Last month, the Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed Texas Congressman Ron Paul for president – a historic endorsement considering the organization had not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1996, when it endorsed Steve Forbes. As we made our endorsement for Paul public, I wondered what current Republican Liberty Caucus members would make of the 1996 Forbes endorsement: would our ‘tent’ be wide enough for Forbes?

As National Vice Chairman of our organization, I voted to support the recommendation our state chapters made to endorse Paul though I personally support and sit on Jon Huntsman for President’s New Hampshire State Steering Committee: two weeks before our Board voted to endorse Paul I made a “Libertarian Case for Jon Huntsman.” In some respects, what I write here is a direct follow-up to that opinion piece: I want to speak of the case for a larger Republican Liberty Caucus ‘tent’ and how candidates like Governor Jon Huntsman fit the ambitious mission of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

The purpose of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to promote “the ideals of individual rights, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party of the United States of America by… promoting these ideals among Party officials and its various organizations; identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with these ideals; developing Caucus membership among Party registrants, officials, and office-holders.”

In a way, membership in the Republican Liberty Caucus, (which requires membership in the Republican Party), is an acknowledgement of a fundamental difference between us and members of the Libertarian Party: we recognize we belong to a larger entity that is more diverse. It is the vehicle we have chosen to advance our views more effectively, and by virtue of this we recognize that we will not always be in full agreement with our Republican family but that we will always strive to find common ground where possible and, when fertile, to nourish it in order to establish an aggressive, tactical, and strategic approach toward bringing the Republican Party back to the principles that initially made it the political party of free-market ideals and individual liberty.

We acknowledge our political universe is currently dominated by a two-party system and we have chosen which of these two parties is most receptive to our beliefs.

>We also recognize the Republican family has not always excelled in advancing our principles, but that the values we hold are the true heart and soul – the glue – that keeps the Party moving forward, and that without this glue the Party and the principles we believe in might not advance as quickly or as broadly as we wish. The Libertarian Party has never been in a position to do this – and this is, most likely, the reason a standard-bearer of libertarian ideals like Paul is seeking the Republican nomination rather than pursuing the Libertarian nomination for president again, as he did in 1988.

In the “Libertarian Case for Jon Huntsman” I make it clear that Huntsman is not strictly a libertarian, but a Republican whose platform and ideas are a manifestation of a movement within the Republican Party toward more libertarian principles. As the title implies, it’s a libertarian argument for Huntsman, not a solicitation to cast Huntsman as a libertarian.

One reason I personally support Huntsman is that I believe he is, simply stated, a ‘Huntsman Republican’: he has never exhibited a particularly partisan streak but an ideological paradigm that has enabled him to govern and serve our country usefully and in ways many factions of the Republican Party can appreciate – those who lean libertarian included.

Among those positions we have in common with this candidate: his views that the Federal Reserve ought to be audited, that the issue of medicinal marijuana should be left for states to decide, that our Party and government should allow civil unions for all consenting adults, that our right to bear arms must be protected, and that our foreign entanglements are costing not only our reputation in the world but resources we need to make the United States a stronger nation. Governor Huntsman’s credentials on fiscal policy have been endorsed by Pew Center (rated Utah as best-manage state), Cato Institute (‘A’ grade on tax policy), and Forbes (best for state for business). His economic plan as a presidential candidate has been endorsed by the Wall Street Journal.  I point this out not to engage in a ‘my-candidate-is-more-libertarian-than-yours’ banter but to clarify that support among libertarian-leaning Republicans for Huntsman is not arbitrary.

From an organizational standpoint (Republican Liberty Caucus), I believe it is only fair that we look at all candidates carefully, as our Candidate Review Committee did over the last few months before issuing a recommendation to our state chapters on potential candidates to endorse. Even if a candidate doesn’t quite fit our paradigm, it’s worth keeping an open mind with respect to supporters who might consider some of that candidate’s positions reasonably libertarian – even if we disagree with that candidate’s supporter.

