RLC chapter chairmen in four states have recently weighed in on pressing issues in their states and have been published or received notoriety for their efforts:

• In Peach Pundit, Georgia RLC Chair Travis Bowden argues that a proposed shift in power violates the Georgia Constitution in “The Role of the Lt. Governor“;

• At her blog, Nebraska RLC Chair Laura Ebke opines that having both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the presidential race is a good idea.

• In NH Insider, New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway argues that Republicans should end their typical view of government and instead adopt a new perspective;

• At RedState, Wisconsin RLC Chair Mike Murphy’s efforts to rescind a promise between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians has been exposed as a result of his tireless work.

Our RLC state chapters are busy building momentum for electoral successes in 2012. Please get involved today!

Laura Ebke says its beneficial to have two liberty candidates in the 2012 GOP race.

Raise your hand if you support torture.

On Thursday afternoon I’ll be a guest on the Debate Day Moneybomb for the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. I’m lucky enough to be appearing during the segment hosted by noted liberty pundit Wes Messamore and we’ll be talking about Ron Paul, liberty issues and the upcoming debate.

I’m on at 2pm (EST) and you can tune in on the runronpaul.com website. I’m in the honored slot right after Dr. Paul himself and I’m the lead-in for Adam Kokesh. There will be other interesting guests from 9am (EST) up until the start of the debate on Fox at 9pm (EST).

And if you’re watching the debate, come to the RLC website and you can join RLC members and special guests for an online event where we’ll be discussing the debates live and then have a post-mortem after the debate wraps up with a special guest.

Keep fighting for liberty,
Dave Nalle
National Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus

As liberty voters we’re very lucky this year that we have a better choice of candidates than we have had since the days of Goldwater and Taft.  With both Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul running some of us are finding it hard to figure out which candidate to support and others are bickering and squabbling over their choices rather than celebrating how lucky we really are. Liberty is catching fire in the hearts of America and this campaign proves it.

At this point, early in the primary process, it benefits us to have as many candidates as possible talking about cutting back the federal government and reclaiming our rights.  Right now there are no delegates at stake and no serious establishment frontrunner to focus on defeating.  That will probably remain true through the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, where it’s all about exposure and there aren’t many delegates to win. After that the race gets serious and there are more and more delegates to be won.  At that point we’re going to have to make a choice of who to throw all our efforts and resources behind and it seems obvious to me that the right choice is Ron Paul.

I’ve reached that conclusion for reasons which are both pragmatic and political, and from both perspective he is the gold standard for liberty in 2012.

Practical Advantages

Paul’s practical advantages are obvious.  He is better known, has a large established base of followers and a national organization which is well established with an extraordinary record of fundraising success. Fundraising will be particularly important in a race where the Democrats have promised to spend a billion dollars. Paul is already all over the media, especially the cable news networks.  He is better known than the other hardcore conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty. He has multiple bestselling books in print and his followers promote him tirelessly.  The level of love and support he has generated says a lot about the man and his ideas.  Plus we saw his success at spreading his message in 2008 and now he can build on that base to go even further. Paul has shown he’s a strong debater and an energetic campaigner despite his age, and we need that enthusiasm to beat Obama.

Paul also has long-term associations which will benefit him in the election. He has long been a supporter of pro-liberty groups like the Von Mises Institute and the John Birch Society and was a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has a wide base of support on the internet from groups like Justin Raimondo’s AntiWar.com and Lew Rockwell and the many political writers at LewRockwell.com, and has built powerful tools for communication on his own networks like RonPaulForums.com and for grassroots support in Campaign for Liberty. Plus it can’t be forgotten that the idea of the Tea Party originated in Paul’s 2008 campaign and many Tea Party voters are still drawn to him.

The Right Ideas

On his political positions Paul is also superior. People keep comparing him to Gary Johnson, but it’s a false comparison. They’re not nearly as similar as Johnson supporters would like us to believe and they really aren’t even competing for the same voters. Ron Paul is a true constitutional conservative and it’s a mistake to call him a libertarian, even if he has a lot in common with that movement. Gary Johnson is more of a moderate libertarian. He’s a minarchist who is a liberal on social issues. He’s closer to Ronald Reagan or the old Rockefeller wing of the party on many issues and he’s too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters. Paul has a more clearly defined constitutional position and an established reputation for standing on principle.

