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

Tonight’s Republican Primary Debate was the best run debate we’ve had so far.  The structure was better and Wolf Blitzer managed the back and forth between the candidates more effectively than past moderators have done.  This made it more of a real debate, but my enjoyment was  tainted by a nagging awareness that the eight candidates standing on the stage did not really represent the diversity of the Republican Party.  I had to ask myself why the Republican Party of Florida and Tea Party Express allowed CNN to pick some candidates and exclude others based on arbitrary criteria which seem to serve their interests and not those of Republicans or the nation.

This was not a debate between candidates who represent Republican voters, but rather a debate between candidates hand picked by the media to play out their fictional version of what a Republican primary campaign should be like and what kind of candidates represent the factions within the Republcian Party.  Weak Republican leaders have allowed the media to effectively take control of this election and pick which candidates we are allowed to see and ultimately who we can vote for.

At the heart of this problem is the systematic exclusion of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson from every debate since the first one in South Carolina.  Governor Johnson is as well qualified as anyone on the debate stage.  He has an exemplary record as a two term governor in a swing state.  He is the only governor in the race who still has the support of a majority of his home state voters.  He comes from a business background and built a multi-million dollar company from nothing. He has one of the best defined issue agendas of any candidate.  He has an active campaign with state organizations nationwide and a prominent presence in New Hampshire where he’s currently focusing his efforts.

Johnson has everything it should take to be a leading candidate, but for some reason the media seems to have singled him out for exclusion.  Are they ignoring Johnson for not fitting their definition of a Republican because he’s not pro-war, pro-bailout and religiously conservative?  Do they think having two libertarian-leaning candidates legitimizes that movement too much and might get either Johnson or Ron Paul elected?  Are they afraid that as a candidate who strongly appeals to independents and crossover voters he’s too dangerous to Obama?

No one really understands their motivation, but their shunning of Johnson is blatantly transparent and became offensively obvious with this latest debate.  Prior to this debate the trick for excluding Johnson was that he wasn’t scoring high enough in enough polls to qualify, a result which was accomplished by just not including his name in most of the polls and then claiming that even though he met the criteria in the polls he was in, he didn’t do well enough in the polls from which he was excluded.  I know it sounds crazy, but this really was the argument made by NBC and Fox in the two previous debates.

In tonight’s debate CNN added a new twist.  Up until two weeks ago they had been including Johnson in their polls, and while he wasn’t in the top tier, he was scoring a respectable 2 or 3 percent consistently.  In their last poll before the debate Johnson scored higher than Rick Santorum and John Huntsman and tied Herman Cain.  Yet despite this, CNN invited those three candidates to participate and did not invite Johnson to the debate.  They could not be swayed by emails, letters or phonecalls from Johnson’s supporters.  Then, as the jesters cap on this political farce, they dropped him fromt the list of candidates in the poll they took right before the debate, and in the results for that poll they removed him from the comparison listing from previous polls and replaced him with “someone else.”

Frankly, I cannot imagine a more deliberate or more obvious attempt to manipulate the primary process and effectively terminate a candidacy through the power of the media.  As a Republican I find the idea that the media should exercise this sort of power over a primary which determines the future of the party and of the nation to be terrifying.  Treat a candidate like he doesn’t exist and chances are that he will go away.  It was troubling enough when the Democrats did it to George McGovern, but to have a media which isn’t even sympathetic to the interests of the GOP doing it is scandalous.

But where is the outrage?  Why is RNC Chairman Reince Priebus not descending on Atlanta with an army of lawyers?  There seems to be a passive approval of CNN’s meddling in the election from the party establishment, because they fear the challenge to their corrupt and ineffective leadership that Johnson represents.  As a governor Johnson proved that he could govern without relying on special interests and corrupt bargains, and they know that the days of party insiders brokering elections and fattening their wallets at the expense of the people and in disregard to the grassroots would be numbered if Johnson was elected.