A ‘Libertarian Case for Romney’ has been made, for example, on LDS Liberty (a forum for libertarian Latter-day Saints): Greg Peterson, an associate of the Romney family and supporter of Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign acknowledges Paul’s popularity among libertarian Republicans. But Peterson makes his case to our constituency at LDS Liberty. I listen respectfully, and think – even if I disagree with him – that his desire to bridge the gap between libertarian Republicans and his presidential candidate says something about the GOP’s libertarian movement and about the inroads the Republican Liberty Caucus is poised to make as more presidential candidates find themselves surrounded by advisors and supporters who seek to broaden each candidate’s interest in our constituency and the issues we are most passionate about. Even if I personally disagree with Peterson and our organization has endorsed Paul, there is no harm in maintaining an open dialog with someone who acknowledges the importance of our constituency in the process.

In the end, our Candidate Review Committee and Board agreed on a handful of candidates that we felt were reasonably aligned with our views before chartered states voted (by a sufficient majority) to extend the national endorsement to Paul.

In Huntsman’s case, a focus on fiscal issues and foreign policy over domestic issues was the first clear indication of priorities that are most similar to mine, (personally), as a libertarian-leaning Republican.

As a former member of the Armed Forces I place great weight on a candidate’s ability to manage our foreign policy and their commitment to reducing troop levels abroad. I wanted to support a candidate with an interest in a more surgical approach to intelligence gathering and work – in order to reduce our investment overseas at a time when we are in such dire need of greater investment at home. Huntsman fit this mold and has, in my view, the strongest foreign policy credentials on the table.

One of the arguments used to dismiss Representative Ron Paul’s viability as a presidential candidate is that he is a libertarian masquerading as a Republican who appeals to a limited but high intensity audience, a popularity which will not translate into victory in most states. This argument is being used by pundits and media spokespeople to explain his impending victory in the Iowa Caucus.

It’s a reasonable argument based on his small but loyal following in the 2008 election, but despite its basis in fact it is not sufficient to explain Paul’s current success. The problem is that Iowa is anything but a state dominated by libertarian-leaning Republicans. In fact, Iowa’s Republicans are 54% evangelical Christians who are strongly socially conservative and have very little in common with more libertarian Republicans. If Paul’s only appeal were to Liberty Republicans then Paul would be doing poorly in Iowa where voters are anything but pro-liberty.

One measure of how libertarian Republicans in a state are is how active the Republican Liberty Caucus, which represents libertarian Republicans, is in that state. Iowa is an extremely weak state for RLC membership and involvement. Unlike most states, especially Republican dominated states, it has no active RLC chapter and it offered a single endorsee for office in 2010 and he did not win election. Compare that to New Hampshire where the RLC offered over 100 candidates for office in 2010 and has 81 members in the state House of Representatives.

New Hampshire Republicans lean libertarian and those in Iowa clearly do not. If his appeal was solely to libertarian voters then Paul would be dominating New Hampshire and bombing in Iowa where a libertarian message is not terribly welcome. Yet Paul is likely to do even better in Iowa than in New Hampshire, finishing in first or second in both states. He may also go on to pass Gingrich and take second in South Carolina which has a balance of libertarian Republicans and more socially conservative Republicans.

All of this suggests that contrary to the conventional wisdom, Paul is not a single-constituency voter, but rather a double-threat with two bases of support. He appears to appeal not only to the expecte pro-liberty demographic, but also to more traditional conservatives including a lot of religious conservatives. Paul’s balance of libertarian policies and personal inclinations towards social conservatism seems to resonate with both groups, giving him a much broader base than just the high-intensity ideologues most commonly associated with him.

In fact, based on the combination of his personal views and policy positions, Paul may not be the marginal candidate many assume him to be. With the exception of hardcore neoconservatives for whom an aggressive foreign policy is paramount – a viewpoint in disrepute after the failures of the Bush era – Paul has something to offer most of the other constituencies within the Republican party. His hands-off policies appeal to many social conservatives as well as libertarians. His clear personal religious faith attracts religious conservatives. His fiscally conservative policies appeal to both those who want government reform and to pro-business Republicans. In addition, the latest FoxNews poll shows asked voters who was the “true conservative” in the race and 40% answered Paul while 34% answered Santorum. Clearly Paul has created a larger niche as both the most Conservative and most Libertarian candidate in the race.

As the returns come in from Iowa it seems likely that Senator Rick Santorum will hold a strong third or maybe even win second in Iowa, sharing the conservative vote with Paul. But unlike Paul, Santorum has very little money and even less appeal to voters outside of that hardcore conservative base. Santorum polls very poorly in New Hampshire and without money he lacks the legs to catch up with other candidates. As Santorum’s Iowa surge fades it’s quite likely that many of his supporters – who may be “anyone but Mitt” voters – will move to Paul with whom he shares conservative common ground.