Ron Paul’s positions are more appealing on a number of issues. He’s the only candidate who is willing to stand up and call for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is a dangerous cabal run by foreign bankers with no basis in Constitutional authority. He’s the only candidate who believes in sound money and a return to the gold standard rather than fractional reserve banking. He’s also the strongest candidate supporting states rights and state sovereignty and an end to federal tyranny under the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul is the only candidate brave enough to have a foreign policy which admits the mistakes we’ve made overseas and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. It is Israel and it’s powerful lobby which have drawn us into war after war and made us the target of terrorism, and Ron Paul would end that relationship and he would withdraw all of our military bases outside our border and stop spending money to prop up dictators and intervene in the affairs of countries all over the world. He’d get us out of the United Nations, thumb his nose at the New World Order, and strengthen our borders to protect our workers and our jobs.

What is absolutely essential for the primary election is that Paul’s personal values can win over GOP primary voters. While he believes that states rights are sacrosanct and is willing to leave many things up to the states to decide, Paul personally believes in fundamental moral values. He believes in the sanctity of human life from conception, opposes the immorality of gay marriage, supports the right of students to pray in school and the posting of the ten commandments on public property. He believes in economic liberty, but also the liberty to practice religion freely and maintain a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code in our society without the interference of the federal government.

It is these values which do the most to differentiate Paul from Gary Johnson, and it is these values which will win him the support of key voters in the religious right so that he can win a primary victory. When traditionalist Christian voters discover that Johnson personally supports gay marriage and abortion and letting the federal government dictate social policy to the states they will turn against him in droves. Unless Ron Paul is there for them to turn to they may support a socially conservative candidate who is terrible on other issues like Mike Huckabee.

Winning in 2012

Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for libertarian ideas, but he is out of step with many in the Republican party and while he might draw Democrats and independents in the general election, he cannot win in a Republican primary because of his controversial views, and you don’t get to the general election without winning the primary. As a true constitutional conservative Ron Paul does not have that liability. Once his message gets out most Republicans will realize that he’s got the right ideas for them.

If you believe in the Constitution, states rights, ending the Fed, sound money and a non-interventionist foreign policy, then Ron Paul is your candidate. He will end the abuses of the last two administrations, cut back the overgrowth of the federal government, get us out of hock to foreign bankers and end the Bush-Obama era of imperialism, torture and murder.

Longtime RLC Advisory Board member and past Honorary Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus Dr. Ron Paul announced that he has formed an exploratory committee, the first step in his formal process of seeking the Republican Party nomination in 2012.

On Monday, the soft-spoken country doctor appeared on ABC’s “The View” as well as “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central.

On Tuesday, he formally announced his exploratory committee and released his Iowa campaign team’s leadership. The news received widespread mention in the press, including the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe, Politico, FOX News, USA Today, Washington Examiner, and Huffington Post, among many other publications.

Here, Congressman Paul talks about the race on CNN’s morning program, earlier this morning.

You can donate to Ron Paul at http://www.runronpaul.com/. You can also join his supporters on Facebook.

Congressman Paul was the Honorary Chairman of the RLC for one term, 1995-1996. He is known for his pro-liberty positions on the issues confronting our country.

The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidates since Steve Forbes in 1996. We let our members decide who they want to support and only formally endorse a candidate if our chartered state affiliates unanimously agree on a candidate to endorse.

Last week, the day after former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson announced his Presidential bid, antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo authored a piece he likely had been salivating to publish for some period of time entitled “Gary Johnson: Caveat Emptor.”

It’s the attack on Gary Johnson heard ‘round the Paulosphere, having been circulated by fans of likely 2012 Presidential candidate and fellow libertarian Republican, Congressman Ron Paul.

Raimondo, a skilled writer, did some digging on Gary Johnson to spread the word to the faithful that they shouldn’t waste their time on what he makes out to be an unprincipled sellout — a real statist hack.

