Recalling My Experiences Running for, Winning, and Serving As Director at Large of the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party

I make for an unlikely elected Republican officer. As an experimental and avant-garde punk rock vocalist best-known for touring the countryside singing and screaming my head off with my band Look What I Did alongside grindcore, death metal, hardcore, and punk bands on 12 full United States tours, I hardly frequent the same events as many of those in the caucus that eventually chose me to represent them in the Davidson County Republican Party. I am and always will be a lifelong member of the punk rock community, the one which has given the world so many new ideas and fostered opposition to establishments for decades.

Throughout my life, I’ve spent far more time debating against anarcho-syndicalists and their wholesale endorsement of the use of violence to destroy very real private property rights in indie record shops or at benefit shows for initiatives like Food Not Bombs. My foray into Republican politics probably started more as a form of protest than anything else, but once I got my foot in the door, it became clear that, for those interested in freedom, only the Republican Party has the appropriate organizational structure to give rise to an insurgent libertarian mainstream movement. I wasted plenty of time supporting third parties (see: discussion clubs, unfortunately, due to the unfair laws in every state that prevent third parties from competing) given that they produced all the presidential candidates I voted for prior to 2008.

After the success of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in ’08, our local libertarian crowd had blossomed into a full-fledged movement, so we organized and decided to try to run for office in the GOP’s county board which essentially governs the platform and finances of the party. There was a spirit of protest as we are not and never were George Bush-style Republicans, but at the same time, restoring the GOP to the legacy of Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft isn’t half bad in the mind of anyone who cares about freedom. With leaders like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on the national stage, it was clear that the Republican Party was and still is ready for libertarian influence.

Running for Office

Matt Collins, known as “The Collins” among many in the liberty movement, was preparing a run for chair of the Davidson County Republican Party. He asked if anyone would be willing to serve on the board if he were to be elected as there was a possible but unlikely outcome where the chair appoints the board. At this point, I presumed this outcome would not occur, but few people seemed to be willing to step up to take on this challenge, so, being the risk-taker that I am, I agreed.

I attended Republican events to begin this process. I started off by largely just being quiet and being seen. I dressed as nicely as I could, which is difficult for me as I am used to being able to wear obliterated jeans and ratty T-shirts everywhere in my daily life. However, taking the time to dress respectably does prevent political insiders from making huge assumptions about you.

I feverishly studied Republican political rhetoric. I learned exactly why the seasoned activists who got their start in Young Americans for Freedom went wild at Goldwater’s call for “extremism in the pursuit of liberty” against the then establishment-Republicanism of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964. I pored over the speeches written by Pat Buchanan that made so many sitting US presidents look like anti-establishment rebels. The respect for things Republican-past paid off as many of those old Goldwater faithfuls became fast allies of the insurgent libertarian Republicans. They had been fighting against the centralization of power in the party structure for decades, and, to them, we seemed like the reinforcements.

Winning Has Its Complications

After two controversial and hotly contested conventions, Matt Collins won the first Vice Chair position, and many of the rest of us were elected to our respected positions from the floor. I was able to secure enough votes to be declared the Director at Large of the Davidson County Republican Party. I hadn’t expected to win, so when the news was announced to the couple hundred bona fide Republicans, I was deeply shocked.

What now? I was elected to do a job, so it was time to learn how to do it. For those who may be thrown into the same position, here are a few things I learned:

