Once again Texas is taking the lead in challenging the overreach of the Transportation Safety Administration with a new bill to protect individual privacy against unreasonable and invasive searches. Rep. David Simpson has a new bill called the Texas Travel Freedom Act (HB80) in committee in the Texas House this week. It would provide punishment under Texas law for federal employees of the TSA who engage in inappropriate acts which would now be classified as “Official Oppression.”

It is not acceptable for government employees to treat innocent travelers like criminal suspects. As Rep. Simpson said, “Traveling is not a criminal act. Treating travelers as criminal suspects and forcing innocent citizens to submit to humiliating and unreasonable searches without probable cause as a condition of travel violates protections our forefathers envisioned in Section 9 of the Texas Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Contrary to what some TSA agents have claimed, we do not believe that you give up your rights when you travel in public.”

Last legislative session state government leaders like Joe Strauss and David Dewhurst did everything they could to block this legislation, including using some very underhanded tactics. We can express them to face a lot of pressure from the TSA this time as well and to do what they can to undermine support for the bill and bully legislators into opposing it. They lack the strength of conviction to support the confrontation with the federal government over individual rights and state sovereignty which this bill is designed to oppose.

Legislators need your encouragement for the confidence to stay strong in the face of all this opposition. They need to know that the people are behind them.

The first step is to tell your Texas House member and key members of the State Affairs committee that you support the bill. Please use this form to send an email to the House before noon on Wednesday. The hearing on the bill is at 1pm. Change the wording of the letter to represent your personal concerns.

On the 45th anniversary of the dark day when Dr. Martin Luther King was gunned down in Memphis, I feel the need to write about some political history. I grew up in the Dayton area. Most of my friends back home are black. I have always found it hard to believe that most of them constantly vote Democrat, when the party itself has run many of Ohio’s major cities into the ground economically for many years. But I shouldn’t be surprised. The Ohio Republican Party, often showing little difference between themselves and the Democrats, deserves blame as well. They have allowed Ohio to remain a tax and spend state with failing schools, high crime, union and corporate corruption, and annoying, bigoted nativist sentiments.

Though my family mostly votes Democrat I have always been a Republican. You might call me a recovering neocon turned Rand Paul Republican through a drawn out awakening from the statism I grew up around. Though I wasn’t a huge fan of Bush I believe–and did from my teen years–that historically the Republican Party has had the better track record on economics and foreign policy; even though I’ve never quite been in agreement with them on social issues. In high school I read John Stuart Mill and got my first taste of the importance of individual liberty. The history books I read suggested that the Republican Party, at least prior to George W. Bush, had a better track record on this, through the civil rights support from Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower, and the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. When the party was founded as the party of civil rights, its motto was: Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men.

Though some northern Democrats such as my late grandfather (who would have turned 86 today) were friendly to the black community in the first half of the 20th century, most of the party — especially in the south — had always been an enemy of civil rights. It had been the party of Jim Crow. Even in the North,  working class Democrats before the 1960s had a tendency to bigotry. The earliest labor unions were founded to protect “white labor.”  After both WWI and WWII, many blacks fled the south to work in the industrial cities of the northeast and midwest, and the white unions would fight hard to keep them out. This would continue until the 50s, when the struggle for racial equality reached new heights.

Prior to the 70s, most blacks were Republicans. They began a mass exodus to the Democratic Party when Johnson signed the civil rights bill, even though it only passed because of the Republicans in congress. Ironically enough, Johnson as a Senator opposed civil rights legislation vehemently.

Unfortunately the Republican Party never did anything to maintain those voters or get them back. The last Republican president to campaign in black neighborhoods and truly speak to issues that affected black communities in televised debates was Ronald Reagan. Had he not been such a drug warrior he might have repaired the frayed relations. Now, historically misguided baby boomers and gen-xers in the African-American community have taught their children the myth that Republicans are racist; some of it as a result of the aggressive anti-drug policies that were kicked up during the Reagan years. Of course, our opposition to Barack Obama makes it easier to keep this myth going even if this opposition is legitimate because the president’s economic and foreign policies have been counterproductive and downright wrong. Perception is everything.