It’s likely that Johnson’s crime is that he is too good a candidate with ideas which are too likely to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters and the forces of the status quo in the media and in the party would just as soon not have him challenging their supremacy.  They can tolerate Ron Paul because he has no history of accomplishment and can be dismissed as a bit squirrely and academic – he may stir up the rabble but he probably can’t win the election and if he did he’s such an ideologue he’d be unable to get anything done.  What they can’t tolerate is is the threat of a younger, more dynamic and less easily marginalized pro-liberty reformer like Johnson.  Johnson has a record of successful reform, has no skeletons in his closet and has practical solutions and the ability to be pragmatic enough to get them passed.

Johnson is the real thing, and like Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater before him, the elites of the media and the party have aligned against him.  He’s too dangerous to be given a fair chance in a debate, and we’ve seen a corresponding dearth of coverage in the media when compared to lower polling candidates like Huntsman and Santorum.  He is a threat to the status quo cannot be tolerated by the establishment or their media allies.

The debates are grand theatre and the people love their bread and circuses, but as Republicans and as voters we should to be outraged and we ought to demand better from CNN and from our party leaders.

A previous version of this article appeared on Blogcritics Magazine

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2011
CONTACT: Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

Liberty Republicans Oppose E-Verify Legislation
Proposed Bill Would be a Gross Violation of Personal and Economic Liberty

WASHINGTON, DC — Affirming a long commitment to privacy rights and free enterprise, the Republican Liberty Caucus National Board has joined numerous other pro-liberty organizations in signing a letter in opposition to the “Legal Workforce Act” (HR 2164) and the job-killing and unconstitutional E-Verify system which it would establish.

“Concerns about immigration and hard economic times should not be used as a pretext for legislating away the rights of the people and transferring the cost of immigration enforcement to small businesses,” said RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “I lived in Russia under Soviet Rule when I was a teenager and remember being required to carry an internal passport and present my papers at government check-points.  I do not want my children and my fellow Americans to ever experience that same violation of their privacy and liberty and E-Verify lays the groundwork for exactly that kind of security state.”

This bill will create a de facto national ID card system which would have to apply to citizens as well as immigrants to be effective.  It violates the rights to free speech and free association of citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  It will place a huge cost on businesses, raising costs and killing jobs and forcing them to become the government’s immigration komissars.  It opens the door to further legislation which will take away more liberty and hurt small businesses most of all.

“If the federal government is incapable of tracking the immigrant workforce and enforcing the terms of the visas it issues, that problem can’t be solved by transferring that burden and cost to employers,” observed RLC National Board member Bill Westmiller.  ”Rather than following failed policies with bad law, the government’s goal should be to reform the laws to make them conform with modern reality; make them clear, simple and easily enforced.  Walls, armed guards and spies in the workplace can’t make a bad set of laws good.”

“As a nation our needs are best served by market-based solutions to dealing with immigration. Free labor makes the economy stronger and this sort of draconian legislation will drive more workers off the books and out of the tax rolls, expanding the employment black market and leading to crime and exploitation,” said Chairman Nalle.  ”Since 9/11 we have seen too many attacks on our rights in the name of security and economic expediency. We have seen the Bill of Rights shredded and now Congress plans to make another assault on the frst and fourth amendments.  This cannot be tolerated.”

Working with other concerned groups the Republican Liberty Caucus will be calling on our state chapters and our nationwide network of grassroots activists to demand that Congress stop this headlong rush into more bureaucracy, bigger government, greater surveillance and less freedom.  It is an insult to the founding principles of this nation that this law was ever entered for consideration.  It will be a shame if it makes it out of committee and a crime against every citizen if it is not soundly defeated on the floor.

####

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party.   You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.rlc.org

To view the coalition letter against E-Verify click here.

Like Governor Rick Perry I was a cheerleader, and I’m excited about the opportunities to lead the growth in the liberty movement during the coming election year.  So I sent out a letter to our state chapters to stir things up a bit and get us rolling as we go into this new season of amazing possibilities – DN

Don’t Believe the Hype.  Meet the Real Rick Perry
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas Sends Warning to Republicans Nationwide About Perry’s Tax and Spend Record

AUSTIN, TX – Texas Governor Rick Perry may be the flavor of the day for a lot of Republicans, but Texas Republicans who are familiar with his record are a lot less enthusiastic about his presidential run.  “Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves to use taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies,” says Secretary Dave Nalle of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas.  “His supposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves.”