If it proves to be true that Paul has two bases of support within the Republican Party, winning over both serious conservatives and libertarians, that puts him in position to be the preeminent challenger to Romney’s broad but lukewarm appeal. Though the media may continue to argue that Paul is unelectable, with this clear evidence that his base of support is much broader than originally believed, this may come down to a very close two-man race between Romney and Paul.

A slightly different version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine.

After polling all of our state chapters and receiving their votes determined from the preferences of their members, on Wednesday the Republican Liberty Caucus national board held a special meeting at which we certified the decision of our members to endorse Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The following press release was sent to national media in coordination with the Ron Paul campaign and we hope that our input will give Paul a little extra push going into the Iowa primary.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president, but you wouldn’t know it if you’ve been watching the many Republican debates. The widely respected two-term governor, who is also a Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member, has been excluded from all but two of the debates, despite the fact that he met the stated qualifications for many of them.

The complaints (shown to the right) focus primarily on the idea that giving some candidates access to the debates while excluding others amounts to the media effectively donating the value of that airtime to those campaigns and is a violation of campaign finance laws which require the reporting of in-kind contributions. They focus specifically on the recent CBS debate and argue that by selecting which candidates benefited from valuable air time during the broadcast debate and excluding others, CBS was “directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of their favorites and opposing the nomination of Complainant, whom CBS evidently disfavors.”

In a press release about the complaints, Senior Campaign Adviser Ron Nielson writes:

“As this campaign progresses, it is clear that nationally televised debates are having a tremendous impact. Candidates are moving up and down in the polls with every debate, fundraising is impacted dramatically, and Republican voters obviously remain undecided. When one looks at the inconsistent and arbitrary criteria networks such as CBS have used to decide who gets to be on the stage for the debates, it is apparent that decisions are being made in board rooms that are having the effect of ‘preselecting’ candidates.”

That is just wrong. We owe it to our supporters and to the process to take this basic unfairness and clear bias to those agencies whose job it is to insure that the power of the airwaves is not being misused in an arbitrary manner in the Republican nominating process.”

While we remain very fortunate to have other voices for liberty in this campaign like Rep. Ron Paul, the exclusion of Johnson shows a very serious problem in the Republican primary process. It suggests that the party is essentially letting the media pick which candidates voters are allowed to hear from which amounts to the media picking the Republican nominee.

Complaints about media bias have been heard frequently from supporters of other candidates, going back to the 2008 election. Ron Paul received similar treatment in 2008 and there has been considerable complaint that in the recent debate he received only 89 seconds of airtime out of 90 minutes while other candidates were given much longer to express their positions and address questions. If Johnson is the victim of a media blackout, Paul is victim of a kind of gray-out with much the same effect. He is allowed to compete, but not on a level playing field. It’s better than being excluded entirely, but it’s still not fair.

This is unfair for the voters and it is very unhealthy for the Republican Party. Liberty candidates like Johnson and Paul have good ideas which appeal to the voters and they deserve a chance to be heard. The Republican Party is allowing itself to be defined by the media as a party of corporate hacks and religious extremists because that fits the narrative of the election which the media wants to create. Candidates like Paul and Johnson defy that stereotyping and put a more positive face on a party which is much more diverse than the media likes to admit.

These complaints represent a positive step in the right direction which activists can focus on. It’s an opportunity to express your dissatisfaction and demand that the networks be held accountable for their clear bias and manipulation of the political process. Demand that Governor Johnson be included in future debates.

To make this easier we’ve provided a form below which will let you email your members of congress and also the directors of the FEC and the FCC and perhaps most importantly key decision makers at CNN which is broadcasting the upcoming debate on November 22nd.

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Barry Hinckley in Rhode Island Senate Race

Barry Hinckley Represents the Kind of Leader We Need to Restore the Principles of the Republican Party

AUSTIN, TX – At their most recent meeting the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus voted unanimously to endorse Barry Hinckley in the Senatorial campaign in Rhode Island.  He received the highest praise of the board and is their first selection for endorsmeent in the 2012 election cycle.  Hinckley is an excellent advocate for the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated.