Fact: the only thing the Republican Party ever did to set back black people in its entire history was the War on Drugs. But that was a bipartisan mistake and has been supported over the years by just as many Democrats. Many rising Republican leaders such as Rand Paul and Justin Amash are finally willing to admit prohibition doesn’t work and does nothing but disproportionately incarcerate black and Hispanic men for crimes where no physical or financial harm was wrought by them on another; just as gun laws do (ever heard of the “white and polite” rule?). As they do this, rising Democratic leaders such as Elizabeth Warren mock them as potheads or flip flop on the issue and do nothing to alleviate the problem.

I’m sick and damn tired of ignoramuses accusing the Republican Party of being racist for reasons most of them can’t even explain when the Democrats clearly are part of the problem and won’t admit it. At least Rick Perry, in spite of all his faults, signed the Peaceable Journey act into law to strike down the “white and polite” rule that was locking up minorities in Texas for carrying lawfully owned guns in their car for their own protection. Historically, you could carry a gun in your car in Texas for protection; but if you were ever stopped, there was a de facto “white and polite” rule. If you were white, and nice to the officer, he’d let it slide. If you were black or Tejano, good luck. You were probably going to be arrested. This disgusting remnant of the Jim Crow south was finally repealed when the Texas Republican Party pushed for the peaceable journey act. Now all Texans’ second amendment rights are respected. They are allowed to carry guns in their car without a permit. It keeps me safe when driving at night in Houston, that’s for sure.

Do you ever wonder why minority poverty and minority incarceration are highest in blue states? There are a lot of reasons; and support for prohibition — which I will define as locking someone up for possession or use of an item where no physical or financial harm was done to anyone else — is one such reason. The welfare state and teacher’s unions are to blame too; as well as opposition to school choice programs that allow black students to get out of the ghetto by doing something as simple as: STOP FORCING THEM TO STAY THERE! (I’m very passionate about education reform. You’ll see me write more on it in coming months).

It’s going to take more than a generation to get blacks voting Republican again. It starts with ignoring or even laughing at the Rovian notion that religious-right wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion are the answer. If the black community was really that passionate about social conservatism, they would not be voting overwhelmingly Democrat. Truthfully, young blacks are just as secular as young whites. The generational shift away from social conservatism transcends race. I’ve actually met fewer young blacks who are aggressively anti-abortion or anti-gay than I have young whites, and when you put the two together, the number is inconsequential. It is likely to remain that way. The liberals control the pop culture, and it has secularized the generation. The culture war is effectively over. Fortunately, secularism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive; rather they are highly compatible.

First, the GOP needs a message of economic empowerment in black communities; one that can be brought by a revival of vocational training opportunities and academic improvement that the free market can best provide. We must be able to explain why lower taxes and fewer regulations create jobs, lower the price of everyday goods, and raise local wages. We must aggressively promote upward mobility through school choice and a return of apprenticeships in skilled crafts and STEM fields.

Next, we must become the civil rights party again, by doing as Senator Rand Paul recently said:

“It is important that we always stand up for the Bill of Rights, whether the First Amendment, Fourth or Second. The Constitution is non-negotiable”

The Bill of Rights is like dominoes, knock down one and they all fall. We must become the party of civil liberties again.

Finally, it would help if the first president to pardon a high number of non-violent gun or drug offenders was Republican. Rand Paul could very well be that president. He’s probably not going to campaign on it if he runs in 2016. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he did so after being elected.

In his address to CPAC, he said:

“Ask the Facebook generation whether we should put a kid in jail for the nonviolent crime of drug use, and you’ll hear a resounding no,”

That would be as symbolic a move for the GOP as civil rights legislation was for the Democratic Party under Johnson. Tens of thousands of mostly black and Hispanic men, who have committed no physical or financial harm to anyone other than themselves, suddenly released back into society with their records expunged, so that they can get the help they need, get back on their feet and get back into the workforce. It’s the right thing to do. And the Republican governors (hint hint, Mr. Perry), should start now as congress gears up for this gun control debate.