• • Be friends with everyone. Political differences are best when debated politely and in the right context. Even if you feel someone has political views that cause harm to others, it is important to realize that your only hope of changing their mind is found in friendship.
• • Just because someone voted for an establishment Republican in the past or was in favor of the Iraq War does not mean they are a “neoconservative.” Neoconservatism has a specific definition, and, by applying it liberally to anyone who endorsed the Iraq War in those confusing and heated moments of emotion after 911 creates more neocons than it destroys. People in local politics do not get phone calls from the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations, so there is no reason to make a conspiracy out of everything and start calling people names. I thought the war was a mistake back then too, but nobody’s perfect and blame won’t make friends or stop the next war from happening.
• • Choose your battles, and make sure you have the political capital to win them. It’s one thing to vote your conscience and your principles, which I would absolutely encourage, but initiating motions or pushing for resolutions should be done in a focused manner. Pick around three major issues to focus on, and then spend the rest of the time highlighting where you agree.
• • Spend the first few months observing and saying as little as possible. Watch for who is friends with whom, and which caucus influences which elected officials. This information will prove useful.
• • Do the job you were elected to do. If you run for party leadership, then your job is to increase the party’s power. Obviously you don’t want to spend your time doing things that disagree with your principles, so just don’t show up to those events. It is a volunteer type of thing, so you can just withdraw consent from certain types of functions. I received plenty of emails to attend functions that were totally outside of my principles, and I did not go to those.
• • Use the “Reagan Card” when necessary. The Reagan Card is any quote or reference from Ronald Reagan which affirms your point. In Republican politics, this functions somewhat metaphorically like a stun grenade that silences opposing arguments.

The Takeaway

Ultimately, I became friends with a lot of people that I initially thought would try to drive me out of the party. Those who were at first decried as establishment neocons by people I knew were later working on the campaign for our first higher-profile local libertarian-Republican candidate, Dr. Steve Dickerson. As a fiscal conservative who is an anesthesiologist with unconventional positions such as being in favor of gay adoptions, he was an absolutely solid candidate that deserved the hard work I put in to help.

When we were planning the Republican picnic, I noticed that our straw poll was missing a noteworthy potential candidate named Dr. Ron Paul. I reminded the board that Ron Paul supporters would attend the picnic and donate money to attempt to win the straw poll, which the party would then have. Seconds later Dr. Paul was added to the straw poll. That meeting barely had a quorum, so no one else probably would have offered his name that day.

Given the difficulties we experienced when Matt Collins was voted out of the party for making comments about Zach Wamp during the primary season, I would ultimately suggest that friendly and cooperatively-spirited activists should work inside the party while more protest-oriented activists work outside. This is not to say that Matt Collins’ activism was ineffective. I think he is one of the most successful advocates for pure freedom in Tennessee, but from the inside, you can change minds, so that is an important opportunity to take advantage of by engaging in friendly discourse.

The Rand Paul style rhetoric works great inside the party, and that type of thing is what most GOP faithful want to hear. For example, if you believe that the War on Drugs is not only a failure but a moral crisis deserving repeal, it might be best to describe those views by saying that you would prefer policies that are “tough on violent and property crime.” The GOP electorate likes tough political rhetoric, and, when you are advocating for the cancellation of a policy, it is best to describe it in terms that sound like an increase in value to the taxpayer.

So, looking back on my successful and now-complete two-year term as Director at Large of the Davidson County Republican Party, I feel like I understand much better than most why the South Carolina GOP debate audience cheered an end to the wars and the War on Drugs. It is because, behind the scenes, people like myself and others have been hanging out with Republicans and changing their minds.

I got to write speeches for candidates. I helped initiate a set of morning breakfast events called “Eggs and Bacon” Summits with State Executive Committeewoman Beth Campbell and former Metro councilman Rod Williams, both of whom I now consider great friends. The state party chair Chris Devaney personally complimented me on those summits, and other counties began to copy our formula. Nearly every Middle Tennessee Republican politician spoke at those events that I helped start, including current governor Bill Haslam. Ultimately, I wanted Nashvillians to be able to talk to these candidates so they could make an informed decision, but by having a hand in creating them, I gained a lot of credibility in the party, and my views were thusly considered to be a part of the “big tent.”

I made lots of great friends across many ideological divides, certainly too many to name here, and, in the end, the experience was worthwhile and valuable for liberty. I would encourage others to follow suit. I did not choose to run again as I have become busy both with playing music and starting a new online and mobile music service called gazzmic which is now in the developmental stages. This is a personal side note, as I had intended to run for city council in Nashville in 2011, but, given that I have an opportunity to create private sector jobs during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, I think it would be more productive to focus on that than to try and run to create a single government job for myself.  However, I will only be postponing my campaign, as I still intend to run for Metro Council in 2015 when I have more time.