Governor Perry’s record of big government, big spending, big taxing and attacks on the fundamental rights of Texas citizens is a familiar to Texans, but seems to be much less well known to Republicans outside of the state, which may explain his high initial showing in the polls.  The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is compiling a complete dossier on Perry to share with fellow Republicans outside their state so that they can be informed about what they are being sold in a Perry presidential candidacy.

The file on Perry’s abuses of power, insider deals with cronies and tax and spend policies is thick, but for a start here are what Texas RLC members voted as the top five Perry scandals which GOP primary voters need to know more about:

1. Business Slush Funds: Perry made heavy use of business incentive “slush funds” which used taxpayer dollars to subsidize selected businesses, many of them run by his major campaign contributors.  Just two of these funds, the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Growth fund, spent over $700 million to subsidize businesses to move to Texas or expand operations in Texas, with little evidence that these handouts of taxpayer money produced job or revenue growth anywhere near sufficient to justify the expense.  In fact, many of these businesses eventually downsized or relocated long before they had earned the money Perry gave them, or even went bankrupt with $25 million fund dollars like Countrywide Financial. source

2. Toll Roads and Land Seizures Perry has never met a toll road project he wasn’t willing to seize huge amounts of private land for and then give the exclusive management contracts to foreign corporations.  Perry’s time in office has set records for eminent domain land seizures – over a million acres have been seized.  His toll road projects have confiscated family farms and torn communities apart.  Toll roads have been used as a massive off-the-books tax program, taking money from Texas drivers and feeding it to foreign financial interests and management groups which lobbied the governor for special deals which produce much higher tolls and higher profits than are typical in other states. source

3. Forced Vaccinations: In 2007 Perry issued an executive order which would have forcibly vaccinated every girl in Texas entering the sixth grade with Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus.  This massive violation of the privacy rights of Texas teenagers and their parents would have come at a cost of $360 in taxpayer money per shot.  It would have been a huge windfall for Merck, which had paid Perry’s former Chief of Staff $250,000 to lobby the governor and legislature to promote the forced vaccination program. source

4. The Job-Killing Franchise Tax: Knowing that it would be impossible to pass an income tax against popular opposition in Texas, Perry promoted the idea of a special business tax called the “Franchise Tax” which taxes businesses at different arbitrary rates set by the government.  This tax expands business taxes to types of businesses which are not taxed in most states and in many cases taxes small businesses more than large corporations they compete with.  For example it taxes small car repair shops at double the rate it taxes large dealerships for car repairs.   It’s a small business and job killer. source

5. Scuttled the Anti-TSA Bill When Rep. David Simpson led the Texas legislature towards passage of an enormously popular bill (HB1938) to hold the TSA accountable for intrusive searches of airline passengers, Perry played a key role in making sure that the bill was not passed.   When the TSA and the Justice Department began pressuring him, although Perry had promised to submit the bill to the special legislative session, he delayed submitting the bill until it was so late in the session that it was virtually impossible to hold the constitutionally mandated votes necessary for passage.  That way he could score points with the public for submitting the popular bill while at the same time making sure that it wouldn’t pass.  It’s a classic example of Perry’s insincere pandering. source

Don’t be fooled by campaign hype.  If Perry says he’ll cut taxes or get government off our back, look up his real record.  Look up his past statements.  He supported TARP.  He supported the bailouts.  He was even Al Gore’s Texas campaign manager back in 1988.  A vote for Perry in the Republican primary is a vote for more big government and more taxes and more of the the same deficits and irresponsibility we had for 12 years under Bush and Obama.  The Republican Party and the nation need real leadership, not more of the same with a nicer head of hair.

RLC of Texas Chairman Judson Vandiver asks, “Let’s hope Republicans outside Texas see through all the hype.  Let’s all say to to Perry what he said to a Texas state trooper when he tried to bully her after she pulled him over for speeding YouTube: ‘Why don’t you just let us get on down the road?’”