I urge Republican governors to scour the records of the incarcerated. Find people, of any race, who were incarcerated for possession of a firearm without a permit but committed no violent or financial crimes on top of this possession, and expunge their sentences and/or reimburse their fines. The overwhelming majority of them will be minorities. Show these people the Republican Party is not the party of prohibition, but the party of liberty, by freeing them from the police state.

I also urge you to pardon those who are incarcerated for committing non-violent, non-financial drug crimes, at least for weed–which science has irrefutably proven (to the point where anyone who still denies it is stupid) is safer than alcohol or tobacco. But you might as well start with the non-violent/non-financial gun “offenders.” Think of the taxpayer money you will save! Your voters will thank you!

It’s sad. Most of my generation thinks Dr. Martin Luther King was a pro-gun control liberal and many baby boomers think he’d be a drug warrior. I assure you if he was alive today and saw the prison statistics resulting from gun and drug prohibition, he’d be ashamed. Not that he was a fan of guns or drugs. He was a preacher of non-violent resistance and would not have appreciated self-destructive behavior. However, he would have been against government locking people up for possession of either; especially with those in prison for non-violent offenses being so disproportionately non-white. He would not want self-destructive behavior to be met with police brutality and incarceration. I’m confident he would have seen it as a mission of the church to solve these problems, not the nanny state.

The pro-civil liberties, pro-economic growth Republican Party being [re]invented by fresh young faces like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, as well as the many Gen Y Republicans supporting organizations like Young Americans for Liberty, is the one that will repair the GOP’s frayed relations with the black community, as well as other minority groups; Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, even gays. The Rove/Kristol/Graham/Santorum wings of Dominionism, prohibition, crony capitalism, disrespect for the Bill of Rights, and perpetual warfare is what destroyed the relationship in the first place. The sooner we realize this, and begin taking action, the sooner black Americans will begin coming back to the party they once loved.

———————————————————————————————–
Aaron Alghawi obtained a B.S. in Economics from Texas A&M University in 2012, and is an At-Large Board Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus national committee.

On Thrusday an amendment authored by Senators Mike Lee (RLC-UT) and Daine Feinstein (D-CA) which alters the NDAA to protect citizens from arrest without a warrant and guarantees the right to a trial was passed 67-29 by the Senate. This came after an impassioned speech in support by Sen. Rand Paul (RLC-KY) on Wednesday in which he said:

“If you don’t have a right to trial by jury, you do not have due process. You do not have a Constitution. What are you fighting against and for if you throw the Constitution out? When zealots of the government arrest suspects or radicals without warrants, hold them without trial, deny them access to counsel or admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity.”

Paul had also threatened to put a filibuster hold on the NDAA bill if an attempt was made to pass it with the provisions allowing unconstitutional detention of citizens without a trial included. Since the passage of an earlier version of the NDAA more than a year ago, grassroots groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus have been calling and emailing members of the House and Senate relentlessly expressing opposition to the detention provisions in the bill and it appears that for once our legislative leaders actually listened to the people. Sadly about half of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the amendment.

While the Lee-Feinstein amendment is not as comprehensive as Rand Paul’s version which has had trouble passing the Senate, it does address the most fundamental civil liberties concerns with the NDAA. The substandive part of the Amendment reads:

“(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

“(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.

“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.”

The final clause of (b)(1) has attracted some criticism, including from Representative Justin Amash (RLC-MI) who whote:

“The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.”

Prior to the amendment the NDAA permitted detentions solely on presidential authority, but Amash and others are concerned that Congress could use the option provided in the amendment to reverse the protection at will, or that courts could interpret the NDAA itself as such an authorization.  However, Senator Lee has issued an explanation of how the amendment works in context which makes very clear that no existing legislation including the NDAA itself would negate the protections in the amendment, hailing it as “a clear victory for civil libertarians and should be celebrated as a strong step forward in protecting due process rights for all Americans.”