In conclusion, to those who want to join the Republican Party for the express purpose of driving it back to the true roots of freedom, the Constitution, fear not! If I can do it, a punk-rocker with nothing socially in common with the stereotypical Republican, anyone can. It just takes an open mind, a friendly attitude, and careful attention to political rhetoric and technique. We will have liberty in our lifetime.

On Thursday night, the Texas House of Representatives passed the first of two bills from Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) which would criminalize TSA searches of passengers at airports without probable cause.

The key text of HB1937 reads in part:

A person who is a public servant [acting under color of his office or employment] commits an offense if the person:
(2) while acting under color of the person’s office or employment without probable cause to believe the other person committed an offense:
(A) performs a search for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation;

The bill passed by acclamation and will move on to the Senate for consideration.

This bill had been heavily backed and promoted by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas and the RLC of Central Texas. RLC-CTX members testified at multiple hearings, with board member Pierre de Rochemont taking the lead and providing expert scientific testimony on the dangers of the TSA scanners.

The issue of TSA scanners and enhanced pat downs has become a nationwide issue because of highly publicized incidents which brought the intrusiveness of TSA screening to the nation’s attention in recent weeks. In early April, a father videotaped a TSA agent in New Orleans running her hands all over his visibly upset 6-year-old. A few weeks later, former Miss USA Susie Castillo made a tearful video after agents touched her genitalia during a pat-down. She said she came away feeling violated. And just this week, a bystander snapped a photo of screeners in Kansas City patting down an infant.

HB1937 addresses the intrusiveness of TSA pat-down procedures, making it a crime to purposefully, knowingly or recklessly touch a person’s anus, sexual organ and breasts, even through clothing. A companion bill which addresses the danger of TSA backscatter radiation scanners is also being considered and should be voted on soon. Similar bills are being considered in a number of other state legislators with strong support from RLC chapters in those states.

There has been a lot of scaremongering about what might happen if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling, which would allow the government to borrow even more money to pay for its inability to spend within its means. While there are many aspects of our budget crisis which should make you scared, the consequences of freezing the debt ceiling is not one of them.

The debt ceiling is a legislatively-set limit on how much money the government is willing to borrow to add to the deficit. Right now it is capped at $14.1 trillion and we are right up against that limit. Each month we add about $40 billion to the total defici. That means we spent $41 billion more in the month than the government took in as revenue during that month. That overage is about 13% of total spending for the month.

So when we reach that $14.1 billion cap, only the 13% of total government spending which is paid with borrowed money would be in jeopardy. Eighty seven percent (87%) of what the government does would not be impacted at all. The president and the Treasury Department would then have to decide where to cut spending to cover that 13% over incoming revenue.

The scare tactic here is the claim that the response to this would be to default on our debts, thereby destroying the nation’s credit and leading to a plunge in all of our financial markets. The fallacy is that capping spending doesn’t mean there isn’t still money to spend. The government would still have plenty of incoming revenue and the ability to prioritize how it spends that money.

Interest on the debt is about half as much right now per month as the amount of deficit per month. To keep from defaulting, the government would just need to make sure that the 6.5% of the budget which goes to interest is part of the 87% which is paid rather than the 13% which needs to be cut.

We would only default on the debt if the president and his staff at the Treasury Department deliberately chose to pay other bills and not pay the interest. They’re unlikely to do that and provoke the crisis it would create and would reluctantly cut elsewhere instead. In fact, just to be safe, RLC-endorsed Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) has introduced the Full Faith and Credit Act, which would require that debt service be paid first before other spending just to guarantee that we would not default. So if we chose to not raise the debt ceiling, defaulting on the debt would not be one of the outcomes.

