011 Republican Party of Wisconsin Convention, where the resolution on Constitutional Carry was passed by the Party delegates, you failed to stand with us. Today, you let your Party down.

Unable to comprehend your actions,

Michael S. Murphy
Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin

The 12 Republican members of the Joint Finance Committee who voted in favor of the revisions are: Senator Alberta Darling, Senator Luther Olsen, Senator Sheila, Harsdorf, Senator Joe Leibham, Senator Glenn Grothman, Senator Randy Hopper, Representative Robin Vos, Representative Dan Meyer, Representative Dan LeMahieu, Representative John Nygren, Representative Pat Strachota, and Representative Joel Kleefisch.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin supports Constitutional Carry in it’s intended form.  The RLC-WI encourages all members of the Wisconsin State Legislature to pass the bill as it was originally authored by Sen. Pam Galloway.

Evidence against June 13 GOP debate sponsors CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader continues to mount as they persist in excluding former two-term Republican Governor Gary Johnson from the Manchester, New Hampshire debate.

WMUR and the Union-Leader have been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned Americans, many complaining that they are embarrassing the state of New Hampshire and jeopardizing its status as a first in the nation primary state.

And now Johnson supporters recently released a video targeting CNN:

HOPE AND CHANGE

Johnson’s supporters are hosting a MoneyBomb for his campaign in conjunction with the debate, and cries for inclusion have come from different corners of the political spectrum — ranging from Willy Nelson to the gay conservative group GOProud.

Additionally, there is hope for Johnson supporters:

CNN tried to keep former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel out of the June 3, 2007 Democratic presidential debate, but his supporters flooded CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader with requests and their decision was eventually reversed. Mike Gravel was able to debate.

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA

The specific criteria CNN and the other outlets are using to justify the exclusion of Governor Johnson also doesn’t add up. The first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” but some of the invitees not only are not candidates (Michele Bachmann), but haven’t even taken a single official step toward becoming one (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin). CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.

CNN selectively used versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (such as Palin and Giuliani) in its listed criteria. Despite excluding other polls, Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.

In the May 27 CNN poll, three different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin (but not Giuliani), and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Gary Johnson earned 2%.

In the May 26 Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.

Finally, in the May 4 Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.

So the May Johnson poll results using CNN’s poll sources are: 2 + 3 + 1 divided by 3, which equals 2%. View the poll data compiled here.

A Johnson supporter explains the math for all you visual learners:

Finally, in a just-released PPP poll, Gary Johnson leads GOP contenders in favorability ratings in their home states. Johnson is supported by 44 percent of New Mexico voters.

SKETCHY FROM THE START

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Karger explains how the CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader debate has been problematic from the very beginning. Says Karger, “The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is very clear on the rules governing debates stating that, ‘The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria.’ CNN’s criteria is objective, but was the criteria pre-established?” The following evidence was collected by Mr. Karger:

1) Invitations were sent to Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. When were the invitations sent?

2) Were the invitations sent out on a rolling basis, rather than after the criteria period closed? Donald Trump was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 16, 2011. Mike Huckabee was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 14, 2011. Haley Barbour was not invited. Barbour met the criteria after the April 22, 2011 release of a Gallup poll. Haley Barbour announced he would not run on April 25, 2011.

3) Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling criteria until he received 4% in the UNH poll, which was released on May 23, 2011 at 5pm (pdf). Jon Huntsman announced he would not participate in the debate on May 27, 2011. In the three full days between 5pm May 23, 2011 and May 27, 2011, Jon Huntsman would have needed to receive an invitation from the debate sponsors and have decided to decline that invitation.

4) Herman Cain: Herman Cain announced on or before May 24, 2011 that he would attend the NH debate. When was he invited? Herman Cain met the criteria on April 28, 2011.

5) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani qualified on May 4, 2011, when the UNH Survey Center released its Granite State Poll. When was he invited?

6) Polling firms excluded: Why did the criteria exclude the following polling firms: Rasmussen, Zogby, Public Policy Polling and Suffolk — all of whom conducted national polls on the Republican 2012 primary during April and May 2011?

7) Debate Date Moved: The Debate was originally set for June 7th, but was rescheduled to June 13th. The decision to change the debate date was announced on April 27, 2011. Why was the date moved?

8.) UNH Survey Center Polls: When were the UNH Survey Center’s two polls about the 2012 Republican primary (which came out in May 2011) commissioned? Were they commissioned prior to April 1, 2011 (the beginning of the criteria period)? It is important to note that in May 2007, the UNH Survey Center did not conduct any polls about the Republican primary.

The 2007 debate was also hosted by CNN, WMUR TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader. In this debate there were 10 participants: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. The pre-established objective criteria for this debate was never released; however, by 2011 standards, it would have been a 6-man debate. During April and May of 2007, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson did not average 2% on three national polls.

If the same criteria was applied 4 years ago, UNH Survey Center polling would have excluded Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul, all of whom would not have met (.pdf) a 2% polling criteria.

TAKE ACTION

Please take five minutes to contact CNN, WMUR, and the NH Union-Leader and demand that Gary Johnson is included in their June 13 GOP debate.

A former Republican Governor should automatically gain inclusion in a GOP debate. It’s really that simple.

For WMUR, call 603-669-9999 or email them; for the NH Union-Leader, call 603-668-4321 (redirect to the Newsroom) or email them; for CNN, call 404-827-1500 or text CNN (space) and your news tip.

Also, please sign this petition for inclusion.

CALLING FOR INCLUSION

A variety of individuals and groups are calling for Johnson’s inclusion in the June 13 debate. A sampling of comments is found below.

“The decision to exclude Gary Johnson is completely out of step with the spirit of the New Hampshire primary. We endorse an open political process that keeps New Hampshire special. We respectfully request that the debate partners — CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader — reconsider this decision and welcome Gov. Johnson to the June 13th debate.”
– David Hurst
Chairman, New Hampshire Young Republicans

“When any media outlet decides they are the judge of a “viable” candidate, such as the denial of Governor Gary Johnson (in a GOP debate at St. Anselm’s College Monday), at that point they are usurping the voter’s right to choose a candidate. I say shame on any news agency putting itself in a position to decide which candidate is worthy for America to hear. Just on the face of this issue it seems un-American.”
– Jerry DeLemus
Chairman, Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC

“Man, Gary Johnson’s supporters are dedicated, and unrelenting.”
– Jeff Winkler
Columnist, The DailyCaller

“GOProud has significant policy differences with Governor Johnson, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, we believe strongly that Governor Johnson deserves to be included and that Republican primary voters’ best interest would be served by having his voice in this important debate.”
– Jimmy LaSalvia
Executive Director, GOProud

“CNN appears to be aiding and abetting the attempted overturning of gay marriage in one of the five states where it is legal. CNN should lead the way and open up its debate to all serious Presidential candidates, not just some.”
– Fred Karger (who also wants to be included in the debate)
GOP Presidential candidate

“Sign the change.org petition to get Gary Johnson into the debate!”
– Willy Nelson’s TeaPot Party

Let us not accept NO as the answer. Doing so would allow CNN too much power over the GOP primary.

Transmissions and Total Car Care

Jacksonville Transmission Repair

10022 San Jose Boulevard • (904) 262-2900

Complete automobile mechanics: Oil & Filter Change, Brakes, Exhaust, Shocks/Struts, Radiator/Cooling System, Air Conditioning, Tune-Ups, Factory Recommended Maintenance