However, a federal court did already grant an injunction against the detention provision in the NDAA and it is likely that if it were further tested in the courts it would be found unconstitutional. In addition, changes to the main text of the 2012 version of the NDAA which actually expand detention authority beyond earlier versions demanded that some response be made to protect civil liberties

While this is not a perfect victory, it remains a major win for civil libertarians who do not believe that the people should have to sacrifice their most sacred rights, nor should the nation abandon the rule of law, even in a times of crisis or war. If the Bill of Rights can be discarded just because we feel threatened, then we have already thrown away the very values for which we fight as a nation.

Last week, the Republican Party suffered a major defeat, when despite horrible performance and dismal statistics across the board, the Democrats maintained power in both the Executive branch and in the Senate (even gaining some seats.) The party spent millions of dollars, not to mention the money spent by individuals and PACs, and yet essentially nothing changed. In the wake of this defeat, the intellectuals, party leaders, and public figureheads have been scrambling for answers, looking for some explanation as to how the worst president in American history (by the numbers) could have possibly beaten them. It has been suggested that this result was purely demographic, and that there is no hope going forward. Some have said that America is no longer a country that supports freedom, that the GOP must become more Democratic to succeed. As you might suspect, I believe this is totally false. While I have already written on the subject, today something happened that absolutely crystalized  my reasoning and made me realize exactly what the root cause of this failure was: Ron Paul gave a speech in congress, and in it, he talked about the two fundamental choices available as to the role of government:

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required. Two choices are available.

1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

The problem with the Republican Party is very simple: for the entirety of my life, they have been pretending to offer government number 1, but in reality, they have given us a whole load of number 2. As a result, we have seen tumultuous times, with financial booms and busts, a major shift toward government dependency, and never-ending international conflicts. People are not stupid, and they can see through this. Even the people who might not explicitly identify this, still have the natural instinct that something doesn’t add up. It all started with Ronal Reagan, who sounded a lot like Ronald Paul when giving his speeches, espousing the merits of freedom and the libertarian soul of conservatism, yet ended up growing the government dramatically. To his credit, Reagan tried to hold the line as much as possible, and he was a great speaker on the merits of liberty, but the end result is still undeniable. Since then, the party has been slowly but surely abandoning its principles, and it’s liberal governing style has been steadily accelerating. George W Bush campaigned on the merits of the free market and non-interventionism, but claimed to be a “compassionate conservative” who supported government forced charity for certain causes. As it turned out, he governed to the left of Bill Clinton, instituting the largest entitlement program ever, taking over control of education from the states, and launching an Orwellian, perpetual war on terror. Now we find ourselves in a state where the Republicans are raising spending by over 10% per year, and fighting to raise our taxes, while doling out special incentives and favors to certain (well lobbied) businesses. We find ourselves defeated nationally after running a presidential candidate who supposedly supported free markets, but also supported a state-level individual mandate, and made the ridiculous assertion that “a free market requires government regulations,” and supported the tyrannical policies of the Democrat incumbent. (Indefinite detention, Internet snooping, Assassinations, etc) Yet somehow, some people think the problem is that Republicans are “too conservative” and not “big-government enough.” How can any rational person hold such a belief, after simply observing recent history? How can any person who isn’t a Democrat think that it would be a good idea to move even farther to the left at this point? The reality is that people are thirsting for a real choice, a real answer. Even people who aren’t politically interested have the feeling that “they’re all a bunch of crooks” and are looking for someone to tell them the truth. This is the opportunity that the Republican party needs to take advantage of: distinguish yourself from the Democrats once and for all. Adopt the message of liberty and work towards achieving the government outlined in option number 1: the defender of individual rights. Stop sending mixed messages by taking inconsistent and hypocritical stances on things like national defense, taxes, prohibition, subsidies, etc. Start working towards real change and real reform in the direction of liberty. The alternative is to fade away into the history books and become largely irrelevant. The reason for this is simple: nobody wants a cheap imitation. We already get enough of number 2 from the Democrats, and so if that is the solution you offer, you’ll never win again. (Image courtesy: ernstl) Update: Video of Full Speech!    