Other scare tactics include claiming that Medicaid or Medicare or pensions or veterans programs or other vital services would be cut. But, again, that would be at the discretion of the executive branch. It would not be at all difficult to cut the necessary money without touching those programs, especially in the short term. You just need to find about $40 billion a month to cut — that’s less than 1.5% of the total budget.

Just ending the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya would save enough money to keep us from going over budget for almost a year. The rest could easily be made up with smaller cuts. For example, RLC-endorsed Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has identified $42 billion we could cut from agricultural programs. That would buy us another month. He has also suggested $16 billion in cuts to the Commerce Department and $27 billion in cuts to the Department of Energy. Add those and you’ve bought more than a month more without even shutting those departments down.  Measures like furloughing federal workers one day a week could buy even more time, so the crisis is nowhere near as immediate as some would like you to think.

Congress has already raised the debt ceiling three times in the last two years. That level of growth in borrowing and spending is absolutely unsustainable. Right now our deficit actually seems relatively small at an anual rate of 15%, but projections show it ballooning to 40% of the current budget within a decade. That’s what we should really be afraid of, not a cap on spending which would just necessitate some reasonable spending cuts.

The only way to stop that explosion of debt is to stop borrowing and start paying back what we already owe. The first step towards that objective is to not raise the debt ceiling. Congress and the executive branch have already shown that, if you give them money, they will spend it. If they cannot be responsible then maybe we can force them to control themselves by not giving them any more money.

Several developments within the Republican Party were readily apparent during the presidential debate last Thursday evening. Predictably, the talk beforehand had centered around the lack of “big names” that would show up, which presumably was our media’s way of dutifully drawing the parameters of public discourse.

Obviously, the gatekeepers in the press view the majority of America’s voting public as incapable of coming to their own informed decisions, thereby (in their mind at least) leaving it incumbent upon them to tell them who is and is not “viable.” Any candidate who dares to stray from the tiny box of “acceptable debate” is instantly derided as a crank by opinion makers on both the left and right.

The degree to which the rhetoric of the Republican Party has shifted over the last four years was tangible and welcome. 60% of the candidates on the stage were willing to either call for the outright withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan or signal strong reservations about the war; this would have been unthinkable during the 2008 election cycle. Although not representative of Republican primary voters at large (though the numbers who are souring on Afghanistan has seen a significant uptick over the last year) this put on clear display the degree to which many in the GOP can no longer reconcile the notion of limited government with the expensive nation building operation in Afghanistan.

Spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a country with little appetite to develop civil institutions and leaders that we rarely seem on the same page with looks more and more like a waste of resources as the years drag on. With the recent death of bin Laden, now would be the ideal time for a conservative candidate to articulate the rationale behind a speedy exit from Afghanistan; if not now, after the death of al Qaeda’s leader and America’s most notorious menace, then when?

Nor could the candidates on stage be heard chiming in on Iraq (at least not in a positive manner), reflecting the sober view of many Republicans that, in hindsight, the war was in fact a blunder. This softening of the war drums within the GOP is an excellent sign, as their abandoning of a restrained foreign policy following 9/11 cost them the trust of a significant portion of the electorate. Success in 2010 came with focus on a conservative economic message, not the preaching of a Wilsonian foreign policy.

Another welcome aspect (which many establishment Republicans were no doubt grimacing about) was the libertarian arguments presented on the stage in South Carolina. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s presence were double breaths of fresh air for those in the Republican Party who had become disenchanted with the authoritarian rhetoric espoused during the Bush years. On this particular night, it was Rick Santorum carrying the banner of statism.

The former Pennsylvania senator’s words contrasted starkly with the liberty-friendly arguments made by Paul and Johnson. It was as if Santorum was unaware his version of big government conservatism had long since been rejected by the party. Too many Republicans have wised up to the disingenuous practice of intertwining strong family values (which are a wonderful thing) with the federal government (which is possibly the worst instrument on the face of the earth for promoting those family values) for Santorum’s arguments to carry much sway.