Raimondo’s three main complaints with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, as outlined in his article, are that:
• Johnson supports what is referred to in a Weekly Standard article as “humanitarian wars”;
• Johnson supports the U.S. alliance with Israel; and
• Johnson is supported by the “cosmotarians”, as Raimondo’s subheading asserts.

Cosmo-wha?

Let’s take this third point first, since it has little to do with policy and much to do with personality. Raimondo spends more than 1/3 of his article talking personality and internal movement politics.

Lew Rockwell, a longtime Raimondo ally, wrote at least two negative commentaries about Gary Johnson on days one and two of his campaign (1). Raimondo and Rockwell belong to the segment of the broader liberty movement that is unapologetically anti-war. While they also call themselves “anti-state,” the movers and shakers in this faction often hold conservative positions on social issues. In other words, sometimes they prefer government interference and other times they do not. (Note that these same authors criticize the inconsistencies they see in others on an almost constant basis.)

This is in tune with their most prominent advocate, Congressman Ron Paul (a RLC Advisory Board member held in great esteem by this author), who shares their libertarian bent but feels at ease with the paleo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. As an example, hit piece author Justin Raimondo was involved in Pat Buchanan’s campaigns in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Congressman Ron Paul recently expressed his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, and is an advocate of removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution.

This “paleo” wing of the liberty movement has long disliked the “libertarian” wing of the liberty movement, who they call “cosmotarians” or “Beltway Libertarians.” The “beltway” crew consists of what Raimondo labels in his article the “Kochtopus” (brothers David and Charles Koch), the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine. The history of the infighting between these factions dates to at least the mid-1980s and won’t be settled anytime soon.

The key point here is that Justin Raimondo approached his article from a biased perspective to begin with. In other words, the score was settled long before Gary Johnson arrived on the scene. Johnson is the unfortunate punching bag because of his interest in bringing more people into the libertarian movement — the types of people Raimondo may not want to join us.

“Humanitarian Wars”

Is stopping genocide the same as a humanitarian war? Is it possible to stop human rights abuses via government action without engaging in a war?

Author Justin Raimondo claims that Governor Gary Johnson supports humanitarian wars. However, nowhere does Johnson mention the word humanitarian, the word war, or both words in conjunction with each other (2).

Instead, Johnson says that “in principle” he would try to “positively influence” or “stop” genocide in foreign nations. He doesn’t say he would intervene in ALL foreign nations where genocide is occurring, but he does say that he does not support nation-building in any form or fashion. Couple this with his principled opposition to the wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and you have a candidate who is a non-interventionist with the possible exception of using government to aid people being oppressed in foreign nations.

Call me crazy, but this is hardly the least libertarian position I’ve heard on foreign policy — especially among those running for President. Most libertarian Republicans I know supported intervention in World War II, in part because the United States was attacked, but also because millions of Europeans were being slaughtered and tortured.

To rule out supporting Governor Johnson on the basis of his policy position to potentially stop genocide in a foreign nation is silly.

Unsurprisingly, Justin Raimondo misleads his readers to draw the conclusion that Governor Johnson’s foreign policy is similar to the Obama Doctrine. Raimondo’s false conclusion ignores the fact that Governor Johnson opposes the the War in Libya. How is a candidate opposed the Obama war equated to supporting the Obama Doctrine? It doesn’t add up.

Big, Bad Israel

Raimondo’s favorite topic — undoubtedly — is bashing Israel. Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative issues page indicates that Governor Johnson supports Israel’s right to defend itself. That is a reasonable position for any libertarian to take, as I explain in my article “Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel A Lesson for the Liberty Movement to Follow.”

Senator Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul), during his 2010 campaign, defended Israel’s right to self defense, saying, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.” More recently, Senator Paul has advocated ending U.S. aid to Israel.

In a document I obtained from Gary Johnson’s (c)(4) group the Our America Initiative, Governor Johnson says that “a clear national security interest and the fundamental defense of the United States” justifies U.S. support for Israel. “Our direct military funding support to Israel totals about $3 billion a year, and the majority of that money is spent buying equipment and technology from U.S. companies. That $3 billion is less than we gave General Motors, and the cost of not having a strong, democratic ally in the Middle East is incalculable,” Governor Johnson concludes in the document. He says the costs of the continued relationship are “paltry when compared with th(e) benefits”(3).