One of the serious problems facing the Republican Party is that their leadership cadre is aging and ossifying. The people who make up the county and state committees all over the country are getting older and older and increasingly out of touch with the grassroots of the party and the younger people who vote Republican but aren’t at all satisfied with what the party has come to stand for or the way that it is run.

The party desperately needs new blood and younger leaders who can relate to young voters. Yet it’s awfully hard to get the entrenched blue-hairs to open their fists and share a little power, and even when they do they often aren’t comfortable with the results. Young people want to actually do things and stand up for principles and make the party dynamic and effective and for people who are set in their ways and just want to do the same things that have produced mediocre results for years, that’s threatening.

A classic example of this conflict between the dinosaur elite and the younger generation who want to make the GOP an effective party and a party to be proud of is now on display in Tucson Arizona. Last year they elected as Chairman a young Air Force veteran who had just concluded an unsuccessful run for Congress. 36 year old Brian Miller seemed to be the model of what the party leaders were looking for in a younger Republican to join their ranks. He was younger but not too young and had a military background they could admire, plus he was articulate and had already showed his political commitment by running for office.

For a few months it looked like the Pima County GOP was going to move forward and do great things under Miller’s leadership. Then came the horrendous death of Jose Guerena at the hands of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT Team. Guerena was a decorated Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War who was gunned down unnecessarily in a bizarrely excessive SWAT raid on his home in which he fired no shots and was shot 22 times.

The incident became an international scandal. Miller was understandably outraged by the situation and sent out an email as Pima County Republican Chairman objecting to the tactics used by the police in the raid, writing “It is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.”

Miller continued to be personally outspoken about the need for an investigation and accountability in the case, not saying anything much different than the criticisms of the raid in local and national news media, but this began to rankle some members of his County Republican Executive Committee who like many older Republicans subscribe to a law and order mentality which assumed that whatever the police did was right because they were the good guys and anyone they went after was automatically guilty by assumption.

Miller disagreed, citing things like the rule of law and due process and the Bill of Rights, but that didn’t mean much to his critics who accused him of causing “division and chaos” and that his statements “created serious problems for our elected officials.” The Executive Committee board issued a statement condemning their own Chairman and ultimately demanded his resignation. When he refused they voted 10-2 to effectively suspend him as chairman pending a vote of the entire County Executive Committee on the issue of removing Miller from office. That vote would require a 2/3 majority and is scheduled for tonight.

Miller has been waging a quiet campaign to build support for his position in the several weeks leading up to this vote. He has sworn not to give up without a fight. The outcome of the vote is by no means certain, because as is the case in many county parties nationwide the rank and file precinct chairs are a much more diverse than the established leadership and also tend to be younger. With a 2/3 majority required to oust Miller the vote will likely be very close.

Miller has described the campaign against him as a “political witchhunt” and that some on the board are “avenging old political scores.” It seems quite likely that outrage against Miller’s statements in some quarters are being used by others to advance their desire to regain control of the party leadership.

This specific situation is troubling, but what is more worrisome is what it says about the current state of the Republican Party at a key organizational level. This problem is not isolated and it is not unique. It is something the party will need to come to terms with if it is to survive. It is unhealthy to suppress the next generation of leadership and alienating Republicans who want to be involved from the party leadership is a sure formula for disaster.

It’s a particularly ugly situation because in this case Miller was just speaking up for principles which he grew up believing were what the Republican Party stood for. The party claims that it champions civil liberties, human life and keeping the government off of our backs. The preamble to the Arizona Republican Party Platform says:

“…the citizens of our great state might blossom under
new freedoms borne from less government regulation; and, the prosperity of a society that shall one day come to recognize fully the value of life, the value of each individual, the value of responsibility, the value of the rule of law, and the value of personal dignity.”

Those are the kinds of values the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. In his statements about the Guerena case Brian Miller was clearly concerned about those very issues, justifiably angry that Guerena was deprived of life and dignity and his individual rights in violation of the rule of law and the kind of responsibility we should expect of our government and its agents.