Having two candidates like Paul and Johnson making a case for drug legalization in this venue was an encouraging sight. The conservative/liberal paradigm many on the right have looked at this issue from is simply an inaccurate approach. A majority of conservatives are likely unaware that William F. Buckley, a conservative stalwart if there ever was one, was no fan of the federal war on drugs.

Even if it is not a winning issue in 2011, letting conservatives correctly view our senseless drug policy as merely an extension of overbearing, nanny state government would finally allow us to end what has become another endless “war” (poverty and terrorism among others) which government seems curiously unable to win. That these views are at least getting a hearing is a giant step in the right direction; supporters of each of these men should be glad Republican primary voters got a double dose of free market and individual liberty based perspectives.

The debate also crystallized just how challenging it will be to break through to a critical mass of Republicans. Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh could be heard praising Santorum the following day on his program, demonstrating just how determined many of the Bush-style conservatives are to preserve the status quo.

It seemed that the 2008 election provided many of the talk radio hosts, who had lost so much credibility over the preceding decade, an opportunity to make a clean break and embrace a genuinely conservative platform. But they are willing to double down and continue as apologists for the same tired talking points, ignoring everything from the monetary policy and civil liberties questions to failing to facilitate a reasonable debate over our overseas policies.

We need to acknowledge that many are simply using the Tea Party as a vehicle to get the same sort of Republicans who gave us Iraq, Medicare Part D, and back into power. But with more debates like the one in South Carolina, there is much hope for the future trajectory of the conservative movement. Presenting clear, concise arguments on how to truly restrain government will see to it that the needle is slowly moved in the right direction.

The National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus voted unanimously to pass the following resolution in opposition to any increase in the federal debt ceiling.

WHEREAS government should tax citizens only at the minimal level necessary to fund the essential functions of government; and

WHEREAS the funding of unnecessary government spending from direct taxation and excessive debt is an assault on the natural property rights of all taxpayers and on the future liberty of our children; and

WHEREAS the national debt has tripled in the last decade and is expected to exceed 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the end of the year; and

WHEREAS Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in the last two years; and

WHEREAS Congress has continued to raise the debt ceiling time and time again, showing no capacity for fiscal discipline or deficit reduction;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Congress should not raise the debt ceiling in 2011.

Instead, Congress should shut down non-essential government programs and limit operational expenses to incoming revenue until a balanced budget can be passed.

We urge our members and state affiliates across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to urge opposition to any increase in the debt ceiling and demand responsible cuts to end deficit spending/reduce the debt.

Teachers unions and their political allies argue that market forces cannot supply quality education.  Yet Americans would find the current politicized and monopolistic approach ludicrous if applied to other vital goods or services, says Donald J. Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University and a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center.

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education.

• Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties.
• Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets.
• Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address.
• And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries — “for free” — from its neighborhood public supermarket.

Of course, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families’ choices about where to live.  Being largely protected from consumer choice, almost all public supermarkets would be worse than private ones.  In poor counties the quality of public supermarkets would be downright abysmal.  Poor people — entitled in principle to excellent supermarkets — would in fact suffer unusually poor supermarket quality.

Responding to these failures, thoughtful souls would call for “supermarket choice” fueled by vouchers or tax credits.  Those calls would be vigorously opposed by public supermarket administrators and workers, says Boudreaux.

In reality, of course, groceries and many other staples of daily life are distributed with extraordinary effectiveness by competitive markets responding to consumer choice.  The same could be true of education.

Source: Donald J. Boudreaux, “If Supermarkets Were Like Public Schools,” Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299571015982098.html

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.

Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, RLC Advisory Board member Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan’s plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

Ryan gave it right back to him. The budget committee chairman went directly after Sen. Paul’s five-year budget plan, which he had clearly studied closely. Ryan’s criticism went roughly like this: yes, he said, you slash the Department of Education and make fast, dramatic cuts, but you don’t deal with entitlement spending. In the out years the deficit would sky-rocket, he said, making an air chart with his hand moving through the air and pointing sharply upward.