“Rhode Island has a unique history as a bastion of liberty and free thought, dating back to its founding by Roger Williams,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “Those ideas inspired the creation of the Republican Party and I believe that Barry Hinckley is a leader who can help restore the party to those principles of limited government and individual liberty. He is dedicated to giving the people of Rhode Island a real voice in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Mike Lee (UT) and Rand Paul (KY).”

“Taking back the Senate is a key goal for Republicans in 2012, but it’s only a victory if we elect the right kinds of Republicans – ones who are pledged to serving the people and not special interests,” observed  RLC Director Bill Westmiller.  “Barry Hinckley represents a new generation of Republican leaders who will govern based on principle tempered by pragmatism and who will roll back federal spending, end the cycle of uncontrolled debt and stand up for the rights of the people.”

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can swing the debate away from the big government status quo and crony capitalism and towards the government of citizen legislators our founders intended.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today. The people are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of an out of control government. We demand the restorations of our liberties and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting out complacent and unresponsive office holders until they get the message.

—

More information on the Barry Hinckley campaign can be found at http://www.hinckleyforsenate.com/

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Brian K. Hill in Connecticut Senate Race
Brian Hill Represents the Kind of Leader We Need to Restore the Republican Party

AUSTIN, TX – At their most recent meeting the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus selected Connecticut Senatorial candidate Brian K. Hill as one of their first endorsees for the 2012 election season.  Hill is an oustanding candidate who represents the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated.

“The party establishment in Connecticut has put forward two candidates in this Senate race who represent only the interestes of big government and crony capitalists,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “Brian Hill is a real grassroots alternative with solid credentials and innovative ideas.  He is dedicated to giving the people of his state a real voice in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Mike Lee (UT) and Rand Paul (KY).”

“Brian Hill is a champion of individual liberty and limited government who will not give ground on fundamental principles and will hold both the Democrats and our own party leadership accountable for their failures,” observed  RLC Vice-Chairman Ed Lopez-Reyes.  “He will take up the serious work of rolling back federal spending, ending the cycle of uncontrolled debt and speaking up for the rights and interests of the people of their states.”

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can swing the debate away from the big government status quo and towards putting the best interests of the people first.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today. The people are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of an out of control government. We demand the restorations of our liberties and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting out complacent and unresponsive office holders until they get the message.

—

More information on the Brian K. Hill campaign can be found at http://briankhill.com/

As another election approaches the issue of marriage equality and where various Republican candidates stand on the Defense of Marriage Act or a possible Constitutional amendment defining marriage is already starting to come up as special interest groups and the media try to force the debate towards divisive social issues.

In this debate, no one seems to be asking the fundamental question which underlies the entire gay marriage issue. Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution. It is a fundamental sacrament in most churches. Why does the government think it should be in the marriage business in the first place. What right do they have to dictate a matter of faith or to decide who can or can’t get married in the first place?

In all this talk about a Defense of Marriage Amendment our legislators seem to have missed the fact that we already have an amendment which defends marriage, the First Amendment. It clearly defends marriage as a sacrement of the church and declares it to be free from government interference when it says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

If my religion recognizes marriage as a sacrament and allows me to marry someone of the same gender, doesn’t the First Amendment clearly say that Congress has no right to prohibit that exercise of religion and that I am free to practice that sacrament? To tell my church what it can and cannot define as a marriage seems like a total violation of this separation of church and state. Marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution any more than Baptism or Confirmation is. The state doesn’t try to interfere in those rituals. Why should it interfere in marriage?

What we need here is not another amendment, but a clear decision from the Supreme Court declaring that the government has no jurisdiction over a religious institution like marriage. Then, if Congress wants to pass a law – it doesn’t even have to be a Constitutional Amendment – which defines what kind of living relationships people can have, they should go to it. Of course any such law would need to pass muster under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which would certainly rule out prohibiting same-sex relationships or polygamy or any other arrangement involving consenting adults.

Once you take marriage out of the arena of law and give it back to the church where it belongs, then any relationship between two people for the purposes of creating a household, combining assets and other activities like raising a family becomes a purely contractual relationship and falls under common law and the partnership laws of the individual states, all of which recognize the right of individuals to enter into binding contracts for extended periods of time and assign rights and legal status to those partnerships under the law, and anything can be written into a partnership contract, including shared control of assets and by extension presumably of children as well. Boilerplate partnership contracts could easily be developed which covered material possessions, powers of attorney, guardianship of children and every other concern and the local courthouse could have different versions available for different needs, so you wouldn’t have to pay for a lawyer.