Gary Johnson also says that, as President, he would work to support Israel in case it is attacked “militarily.” That’s a big if, since the Arabs have lost six wars in the Middle East in the last six decades. Governor Johnson, like many others, sees the United States having a strong relationship with the one nation in the Middle East region which provides rights and liberties to its people as valuable. While most libertarians do not support alliances in any form or fashion (including this libertarian), obviously Governor Johnson does in one instance. He should explain more about why the U.S.-Israel alliance is more important than other alliances.

Fortunately, you don’t have to agree with Governor Johnson on the issue of Israel to support his candidacy in the same way that you don’t have to agree with Congressman Paul’s vote to build a fence along the Mexican border.

Mr. Raimondo attempts to paint Gary Johnson as a statist throughout his article, but he concludes that Governor Johnson is “Ron Paul Lite” — a palatable, principled advocate of individual liberty and limited government.

Gary Johnson, says Raimondo, is “Paul Lite, Paul without the hard edges, without the ‘kooky’ end-the-Fed stuff, without the social conservatism, without the stubborn devotion to principle and to Austrian economics, specifically – in short, a hollowed out libertarianism, without any style and surely without its soul.” (Note: Gary Johnson has said he would audit and abolish the Fed and adheres to the Austrian school of economics.)

Welcome to real politics, Mr. Raimondo, where (unfortunate as it may be) kooky doesn’t win elections.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson won election in a majority-minority state — a state that is two to one Democrat — twice (1994 and 1998). In Johnson, we’re fortunate enough to have a Presidential candidate who is committed to principle, has a record to prove it, and is a willing and able-bodied standard-bearer to spread the libertarian message to the masses.

There’s simply no reason you should accept Justin Raimondo’s bid to make the perfect the enemy of the awesome.

Sources

(1) April 21 Lew Rockwell post #1; April 21 Lew Rockwell post #2

(2) The article in question is from the Weekly Standard. “Humanitarian war” is coined by the author. View the original article and the author’s follow-up.

(3) The document I obtained is called “Continued Investment in U.S.-Israel Relations is Worth the Cost.”

On April 21st, from the shadows of the New Hampshire state capitol building, as well as the national political scene, Gary Johnson announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Just four days later, it became known that Ron Paul was forming an exploratory committee, a first step in a process that almost certainly will end in an official presidential run. This back-and-forth is in many ways emblematic of the growing divide between supporters of Johnson and Paul.

Many of us saw this coming. There is this underlying perception that the liberty movement ain’t big enough for the both of ‘em. Each side is concerned that the other candidate will hurt their candidate’s chances to win the GOP nomination. I believe it is from this that all other debates stem. Don’t get me wrong; each side has raised legitimate points, but fear of the harm the “other” candidate will do is what is making the disagreements personal. I want to address the concerns in hopes that I can help quell the personal and divisive nature of Johnson v. Paul 2012.

It is somewhat true that the presence of multiple libertarian candidates will to a certain extent split the vote. The Paul supporters will claim that Johnson is stealing former and potential Paul supporters. While it is true that this has and will occur, Johnson supporters can just as easily make the claim that Paul will be stealing potential Johnson supporters because Johnson was the first to announce his candidacy. Come to think of it, Ron Paul has yet to announce he is running for president. This is nothing more than jejune bickering, and it needs to stop.

Though there is a semblance of truth to it, the vote-splitting concern is a little overblown. Each candidate that enters the race is going to siphon votes from the most ideologically similar candidates. This is the nature of primaries, and as each candidate drops out of the race, most of the votes that had gone to him or her will be divided among the remaining candidates. If at some point Johnson or Paul decides to drop out of the race, I believe it is almost a certainty that one will endorse the other; that will give the remaining candidate an observable boost, which will at least promote the perception of momentum. If neither candidate drops out of the race, the result would be two prominent libertarian voices in the Republican race.