A GOP aide sympathetic to Sen. Paul said that Rep. Ryan’s criticism unfairly isolated a single part of his plan and treated as if it represented Paul’s global approach to deficit reduction. Paul does plan to announce a proposal for cutting entitlement spending, the aide said, but wanted to put the domestic spending plan out first.

The private challenge from Sen. Paul reflects criticisms of Rep. Ryan’s plan Paul also made to HuffPost. Paul thinks that Ryan’s approach doesn’t go nearly far enough.

“Here’s how bad it is: The president’s proposal, his ten year plan, is 46 trillion in spending. Paul Ryan’s alternative, which everybody is going crazy over, is still 40 trillion dollars in spending,” Paul told HuffPost. “My problem with the whole thing is that all of the proposals basically increase spending.”

Rand Paul said that Paul Ryan’s plan relies too heavily on deficit spending. “The president adds, I think, 11 trillion to the gross debt and Ryan’s plan adds eight trillion. I don’t think anybody up here realizes that we can’t withstand trillion dollar annual deficits,” he said.

A Ryan spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The House recently approved Ryan’s spending plan, but it was rejected by the Senate. A compromise budget expires at the end of September.

(Source: Ryan Grim at Huffington Post)

What the heck is going on in Montana?

Montana Republicans have a huge majority in the State House and a small majority in the State Senate, so they should be moving productive legislation along without trouble. Unfortunately, two recent examples show that they are not committed to common sense government at all, but are instead beholden to special interests, corporate socialism, and the nanny state.

You’re not even going to believe the legislation being courted by Montana Republicans! Check it out:

Montana Republicans Try to Gut Medical Marijuana Law

With the exception of Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed State Representatives Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller and several moderate Republicans, the rest of the Republican elected officials in Montana voted to gut the voter-approved medical marijuana law last week.

Because Governor Brian Schweitzer (Democrat) vetoed the Republican attempts to kill the law, BusinessWeek reports that “Many lawmakers from both parties say something needs to be done to rein in medical marijuana in Montana now that it has reached beyond those with severe illnesses for whom voters in 2004 meant the law to apply.”

According to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, there are 29,948 registered users in the state. As we reported earlier, last month the federal government decided they needed to step in by raiding medical marijuana businesses in the state under the guise of investigating “drug trafficking and tax evasion.” This despite a promise from the Obama Administration claimed it would not override state law.

According to BusinessWeek,

“Three lawmakers from each chamber will begin meeting this week in a conference committee to figure out the final form of the overhaul measure, Senate Bill 423, before it lands on the governor’s desk. Since the beginning of the session House Bill 161, a repeal of the voter-approved marijuana law, has been the favored measure of Republican leadership. House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, carried the bill through the Legislature but the possibility of a governor veto forced Republicans to work up a contingency plan.

Last month, Republican lawmakers made a last-minute introduction of a bill to overhaul of Montana’s medical marijuana industry. After Republican fears of a governor veto became a reality Wednesday, the overhaul measure carried by Senate Majority Leader Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, has become what is likely the last chance the Legislature has to restrict medical marijuana. But the measure has not had an easy passage and it still has key hurdles left to clear with just a few days left in the session to do it.”

The only common sense on this issue, aside from Governor Brian Schweitzer, is from RLC-endorsed legislators like Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller. According to Representative Miller, “If the federal laws (related to the Montana state medical marijuana law) were gone, it could be just another prescription filled by a pharmacist. The bottom line is that the legislature did not do its job and put the appropriate rules/laws in place once the initiative passed in 2004. I believe it is up to the legislature to fix the mess it created. And it is a huge mess and it is being grossly abused by some,” Miller said.

Miller took what apparently is an unpopular position, concluding at his website, “While many people disagree with my vote to not repeal, I hope this helps them to understand it a little better.”

RLC-endorsed Reps. Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller voted to protect the Montana medical marijuana law.