Early this morning, after a long struggle with cancer, Russell Means went to join his ancestors from his family’s ranch in Porcupine, South Dakota. Russell was an inspirational leader, not just for Native Americans but for those of all races and backgrounds who believe that life demands that we be free. As a writer, an activist and as an performer Russell touched many people and leaves behind a unique legacy in those he inspired to live free. His message that what government has done to his people would one day be the fate of all people if government was not checked was prophetic and must be remembered.

“Increment by increment…you have allowed your country to implement Indian law in the United States of America. American government since the inception of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824 has been busy practicing and perfecting its policies on us and then exporting them to the world and bringing them home to roost ont he backs of the American people.”

Russell Means was born on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in 1939. His family moved to California where he graduated from San Leandro High School. He then attended Oakland City College and Arizona State. Russell became involved with the American Indian Movement after meeting co-founder Dennis Banks while working as the Director of Cleveland’s American Indian Center. During the early 1970s he led AIM to stage many protests, the most prominent of which was the 71 day occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. He also took part in “The Longest Walk” march in 1978 to protest anti-Indian legislation including the forced sterilization of Indian women. This lead to the passage of a resolution in Congress declaring that Indians had the right “to believe, express and exercise their traditional religions, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.”

Russell went on to write inspirational books, record two collections of protest songs, speak all over the country and appear in a number of movies including Last of the Mohicans and Pocahontas. He was active in the Libertarian Party and served as South Dakota coordinator for the Republican Liberty Caucus. Russell became the face of the Indian rights movement in America and an advocate for liberty for all peoples of all nations. The Los Angeles Times described him as the most famous American Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.

His spirit will stalk the land like a giant so long as we remain strong in our belief in liberty and continue to take the fight he championed to the halls of power in every state and in the nation’s capital.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, the US District Court of the Southern Region of New York has granted a permanent injunction against the exercise of the indefinite military detention powers claimed by the United States government in section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The 112 page decision goes into great detail on how the threat of indefinite detention without due process of law imposes a chilling effect on the free speech rights of critics of the government, as exemplified by the plaintiffs who include prominent government critics and radicals like Noam Chomsky.

During the Congressional debate over the passage of the NDAA many in Congress claimed that the bill did not contain provisions for the indefinite detention of civilians in violation of their Constitutional rights. The proponents of the bill went to some lengths to rearrange the text and obscure the presence of those provisions to give them grounds for denying their existence. As demonstrated in the video accompanying this article, some supporters of the bill like Rep. Allen West (R-FL) were insultingly dismissive of those who complained about the NDAA. The court’s ruling definitively refutes any contention that the NDAA does not include these provisions, confirming the opinions of many civil rights lawyers and explaining in detail how section 1021 of the NDAA could be used to deprive citizens of their liberty at the whim of the Executive Branch.

At the time the NDAA was being debated groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Republican Liberty Caucus went to great lengths to provide legislators with detailed and up to date information on the dangerous content of the bill and organized extensive write-in and call-in campaigns opposing its passage. These efforts were coordinated with the efforts of legislators like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who spoke up against the bill in Congress.

There is really no excuse for those legislators who voted for the NDAA. The flaws in the content were too well known and well publicized for them to plead ignorance. Voters are unlikely to find the self-serving arguments of the bill’s authors that terrorism is such a threat that we need to give up our basic civil liberties to be persuasive now that the court has issued this injunction.

Those who claimed the NDAA did not include this provision should read the detailed explantion of the content of the bil in this ruling and at the very least they should publicly apologize. It would not be unreasonable for some of the more outspoken advocates of the bill like Rep. West to resign. The ruling is absolutely unequivocal that the NDAA does give the President the power to suspend due process and allow the military to arrest civilians and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial.

If you have time to read the ruling, the summary of the arguments made by lawyers from the Justice Department is eye-opening. Their presentation of their position is so arrogant and they seem to be so callous in their disdain for the rights of citizens that they raise questions about their fitness and public servants and the failure of Attorney General Eric Holder to uphold his responsibility as the chief advocate for the people and their rights. He seems to have forgotten that he is the people’s lawyer and become nothing but a mouthpiece for the government.