Couples or members of a plural marriage or any other type of partnership could then file their contract at their local courthouse and that would be that. Or if they wanted, they could go to a church which sanctioned their particular form of marriage and have it recognized as a marriage under the laws of that church with a ceremony and everything. And make no mistake, there are plenty of churches willing to marry just about anyone to anyone else, and if there aren’t someone will certainly start one to fill the need.

This seems like a simple, clean solution to this divisive problem. It doesn’t violate the sacred institution of marriage – in fact it ends years of government violation of religious rights. It doesn’t add more useless junk to the Constitution or waste more time and money on pointless unconstitutional legislation. Finally, it allows consenting adults to live however they want so long as it harms no one else. Marriage protected and equal rights for all. What more could either side of this debate ask for? And if they aren’t satisfied with a solution like this, then let them tell us honestly what greater political agenda and moral values they’re really trying to force down our throats?

Since his election in 2010, Justin Amash (RLC-MI) has been one of our big successes in the House of Representatives. He has been a consistent voice for liberty and fiscally responsible government and has set a new standard of accountability which ought to be an inspiration for everyone in public office. Since he was elected he has posted multiple updates to his Facebook page every day that the House is in session detailing the issues being voted on and explaining his votes and his decision making process.

Rep. Amash has had his position in the 2012 election weakened by a redistricting plan designed to strengthen the positions of big-government incumbents in his state by transferring some of his voters to their districts and saddling him with more Democrat votes. It’s still a very winnable district, but he needs all the help he can get.

The key to winning elections for liberty candidates when fighting the entrenched system of perpetual incumbency is to raise money from outside of a single district and to reach out to Liberty Republicans all over the nation for support. With Ron Paul retiring we need to hold on to every seat we can. I don’t do this often, but I’m sending out a plea to Republican Liberty Caucus members and supporters nationwide to do what they can to help keep Justin Amash in Congress.

The best way to donate is through his 48-hour moneybomb which ends tomorrow. You can donate at AmashforCongress.com.

Chat Live with Special Guests During the Debate

Welcome to our live online event for the FoxNews Republican Presidential Debate in Tampa Florida. The debate begins at 9pm eastern time on Thursday the 22nd and our live coverage will begin a little bit before that. We’ll have live chat commentary which you can participate in with capacity for hundreds to take part and share their observations during the debate, plus a post mortem after the debate which may feature a special guest. Drinking games during the debate are not only authorized, but encouraged. The chat application is right below and some information on the candidates fills out the rest of this article.

The debate is being sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida at their Presidency 5 straw poll event in Orlando, but you don’t have to pay $175 to attend (or have Ron Paul pay it for you).  You can watch it on cable on FoxNews and get the blow by blow commentary here.  It’ll be just like being in the audience. There will also be a livestream of the debate to watch on the web.

Prior to the debate you can submit your questions for the candidates on video through YouTube or just vote on the questions you like the best.

The Contenders

Gary Johnson is making big news right before the debate, because after being excluded from the last two debates, he battled his way back in with a 1% oor higher showing in five recent polls, plus he’s still outpolling Rick Santorum and John Huntsman.  In fact, in a current FoxNews online poll Johnson has surged ahead and is now tied for third with Rick Perry and ahead of Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney.  Interestingly, Johnson’s inclusion in the debate is over the objections of the Republican Party of Florida which has had a troubled history in dealing with the libertarian-leaning wing of the party which Johnson represents.  If Johnson can bring the kind of dynamism to this debate which he has shown in recent television appearances he could become a major contender again.

Rick Perry is the longest serving governor in the history of the state of Texas and has launched a campaign based around strong statements on states rights and getting Washington off the backs of the people. His statements are somewhat in contrast to his long record as a government insider and supporter of federal programs. He is perhaps best known in Texas for his friendliness to large corporations and the inside deals and special favors which have been hallmarks of his administration. This is Perry’s first debate and there is some speculation that he is not well prepared and may suffer based on his history of being a weak debate performer, or may even duck out at the last minute citing the wildfire crisis in Texas as a reason not to attend.

Ron Paul is probably the highest profile candidate. He is a 10 term Congressman from Texas known by his colleagues as “Dr. No” for his consistent opposition to any growth of government spending or programs and any legislation of questionable constitutionality. Paul ran for president in 2008 and his campaign launched the Tea Party movement and pioneered non-traditional fundraising methodology which has been adopted by other insurgent campaigns since then. Paul is a conservative libertarian politically who believes in minimal government and strict adherence to the Constitution and for his outspoken, sometimes irascible style.