Miller merely asked his fellow Republicans to stand up for the values they claim to believe in and that got him labeled a traitor.  What kind of message does that send to the other young Republicans around the country who might want to get involved in the party?  What kind of party is represented by that kind of hypocrisy?

More and more it has become clear that we have two Republican Parties in the United States.  One is dedicated to principles and one is dedicated to holding on desperately to status and position and failed ideas.  The party of principles is the party which Brian Miller spoke for which he spoke up for Jose Guerena.  That’s the Republican Party I want to be part of.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

To the dismay of many Texans and of civil libertarians nationwide, after a dramatic struggle this week, the Texas legislature’s special session ended on a sour note with the defeat of Rep. David Simpson’s bill opposing invasive TSA searches of airline passengers.

The failure of the bill was made considerably more bitter by the underhanded tactics by which a tiny faction of the House leadership scuttled the bill against overwhelming support from both parties and the public. With all of the hard work put into promoting the bill by grassroots groups, its defeat under questionable circumstances has redirected anger originally aimed only at the TSA to political leaders in Texas, particularly House Speaker Joe Straus.

The story of how such a widely supported bill could end up not being passed is an object lesson of how easily the will of the people can be subverted by those who value power over principle.

During the regular legislative session Rep. Simpson’s anti-groping bill made it through the House of Representatives by unanimous acclamation . It was passed out of committee and onto to the floor of the Senate where it was set to pass when the TSA stepped in and lobbied against it and the Department of Justice issued a letter threatening to close Texas airports if it passed. This lead Lt. Governor David Dewhurst to apply his influence to get the bill which was minutes from passing pulled from the floor.

As the inevitable special session approached, Senator Dan Patrick and other supporters convinced the governor to come on board and support the bill and agree to sign it if they could get a pledge from a majority of the members of the House and Senate to support it. This would let them fast-track the bill through both houses and to the governor for his signature quickly without unduly delaying other legislation.

They got the votes. They notified the Governor’s office that they had the votes and they asked the Governor to call the bill for the special session. Governor Perry was out of town doing a pre-presidential tour and when confronted by a citizen journalist and asked about the bill he said that he was not aware that the necessary votes had been pledged, but when he returned to Austin on Sunday the 19th of June he did put the bill on the call for Monday the 20th.

Already a week had been wasted, but there was still time to pass the bill. Despite the Governor’s support, after the session began on the 20th the bill was not scheduled for consideration until the Friday the 24th, wasting more precious time. Then, when it was scheduled to be introduced on Friday, House Speaker Joe Straus made a public announcement that he thought the bill was a “publicity stunt” and not serious legislation, sending a clear message to his supporters to oppose it. This despite the fact that he had not voted against it in the regular session.

Nonetheless, a version of the bill was introduced in the House and another in the Senate with wording which had been edited by the Attorney General’s office to reduce the chances of the bill being contested in court and to satisfy complaints from Speaker Straus, but because of wrangling over the language any votes on the bill were delayed until Monday with the session scheduled to end on Wednesday.

With the Speaker apparently unwilling to advance the House version of the bill, desperate supporters in the Senate passed their version through committee and passed it on the floor in a matter of hours and sent it on to the House where the decision was made to use the Senate version as written to avoid the possibility that the Speaker would keep the House version off the floor.

The House session didn’t start until 2pm on Tuesday and when the messenger from the Senate arrived with the bill the Speaker’s office refused to accept the bill and it was kept waiting for several hours. This final delay guaranteed that passage of the bill would be extremely difficult because of Constitutional rules about how bills have to pass the House.

Under the Texas Constitution, for a bill to pass the House it has to be read and voted on three times, on three separate days and win each vote. At the point where the bill finally made it to the floor there was less than 24 hours left before the end of the session on Wednesday, so the only way to pass the bill was to hold a vote to suspend that constitutional rule to allow them to hold two of the three votes on the same day. Although there were plenty of votes in favor of the bill – enough to make up a supermajority – the vote to suspend the Constitutional rule required a 4/5 majority, and that was going to be very difficult.

The bill passed its first reading easily on Tuesday and then passed a second reading on Wednesday morning easily 106-27, but by the time the held a vote on the motion to suspend the constitutional rule some members had left and it passed with a 96-26 majority – an overwhelming vote in support of the bill, but not quite enough to meet the 4/5 requirement. Ironically the previous vote did meet that requirement, but it didn’t apply to that particular motion. At that point the bill which so many supported and which was enormously popular with the public, was dead.

Before adjourning the special session, the Speaker allowed Rep. Simpson to make a final speech about the bill and how the legislative process had failed so dismally. Simpson was not afraid to point fingers, saying:

“The people in support of this bill have succeeded in shining the light on those who collaborate with the growing tyranny of our federal government….Its’ defeat only propels the liberty movement in this state. The people now know that it is possible to fight back.”

His sentiments were echoed by a statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, one of the grassroots groups which had made calls to legislators in support of the bill, which said “We may not have won the final victory today, but we sure flushed out the enemies hiding in the brush.” Another grassroots group, Stop Austin Scanners thought that Governor Perry should share the blame, citing Perry’s “failure to call the bill in a timely manner despite numerous requests to do so, his total lack of stewardship in the process, and Speaker Joe Straus’ willful misconduct are the principal reasons why the legislation was derailed.”

At every step Rep. Simpson and his allies did what was requested by the leadership. They amended the bill. They watered down the language. They even ultimately changed “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” to give the Feds an easy out. Yet despite promises from Governor Perry, they were met with obstruction and delays from the Speaker at every step of the way. With two weeks to pass the bill they ended up having to try to pass it in two days with a special suspension of the rules requiting an outrageously large majority and creating the ironic outcome that a bill which passed easily with a 4/5 majority in the morning when it didn’t need it could not get that same majority in the afternoon when it did.

The defeat of the bill was not a complete loss.  It raised awareness of the issue substantially and drew attention to the forces opposing it and exposed the heavy-handed tactics of the TSA. There’s also some evidence that Simpson’s bill helped influence the TSA’s recent decision to reduce the intensity of their searches of children, though it did not stop them from carrying out a horrendous and highly publicized abuse of a 95 year old Leukemia patient.

This fight is not over. The issue still draws great public interest and anger at the TSA and its practices has never been higher. Supporters in Texas promise to continue to pursue the issue and legislators in a growing number of additonal states are introducing similar legislation. People don’t like having their privacy invaded and their persons violated in the service of excessive security procedures which have never been proven to be at all effective. The people may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over.

A version of this article appeared previously at Blogcritics Magazine.

The lead-up to the 2008 presidential election included debates sponsored by YouTube and Facebook — and now it appears 2012 will have at least one debate conducted via Twitter.

A GOP debate that organizers are calling the “First Presidential Townhall on Twitter” has been slated for July 20.

The virtual event—organized by the Andrew Hemingway of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and sponsored by TheTeaParty.net—is scheduled to take place between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET.

So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Georgia businessman Herman Cain have been announced as participants. But organizers say others are slated to announce their involvement later.

Learn more about the event here.

Congratulations to members of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Delaware and Massachusetts. Members in both states have come together over the last several months to meet, organize, approve Bylaws, elect officers, and formalize their state affiliates.

Delaware RLC members have elected Diane Hernandez of New Castle as Chair with Jason O’Neill and Joseph O’Leary serving in other officer positions. The Delaware RLC officers attended the RLC National Convention in Arlington, Virginia last February.

Massachusetts RLC members, who have their own website up at http://www.massrlc.com/index.php, have elected Kevin Martin Chairman and Kamal Jain as Treasurer. Shelly Ortelt and Keith Messina will serve as Vice-Chair and Secretary.

Massachusetts RLC members gathered in February for their first meeting.

Congratulations to the officers and members of these two new state affiliates. Members of the RLC in Colorado and South Carolina should get in touch with their state contacts soon because both states have members working to charter their affiliates.

In Kentucky’s Republican gubernatorial primary, RLC endorsed insurgent candidate Phil Moffett, despite performing better than expected, wasn’t able to beat his establishment opponent, State Senate President, David Williams. Upon first glance at the results with 70% of precincts reporting and Moffett down by about 7%, I was wondering where the vaunted Kentucky tea party network that propelled Senator Paul into office was. I was actually on the phone with RLC Chairman Dave Nalle earlier when I went to my favorite source, Twitter, and did a #KYGov search to find the aforementioned information. Looking at what I unearthed, I said to Dave, “I’m honestly stunned that anyone who voted for Paul wouldn’t also vote for Moffett”. After further researching the dynamics however, it turns out there were various factors at play that made for very different races, despite the candidate’s similar ideology and being the tea party insurgents pitted against the establishment.

In fact, one of the first articles I came across when I googled Phil Moffett, directly answered the question I had rhetorically posed to Dave. “Why Phil Moffett Is Not Rand Paul”, written by Kevin Brennan at The National Journal, provided immense clarification regarding their differences.

The first issue, and one that is always central in any race, was Moffett’s problem with name recognition. Despite marketing himself as Senator Paul’s heir apparent, there’s no doubt that Ron Paul’s network is what initially provided his son with momentum. That, of course, leads into Moffett’s second problem; fundraising – with which the elder Paul also aided his son greatly. Williams ultimately outspent Moffett 10-1, which speaks volumes about Moffett’s lack of traction in the cash procurement arena. Additionally, Moffett wasn’t able to capture Paul’s official endorsement, because Williams also supported Paul against Grayson in 2010.

Rand Paul’s national network, combined with media fueled fervor over whether the Senate would be turned over to the Republicans, was also undoubtedly an advantage for him that Moffett lacked. Although Moffett’s campaign and allies such as Western Representation PAC tried to pitch the storyline that Moffett’s campaign had a national impact because this GOP primary was the only one in 2011 in which the victor would face off with a pro Obama, Democrat incumbent Governor, creating national fervor in an off year over a primary that the media cares little about turned out to be nearly impossible.

Additionally, a major issue at play was the fact that there was a third dark horse choice in the primary. Jefferson County Clerk, Barbara Holsclaw, who is from Louisville just like Phil Moffett, ended up capturing 13% of the vote. She is reported to be well-liked by those who know her, but little known outside of her fairly small network. That Holsclaw and Moffett are from the same area and were both seen as outsiders, undoubtedly hurt our endorsee. In Rand Paul’s primary, it was just him, a nationally known figure with great fundraising capabilities, and the establishment candidate, former Democrat, Trey Grayson – who I believe was actually hurt by endorsements from the likes of Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell.

Another aspect to note is the fact that Louisville is far north, right on the Indiana border. Having to compete for votes in his own hometown, and dealing with the fact that he wasn’t very well known in both the eastern and western stretches of his state were certainly a disadvantage. Moffett performed well in the Commonwealth’s two most populated counties, but was hardest hit primarily in the far eastern portions of Kentucky. When you aren’t raising enough funds, it of course makes travel difficult. Clearly, Moffett had trouble reaching some of the more off the beaten path rural areas, which make up most of eastern Kentucky.

Sadly, enthusiasm for Moffett didn’t peak, despite obvious potential. It’s possible that without Holsclaw, Moffett could have won in an upset, but unfortunately, that didn’t pan out for our anti-establishment businessman who valiantly took to the streets peddling common sense ideas. However, from an optimistic standpoint, it’s important to note that with all factors considered, Moffett actually performed well. As I noted above, Williams outspent Moffett 10-1 – yet he only won by 7 percentage points. Additionally, turnout for this primary was only at 9%. Given that Williams was the clear establishment favorite, he no doubt had somewhat of a machine, capable of turning votes out for him. As Rand Paul noted in his book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington”, the tea party networks in Kentucky, while strong ideologically, aren’t terribly well-connected or organized – which of course tends to be the case with the movement nationally.

Considering the off year timing, relatively disorganized network of Moffett supporters, and comparatively dismal fundraising, the results were noteworthy. Certainly, liberty Republicans can learn a lesson from the failure of this campaign, and work toward building better infrastructure in the future. We need to effectively network and get out the vote for our candidates. As we move toward 2012, the Republican Liberty Caucus will certainly be on the ground, helping with just that kind of organization. Please join us!