The ruling concludes:

“Military detention based on allegations of “substantially supporting” or “directly supporting” the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated forces, is not encompassed within the AUMF and is enjoined by this Order regarding § 1021(b) (2). No detention based upon § 1021(b) (2) can occur.”

In granting an injunction the court not only makes clear that the NDAA contains these powers, but also blocks their exercise, protecting the rights of citizens. It is a travesty that we should have to rely on the courts to protect us from such a clear violation of our rights. Our elected representatives ought to be looking out for our interests and should never have passed the NDAA in its current form. Far too many of them failed in this basic responsibility to their constituents.

For the time being we are free of this gross abuse of government power, but it is likely that Attorney General Holder will appeal the ruling and attempt to reclaim this power, and it’s probably inevitable that the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of Senatorial malfeasance, John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) will look for new ways to incorporate indefinite military detention powers in the NDAA when it comes up for review next year.

The Federal Reserve was created to stabilize the money supply and protect taxpayers, but after 100 years it has drifted farther and farther from that mandate to become an unaccountable banking cartel which functions as nothing more than a piggybank for out of control spenders in Congress, expanding credit, expanding the money supply and devaluing the dollar in a cycle which could very easily lead to hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the dollar which has lost 97% of its value, mostly in the last 30 years.

Although irresponsible leadership in Congress is a very large part of the problem with the Federal Reserve, Rep. Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act is the first attempt to reign in the Federal Reserve and reassert Congressional authority under the Constitution which has a real chance of passing the House and Senate. It would end the secrecy at the Fed and require a clear accounting of their monetary policies and practices. It can pass with your help.

Representative Justin Amash is one of the strongest supporters of the bill in the House and has worked as a close ally of Ron Paul in getting it this far. He assures us that just a few dozen calls or emails from constituents can make a huge difference in how Congressmen vote, and that’s just what we need to pass this bill and start the process to Audit the Fed. This won’t be the end of the fight, but passing the bill with a strong majority in the House will build momentum to get it through the Senate and into law.

Please take just a few minutes to send an email to your representative using this form. Customize the text provided to express your personal concerns and send it off as soon as you can.

Texas is one of a handful of states which use a primary runoff system which helps open up the process and makes it somewhat easier for insurgent candidates to challenge incumbents and establishment picked candidates.  This process has created important opportunities for liberty candidates in this year’s Republican primary.  The result is that out of a very large field of great liberty contenders we’ve ended up with four outstanding RLC endorsees in position to win their primaries.  And in most parts of Texas winning the Republican primary is almost the same as winning the general election.

The primary was about a month ago and there are about two and a half weeks to go until the runoff vote.  In the last few weeks these liberty contenders have been racking up important endorsements.  The Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed them before the primary.  This week the influential Young Conservatives of Texas endorsed all four of them.  Local Republican parties, delegates and clubs are getting on board and momentum really seems to be building behind what has turned into a kind of liberty slate for the state.

Leading the pack is Senatorial candidate Ted Cruz.  Cruz and the Texas RLC have worked closely together during the campaign.  He was the headliner at a series of candidate events we held around the state, lending his coattails to other promising candidates and going above and beyond to meet with Liberty Republicans and grassroots activists whenever he had a chance.  He made it to the runoff out of a very crowded field and is now running a very contentious campaign with a great deal of mud being slung at him by his opponent Lt. Governor David Dewhurst who is the ultimate wealthy and powerful insider – as close to an incumbent as you can get without already holding office.  Cruz has taken strong positions in opposition to the NDAA, CISPA and other civil liberties overreaches from the federal government.  He’s not perfect on every issue, but he has been endorsed by Rand Paul and Ron Paul and every other RLC endorsee in the Senate and they really want him in DC to help them push a small government, pro-liberty agenda.  Ted’s opponent is spending over $1 million a week on deceptive attack ads.  He could use your help to fight back if you can contribute anything.