Mitt Romney is a perceived frontrunner, but he has been running a very low profile campaign and losing ground to more active candidates. The former governor of Massachusetts has a strong business background and a successful record in office. He ran for president in 2008 and has high name recognition, but is somewhat tainted by his association with President Obama’s public health care plan which was largely based on a plan Romney instituted in Massachusetts which has been plagued by budget overruns. This debate is Romney’s opportunity to confirm that he is a frontrunner or end his campaign quickly with a bang.

Michelle Bachmann is a controversial Congresswoman from Minnesota who is best known for her association with the Tea Party movement and her extreme religious views which include strong opposition to gay rights and a call for a federal ban on pornography. Bachmann has a strongly fiscally conservative record and was a top contender in the polls until a few weeks ago when her numbers dropped into the single digits, possibly because of the entry of Rick Perry into the race and his appeal to the same demographic.

Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a syndicated columnist and a former federal reserve board chairman.. Until recently he was a nationally syndicated radio talkshow host, but is on hiatus during his campaign. He is from Atlanta and has degrees in mathematics and computer science. He is a strong fiscal conservative with relatively pragmatic positions on social issues. He is an experienced and dynamic public speaker and brings powerful credentials as a very successful businessman to his campaign.

John Huntsman is the former Governor of Utah and most recently was President Obama’s Ambassador to China. He is seen as a moderate Republican with an appeal to independents, though so far his lack of media exposure and relatively low public profile have held him back from any success in national polls. If he performs well here it may take him from the back bench to being a more major contender.

Rick Santorum served two terms as Senator from Pennsylvania and two terms in Congress representing suburban Pittsburgh. He is Roman Catholic and has a reputation as an extreme religious conservative. He tried to legislate the teaching of intelligent design at the federal level and has made controversial statements on a variety of social issues. He is known for his aggressive and confrontational style and for not shying away from controversial positions.

For more information on the candidates, their statements and their records see Project Vote Smart.

With GOP contenders battling it out for the chance to face President Barack Obama in 2012, the once “cult-following” of Texas Congressman Ron Paul has turned into a base large enough to consider him one of the frontrunners. Having a massive Facebook following, the second highest 2nd quarter funds raised after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and recent poll victories such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Paul’s more than 30 year old message of individual liberty, sound money and free markets is resonating with an ever larger audience.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”

Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.

The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. We saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, and that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Photo of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX) by: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)”]

Published 7/29/11 on Examiner

CONCORD, N.H.–To bolster Republicans’ progress toward responsible government in the House of Representatives, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire is endorsing David Simpson for state representative in a Hillsborough District 3 special election on Tuesday, Sept. 20.

Simpson, who is running for a vacant House seat representing the towns of Peterborough, New Ipswich, Sharon and Greenville, would bring important experience to reinforce the already impressive efforts of the Republican majority in restoring the common sense principles of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and adherence to the state and federal constitutions.

“The Republican majority has demonstrated that they are dedicated to bringing prosperity back to New Hampshire, and David Simpson will be a valuable addition to that effort,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “David’s experience, primarily in the areas of finance, budgets and small businesses, will be important as we continue to undo the economic damage wrought by years of Democrat control and public mismanagement.”

On his Web site, www.davidlsimpson.org, Simpson makes clear his commitment to improving the business climate in New Hampshire, which will lead to economic and job growth. He says he wants to work to protect the New Hampshire Advantage by maintaining a reasonable regulatory balance, making business tax rates more competitive and protecting individuals right to work free from union coercion.

“David Simpson will strengthen Republican efforts to restore common sense government in Concord,” said Hemingway. “He is unwavering in his commitment to the welfare and prosperity of our state, and he understands that the only way to get the state back on the path to prosperity is by returning to our legacy of responsible, honest and limited government.”

In general, endorsed RLCNH candidates are strong proponents of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility and free enterprise. They have shown their dedication to these ideals with their score on RLCNH’s 20-question candidate survey and their reputation among liberty activists. Endorsed candidates must score 80 percent or higher on the survey and they must have a strong character recognized by their peers.

For more information about David Simpson’s candidacy, please visit www.davidlsimpson.org.