And isn’t that what all of this is about? Ron Paul’s 2008 race has been an immeasurable boon to the liberty movement. If we are to look seriously at that run, though, it was never about winning. Dr. Paul has made it clear he has little if any desire to actually become president. If he does officially run for president in 2012, it will be a reluctant response to public pressure. Ron Paul ran as a message candidate in 2008, and he’s going to be doing the same thing in 2012. The RealClearPolitics aggregate poll has Paul polling at 6% right now. While I would not suggest it is impossible for Ron Paul to win in 2012, starting out with that low of a number does not bode well for victory.

Gary Johnson will be doing the same thing in 2012. This election cycle will be for Gary Johnson what 2008 was for Ron Paul. This effect would be greater if Paul ultimately decided not to run, but in either case Gary Johnson is not going to win in 2012. For Johnson, this is more about 2016 than it is about 2012. Given the political reality that neither is going to win, there should be no reason to attack either one of them for ruining the cause or whatever other ridiculous allegations are being said. When you are a message candidate, you want your message to be as loud as possible, and two voices are louder than one.

Both Johnson and Paul supporters should welcome the other candidate because of this. Paul supporters should think back to the 2008 debates (well, the ones in which Ron Paul was actually allowed to participate). Do you remember the ostracism and general disrespect with which Dr. Paul was treated? He was cast aside as a lone kook rambling on about the Fed and other crazy things. That’s an easy thing to do when only one candidate is speaking the words that are being dismissed as looney. If you add another candidate to the mix saying the same thing, it adds credibility to the message of both. In a sense, Johnson and Paul need each other to be taken seriously.

It is my sincere hope that these reasons will lessen the infighting that so often plagues the liberty movement. In Part II of this article, I will go over the actual policy differences that are often the subject of ridicule from the opposing camp. As I will show, although each side will focus on the differences, even where Johnson and Paul differ, they aren’t that different.

So let us put this behind us. I thought this was a revolution. I’ve been seeing much more hate than love recently.

This is not the Ron Paul movement. It is not the Gary Johnson movement. This is the libertarian movement, and the more soldiers for liberty we have the more successful our fight will be.

Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member Congressman Ron Paul had stern criticisms of the Paul Ryan budget proposal. According to Dr. Paul,

“We don’t have a king today, but, unfortunately, I think we’re drifting to a point that our big government is king — and the government tells us what we can do and be responsible for us. And, if we don’t have a house, they’ll give us a house. If we don’t have education, they’ll give us free education. If we’re hungry, we get food stamps. And deficits don’t matter. And if you need money, you print the money. And we have this moral obligation to police the world. It goes on and on … the king will take care of us.”

Released last week, the Paul Ryan budget has been praised by some conservatives. Many on the left have said Ryan’s plan is unfair to the elderly and the poor — who would also be affected by Ryan’s approach to Medicare and Medicaid — and benefits corporate interests and the wealthy. Ryan’s budget is set to pass the GOP-controlled House this week.

Paul, who will turn 76 this summer, said Ryan’s plan doesn’t go nearly far enough toward dismantling the welfare state. “We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem. What is the philosophy of government? What should the role of government be?”

The Congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. “(Paul) Ryan doesn’t reject (the) notion (of a government-run welfare system). I do.”

Congressman Paul also criticized spending on “maintaining our empire” and “being the policeman of the world.”

“All great societies have ended for foreign policy reasons,” Paul said. “That’s what brought the Soviets down.” Paul, a likely 2012 Presidential candidate, said he also opposes raising the nation’s federal debt limit.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin has been critical of Congressman Paul Ryan for his previous support of Big Government.

by Ron Paul

This is the Appendix to Ron Paul’s new book, Liberty Defined.

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and government’s must never engaged in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

© 2011 FREE, Inc.

Will Reince Priebus exclude Ron Paul and Gary Johnson from the 2012 RNC debates?

Despite the fact that no candidates have formally announced for President, we know that campaign season is upon us because the usual suspects are working to find a way to exclude new ideas from the Presidential debates.

Presidential debates in our country have often been exclusionary, especially since the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates after Ross Perot’s successful third party campaign in 1992. The Libertarian Party candidate has never been included in a nationally televised debate. Congressman Ron Paul was excluded from at least one debate in Iowa in 2007, but was ultimately included in the important debates. If he had not been included in the debates, both his ideas and his popularity would have suffered as a result. Perhaps the Tea Party never would have formed.

Last week, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus formed a committee comprised of RNC member Jim Bopp, former RNC Chair Mike Duncan, former Florida GOP Chair Al Cardenas, and former Congressman Dick Armey to decide whether the Republican National Committee should sponsor debates to raise money for themselves. According to James Bopp, “The RNC or its designee may at its discretion determine the time, place, co-sponsors, format , subject matter, moderators and participants” for the debates.

“Those candidates invited to participate in RNC-sanctioned debates will be allowed to participate in a list exchange with the RNC,” wrote Bopp.

And therein lies the problem. Certain candidates will be invited and other candidates will be excluded.

This is exactly what I warned of when I asked you to write your RNC member to oppose the nomination of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus just a few months ago.

The RNC is planning to pick favorites. If conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt — who thinks this is a grand plan for the Republican Party — has his way, Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson will be excluded from RNC-sanctioned debates. Writes Hewitt:

“Bar the stage to those candidates who simply cannot win the nomination, even under Iowa-upset circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania are long-shots, but they have a plausible path to the nomination. Former Rep. Buddy Roemer of Louisiana and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson do not. If Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, asks for another giant chunk of valuable time, the RNC should say no, and put up with the howls from the 1 percent who will scream.“

Fortunately, some debates are already scheduled, including a May 5 South Carolina debate, a June 7 New Hampshire debate, an August Iowa debate, two debates in Florida in September and October, and the Politico/NBC debate on September 14 in California. However, if the RNC continues with its plan, they could simply adopt some of these debates and begin excluding whomever they want — just as the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates excludes third party candidates each Presidential election cycle.

TAKE ACTION

Please contact RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, RNC Chief of Staff Jeff Larson, RNC Committeeman from Indiana Jim Bopp, RNC Committeeman from Kentucky Mike Duncan, FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey, and American Conservative Union’s Al Cardenas. Ask them for inclusive debates that include Congressman Ron Paul, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, and former Reagan official Fred Karger.

Here is a sample letter:

Dear Committeeman Bopp,

I recently learned that the Republican National Committee is sponsoring its own debates to raise money for the RNC.  I am a Republican party activist and am also involved with my local Tea Party.  I saw conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt comment that certain candidates should be excluded from the RNC-sanctioned debates.

Mr. Bopp, rest assured that I will not donate to the RNC if they exclude candidates like Congressman Ron Paul, Governor Buddy Roemer, or Governor Gary Johnson.  I want to hear as many voices as possible so that the Republican Party can have its best choice to defeat President Obama in 2012.

If your debates are going to be inclusive, then please forge ahead.  However, if you’re going to exclude candidates and ideas from the process, count me out.

Best Regards,

[Your Name]

You may also want to write to Hugh Hewitt to ask him why he believes American voters should be isolated from new ideas and different approaches to solving our problems.

GET INVOLVED

This leads us to the most important point about the discussion: We need more liberty-loving Republicans involved in the Republican Party so our voices can be heard.

Please join the Republican Liberty Caucus today and get involved in your state or local chapter.

If we’re not able to change the Republican Party from within, liberty will lose.

It’s really that simple. We choose to inject libertarian ideas into the party, or we give up. Those are our options.

Last weekend, Republicans in California gathered for their 2011 GOP Convention in Sacramento. Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California hosted their Convention on Friday night and participated in numerous activities throughout the weekend at the state GOP Convention.

On Saturday, the RLC-CA hosted a straw poll at its booth at the CAGOP Convention at the Sacramento Hyatt. Participation in the straw poll was limited to convention delegates, party activists, and registered Republican voters.

Republican Congressman and RLC Advisory Board member (and past Honorary Chairman) Dr. Ron Paul of Texas won the 2012 Presidential straw poll with 17.8 percent of the vote.

On Wednesday afternoon, Ron Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News and was asked specifically about the RLC straw poll victory (see screenshot above). Watch the clip.

Below, members of the California RLC administer the straw poll at the booth.