A top contender among our congressional candidates is Wes Riddle who is running in CD25 just south of Austin.  Wes is a former RLC of Texas board member, a military veterans and  former instructor at West Point, and a leader of extraordinary integrity.  He has written a very good book about his ideas on liberty and he exemplifies the kind of conservative-leaning libertarian leaders we tend to produce in Texas.  Wes was just endorsed by Ron Paul, making him one of a small group Paul has tagged as his potential successors in the House of Representatives. Wes is running against a well-funded insider named Roger Williams who is a hardcore religious conservative and has a large fortune from his chain of car dealerships. He’s outspending Wes 10 to 1, but Wes has the grassroots support and they are neck and neck in polls. Williams was a big supporter of the auto bailout and his wife actually lobbied in DC for bailout money on behalf of GM. Wes needs all the help he can get to defeat Williams, so if you can give anything don’t hold back.

Jessica Puente Bradshaw is running in CD34 in southeast Texas against a party insider who has been running a pretty desperate smear campaign. She started out as an underdog, but with a cascade of new endorsements she’s taking the lead in her race. She’s been a big supporter of the RLC, appearing on our live video events and appearing as the featured guest at our RLC party at the state GOP convention last month. Her positions on liberty issues are excellent and she can be a real firebrand. Of the RLC endorsees who have made the runoffs she comes closest to embodying our ideal combination of strong pro-liberty positions and political pragmatism. Putting a hispanic Republican woman with the same philosophy as Ron Paul in Congress in 2012 would be a real coup. Help her out if you can.

Steve Stockman, running in the new CD36, is a former congressman who was an ally of Ron Paul during his brief term in Congress in the 1990s and got squeezed out by redistricting. Now he’s on his way back with a lot of support from an old guard of liberty-leaning Republicans in east Texas. His race is peculiar, with his main opposition from a wealthy former Democrat who seems to have almost no Republican credentials. Steve has backing from the RLC and local tea party groups and various statewide conservative organizations, but lags behind in fundraising. Nonetheless he has a real chance at a win and could use all the support he can get.

While it’s unfortunate that the Texas congressional delegation is losing Ron Paul next year, with such a great slate of candidates who have already made it into winnable runoff elections, it seems quite likely that Texas will have an even stronger role in promoting a pro-liberty agenda than we do now. No one can really replace Ron Paul, but four new Liberty Republicans in Congress and one in the Senate might be even better.

The runoff election is on July 31st and we’re expecting low turnout, normally a bad thing, but in this situation it favors informed and highly motivated voters and that describes the liberty constituency pretty well.

I, for one, was delighted at the surge of new, mostly younger people who registered to vote for the first time in order to support Ron Paul in this year’s presidential primaries and caucuses. I explained to non-Paul supporters that the GOP should embrace them because the Republican Party is aging and needs new blood.

However, I saw a study of new, mostly younger people who registered to vote for the first time in 2008 for Barack Obama which makes me wonder about the long-term impact of Paul people.

A study conducted by two political scientists at my alma mater The University of San Francisco discovered that of the 2.1-million first time voters in California who showed up for Obama in 2008, most left other offices blank and didn’t vote on major issue referenda questions involving gay marriage and parental notification of a minor’s abortion request either.

The authors speculate that in 2008 this was evidence that many of the Obama voters were just that — voters more dedicated to the candidate than his liberal causes.

And they tested their hypothesis further by comparing 2010 election data and discovered that most of these new voters did not even show up at the polls two years after voting for Obama. Voting patterns in 2010 were not much different from the voting patterns before this new bloc of voters registered.

As I watch the enthusiasm of the Paul people and meet many younger people who registered to vote for the first time because they believed themselves disenfranchised by the parties, I wonder whether the same results as the Obama voter study would ensue or whether they will stay active in the mundane lower ballot campaigns and become a force within the Republican Party.

My hope is that Paul people will follow the template set by we Youth for Goldwater of the 1960s and suffer through the mundane in order to build a movement within the party. Instead of disappearing after his trouncing by LBJ, we kept the Goldwater movement alive at the grassroots level. Within 20 years, most of us from Youth for Goldwater were either working in media, working as policy advisors in the White House and Congress or actually elected to office and Ronald Reagan, who gave pep talk speeches at Youth for Goldwater rallies, was POTUS.