Renewable Energy, Curbing Property Rights via “Corporate Socialism”

According to LibertarianRepublican.net, “Sounding like something straight out of an Ayn Rand novel, a renewable energy corporation out of Canada is pushing legislation to allow for seizure of private property rights in Eastern Montana. The Bill pits small landowners such as ranchers in Eastern Montana, against government-backed corporate interests and many environmental groups in support of renewable energy.”

From the Great Falls Tribune, “Montana Senate revives eminent domain bill”:

“HB 198 would grant private developers — including Canadian developer Tonbridge Power — the ability to use eminent domain authority to condemn private property so that transmission lines can be built.

The company wants to build a 214-mile international Tie Line through Montana and Alberta. The bill would [give] Tonbridge the authority it needs to condemn private property along the proposed MATL route in Montana.”

After nearly three hours of debate, 16 Democrats sided with 12 Republicans to pass the measure.

Republican proponents of the measure said if the legislature failed to enact HB 198, it could doom the state’s economy.

“We need an export economy in this state,” Senator Alan Olson said. “We make money to fund our education system, and we make money to fund our senior services on an export economy. If a minority interest is going to shut down an export economy, if we continue to circulate that same stale dollar around the state, we’re done.”

Opponents of the measure, including Sen. Art Wittich, R-Bozeman, said the bill would give private corporations unprecedented power, while sacrificing the rights of private property owners.

“It’s corporate socialism at its best,” Wittich said.

“To me, good government is limited government that respects everyone’s rights and properties,” Wittich says. “I support accountability in government spending and promoting private sector prosperity by adding value to our resources.”

The bill goes for a final vote on Thursday. Then, it heads to Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer for his signature.

It is not known if Schweizter would sign the legislation, but it appears likely that he would.

RLC member Eric Dondero worked to get a property rights initiative on the ballot in Montana in 2006. Here, he is collecting a signature from a resident.

The New Hampshire RLC is playing kingmaker in state politics.

In addition to having a tremendous say on specific legislative measures — such as the Right to Work and the House-approved budget — they’ve also advanced the RLC’s mission by helping elect a Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, and State GOP Chair who are each friendly to the liberty message.

Recently, the New Hampshire RLC aired radio advertisements on AM stations WGIR, WNTK and WKXL urging citizens and legislators to support the $700 million in cuts passed by the House being maintained by the State Senate. The RLCNH says that citizens should urge legislators to “support the House budget” and directs listeners to a new caucus website, NHBudgetFacts.org.

Conservatives view the state Senate as more moderate than the House, whose budget is about $700 million less than the current two-year budget. Senate President Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, has said the Senate budget will probably be the same size as the House-passed budget — but with different priorities. Bragdon also said the Senate appears to be opposed to the House-passed provision to remove collective bargaining protections for public workers when their contracts expire. The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday removed that provision from the House-passed budget.

Earlier today, with the support of the New Hampshire RLC, the New Hampshire legislature approved Right to Work for the Granite State.

“This veto-proof vote is a clear sign that the Senate is listening to the voters who sent them to Concord to attract jobs to New Hampshire,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire.

“A Right to Work law will make New Hampshire the only employee and business friendly environment in the Northeast. Everyone knows that a law that attracts new and growing businesses will attract good paying jobs.” States with similar Right to Work laws include Iowa, Virginia, and 20 other states.

If New Hampshire passes this law, it will create a magnet for businesses that will further enhance the New Hampshire Advantage, concluded the New Hampshire RLC.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and its members have been following the Right to Work bill and consider it a high priority for job creation and protection of New Hampshire’s working families. The caucus will continue to follow this effort as it heads to a committee of conference between the Senate and the House and urges veto-proof House adoption of the compromise language.

According to the New Hampshire Union-Leader, “(Andrew) Hemingway’s profile continues to rise as the influence of the Tea Party and liberty groups also continue to rise in the state. Hemingway says he has been invited to speak at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on April 26 in a forum on the “impact of the Tea Party on the 2012 elections,” along with Jennifer Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots.

Please get involved in the New Hampshire RLC today!

New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway.