The extrajudicial execution of Anwar al Awlaki last week was a reminder of ongoing concerns with the powers granted to the president under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force which was passed at the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also an example of the willingness of this president to act outside the limits placed on his office by the Constitution.

This administration, like its predecessor, has placed a very low value on the protections of the Bill of Rights and has treated due process and the rule of law as inconveniences which they can ignore whenever it is expedient. Under the banner of the War on Terror and the authority of the AUMF they have assumed powers which no government is entitled to and have committed acts against their own people which are utterly unacceptable.

The killing of al Awlaki with a drone-fired missile was done on no greater authority than the scratch of the presidential pen and with no respect for his rights as a human being and a United States citizen. There was no trial, no act of Congress, no revocaton of citizenship, not even an evidentiary hearing or a warrant issued by a judge. No element of the legal system was engaged to determine that al Alwalki should die. The president just decreed it and his robotic executioner did the job.

The evidence suggests that this was done purely for convenience and because the administration was incapable of providing strong enough evidence to bring a case against al Awlaki in a court. Because his role had been primarily to inspire and encourage others through his writing and internet videos, there was little or no evidence which connected him directly to any acts of terrorism. Unable to prove their case, the administration decided to go outside the law and kill him on little more than suspicion, primarily for speaking out against the United States, a fundamental right protected under the First Amendment. It was a cowardly act carried out for convenience by a government which has no respect for the principles on which this nation was founded.

The American public greeted the event with a mixture of complacency and jubilation. There was certainly no reason to waste any tears for the newly emerged spiritual leader of the most extreme elements of the Muslim world. Yet most Americans were dismayingly oblivious to the implications of the extrajudicial execution of an American citizen. If the president can sign the death warrant of one citizen based almost entirely on his writings and public statements, what is to stop him from signing away any of our lives when our criticisms of the government and its policies cross some subjective line?

Objections were raised in some quarters. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to block the president from taking this action without first going through the courts as required by centuries of common law and the Bill of Rights. Two presidential candidates also spoke up. Both Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Gary Johnson issued statements objecting to the action. Johnson summed up the concerns well, writing:

“If we allow our fervor to eliminate terrorist threats to cause us to cut corners with the Constitution and the fundamental rights of American citizens, whether it be invasions of privacy or the killing of someone born on U.S. soil, I could argue that the terrorists will have ultimately won.

“The world is very likely a better place without al-Awlaki in it, but let us not neglect to ask the tough questions this attack raises and about the laws that allowed it to be carried out.”

Paul touched on the same issues after a speech in New Hampshire, telling reporters:

“We cannot allow the War on Terror to diminish our steadfast adherence to the notion of due process for American citizens…The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like – they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens.”

Since al Awlaki’s death concerns have been raised that approval for the action came from a “secret panel” of top government officials, acting as a sort of Star Chamber operating outside of the Constitution and the judicial system with no public record of their actions and no accountability to anyone but the president. Speculation has been widespread about the existence of a “kill list” of other terrorists who for one reason or another the administration would like to eliminate without the mess and fuss of a trial or even arrest. This is not how things are supposed to work in America and is more reminiscent of the secret trials of Soviet Russia or even the famous death squads employed by South American dictators in the recent past.

In their statement on the subject the Republican Liberty Caucus summed up what ought to be the main concerns of American citizens in this situation when they asked “Do you want our government to condemn citizens to death in secret and then execute them without a trial or even an arrest warrant? If this is where the War on Terror has brought us, it is time to repeal the AUMF and demand accountability from the government and respect for the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.”

A free nation does not set aside its own laws and kill people for the sake of expediency. Once you start ignoring the law, where do you stop? What limits on government power remain? Last week it was al Awalki, but with no respect for the law or the rights of the people, why shouldn’t it be an outspoken talkshow host or blogger next week?

A nation is only as good as the laws under which it operates and the degree to which it respects the rights of its citizens. When a government sets aside those laws and ignores those rights it is no longer a legitimate government. In fighting the War on Terror, our government and our leaders have themselves become the terrorists.

A version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

Some self-proclaimed libertarians and constitutionalists maintain that crime merits prosecution at the federal level.  With rare exception, there is no constitutional support to justify their claims.

Yes, the government is supposed to protect life, but there is no specific amendment of the Constitution that empowers the federal government to have jurisdiction on common crimes like theft, fraud, or murder.

Instead, the Founders explicitly warned against giving the federal government the power to deal with common crimes.

According to the late libertarian icon Harry Browne, “All crime is local. It occurs in the jurisdiction of a police department or sheriff’s department somewhere. The Founding Fathers wisely provided no Constitutional role for the federal government regarding common crimes of any kind.”

Browne concludes that a federal police force makes you less safe. In fact, the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see today’s federal police forces — such as the FBI, the BATF, and the DEA.

Of course, there are a select few crimes that the federal government does have jurisdiction on. National defense is a specifically outlined constitutional function of government, so acts against federal employees are punishable. Additionally, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 gives the federal government jurisdiction on piracy and this same section (Clause 6) gives the feds jurisdiction on counterfeiting. And Article 3, Section 3 gives the federal government authority on treason.

However, the federal government should have no jurisdiction on abortion. The RLC Statement of Principles says about abortion, “We support a resolution of this issue through the proper judicial and legislative channels specified in the Constitution.”

The proper constitutional channel is the Tenth Amendment, which gives powers not outlined for the federal government to the states and to the people. Thus, overturning Roe v. Wade would not only return authority to their proper jurisdiction, but it would also empower states and individuals to decide the proper course of action on the controversial issue of abortion.

If you support limiting the size and scope of government, then you can’t rely on the federal government to protect us from crimes like abortion. Crime and the protection of life should not be federal issues.

Think about it this way: The federal government does not deliver your mail on time. Why would you want to trust them on issues of life or death?

More importantly, they have no constitutional authority to protect your life, other than via national defense.

When a virtual army of RLC endorsees including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Mike Lee plus Congressmen like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul are all backing something you know it has to be a good idea and an important statement for smaller and more responsible government. While some congressional leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell seem ready to sell out to the Obama administration’s demands for more taxes and spending, responsible leaders with principle are promoting the “Cap, Cut and Balance” pledge.

With the US facing an unavoidable debt crisis, we’re not going to be able to balance the budget and revitalize our economy on the backs of taxpayers or with superficial cuts in a few programs or cuts put off over long periods of time. We need real and substantial cuts now, including an end to our unnecessary wars, restructuring of entitlement programs and a program by program audit of every aspect of the federal government.

Faced with demands to raise the debt limit without implementing needed cuts, fiscal conservatives in Congress are signing the new “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge which follows the guidelines of the Republican Study Committee and demands real and immediate cuts, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

* Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
* Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
* Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

You can show your support by signing the pledge too at www.cutcapbalancepledge.com.

And please help support our efforts to promote liberty issues and reform the Republican Party by joining the RLC today or by making a donation.

The Republican Party has been handed many opportunities by the need to redraw congressional districts on the basis of the 2010 census. Some strong Republican states like Texas have grown substantially, offering the opportunity for several new seats for Republicans in Congress. Other states lost population, leaving Republican lawmakers with difficult decisions and scrambling to hold onto gains made in the 2008 election.

This situation has the potential to reverse some of the gains made by grassroots candidates supported by groups like the tea parties and the Republican Liberty Caucus who brought many new Republicans into the House of Representatives last fall, some of them in states which are losing seats in redistricting and are controlled by very small Republican majorities in their state legislatures.

Early indications are that in states where Republicans face redistricting losses the priorities of the establishment lawmakers in those states and the interests of the people of the states who brought the party gains in the last election are drastically out of sync and as they redistrict, party leaders seem poised to do a lot of harm to their relationship with the grassroots activists who are becoming increasingly necessary if they want to keep winning elections.

Early indications are that the inclination of state party leaders is to solve tough redistricting challenges by sacrificing newly elected candidates favored by the grassroots in order to strengthen the positions of establishment incumbents who are not nearly as popular with grassroots voters. The superficial benefits of this strategy for the party elite may quickly be outweighed by the backlash from activists who are not pleased with the way the Republican Party is run and just need a little nudge like this to start challenging large numbers of Republican incumbents in party primaries.

The first stand-out example of this problem appears to be over redistricting in Michigan and the fate of its recently elected third district representative, Justin Amash. Amash won a strong victory in a mixed district. Since his election he has been one of the most followed freshman congressmen and one of the most politically consistent in his adherence to the fiscal conservatism and constitutional principles which characterized the anti-establishment uprising on the right in 2010. Amash has not exactly been a clone of Ron Paul, but he exhibits the same adherence to principle over party and this makes the party leadership kind of nervous.

In his short term in office Amash has won even more support from his constituents by making himself unusually accessible, sponsoring innovative legislation including a new constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and even posting explanations of every vote he makes to his Facebook page. Amash has been singled out as one of the best new congressmen by conservative groups and even received praise from the libertarian press. He’s also angered Democrats in his district who have launched several recall petitions against him, another sign he is doing what his radical supporters want. He is in many ways the model of the kind of new political leader which the reawakened base of the political right wants to see in Washington.

Yet Amash’s popularity and success are apparently of little interest to party leaders in Michigan. When the state’s House Redistricting Committee met this week the redistricting map which they were given for approval by the state Senate would make it very difficult for Amash to win reelection while protecting and strengthening the districts of other more establishment-friendly legislators like Thaddeus McCotter, Bill Huizinga, Fred Upton and Dave Camp. It even helps solidify the districts of some Democrat incumbents like John Dingell.

The specific threat to Amash is that parts of his district had to be removed to strengthen the districts of more favored Republicans, replaced by areas which are more evenly balanced between the parties. This includes giving several towns and suburbs where he won very strong majorities in 2010 to the neighboring 2nd District held by Bill Huizinga and replacing them with parts of Calhoun county which have traditionally voted Democrat. They also moved the home of popular Democrat former representative Mark Schauer into Amash’s district, giving the Democrats a ready made challenger for the young radical.

The reasoning behind this may be that the libertarian-leaning Amash has the ability to win more independent and crossover votes than an establishment Republican, but it also means that Amash faces a much closer election, has to spend more time fundraising and campaigning, and will therefore be less effective in Congress this year if he wants to remain there after next November. Party leaders are not engineering a guaranteed loss for Amash, but they are dumping as many of their problems as they can in his district while smoothing the way for their cronies, leaving Amash to deal with their mess.

Any redistricting effort is always a series of trade-offs, and with Michigan losing one of their congressional seats the division of the remaining voter base to keep Republicans in power has to be tricky. One Democrat will clearly be out of office, but the other outcome is that the mix of Republicans may be different and Amash could very well no longer be part of the Michigan delegation. I doubt that they actively want Amash to lose, but they are putting most of the pressure and most of the risk of the election on Amash, almost offering him as a sacrificial lamb to the Democrats so that if the Democrats have a surge in 2012 and Republicans have to lose one district it will be Amash who gets voted out, not someone less principled and better connected.

Of course, if I had to pick one Republican to win against these odds with little support from his state party establishment, it would be Justin Amash. His appeal transcends the limits of the Republican Party and goes directly to disaffected and independent voters who understand that a representative with his firm principles and dedication to serving the public is worth a lot more than the R or D after their name.

No matter the outcome, this little example of how party insiders use redistricting to protect their own at the expense of those whose main allies are the grassroots voters, is a warning which every candidate and political activist ought to keep in mind when deciding where to put their support in 2012. Amash and others like him still need and deserve our support while party leaders continue to earn our disregard and disapproval by their self-serving actions. Justin Amash serves his constituents and the interests of the American people. Those who are working against him within his own party are only serving their own interests.

This article appeared previously in Blogcritics Magazine.

There are a host of upcoming Republican Liberty Caucus events that we want you to be a part of!

………………JUNE
______________________

• San Jose Area RLC Monthly Meeting
June 20, San Jose
RSVP/learn more.

• Utah RLC Convention
June 21, Draper
RSVP/learn more.

• Los Angeles RLC Chartering Meeting
June 22, Los Angeles
RSVP/learn more.

• Virginia RLC at TV Filming Tutorial
June 22, Fairfax
RSVP/learn more.

• Minnesota RLC Meeting
June 22, S. Saint Paul
RSVP/learn more.

………………JULY
______________________

• Arizona RLC Meeting
July 9, Tucson
Contact us for details.

• Los Angeles RLC Meeting
July 13, Los Angeles
RSVP/learn more .

• Central Texas RLC Meeting
July 15, Austin
RSVP/learn more.

• Lake County (Indiana) RLC Meeting
July 16, Schererville
RSVP/learn more

• Arizona RLC Social
July 19, Tucson
RSVP/learn more.

………………AUGUST
______________________

• Heartland Liberty Conference
(Sponsored by the Nebraska RLC)
August 6, Omaha
RSVP/learn more.

• Central Texas RLC Meeting
August 12, Austin
RSVP/learn more.

• Gary Johnson at the National Press Club
Topic: Social Issues and the Republican Party
August 19, Washington, DC
RSVP/learn more.

• Calvin Coolidge Clambake with Gov. Gary Johnson
(Sponsored by the Maine RLC)
August 26, Portland
RSVP/learn more

Republican Party of Bloomfield Hosts Rep. Justin Amash
(Sponsored by the Michigan RLC)
August 29, Metro Detroit
RSVP/learn more.

When I and many other self-described liberty Republicans heard that there would be two candidates bearing the liberty standard in 2012 we didn’t know what to think. Would there be a civil war to divide the liberty movement which even still is only in its infancy, or would two candidates bring the liberty message legitimacy?

Early indications were not good. Powerful advocates of Ron Paul, most notably Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, started running hit pieces on Gary Johnson as soon as he announced his candidacy. Authors at The American Spectator and The American Conservative wrote slightly less vicious pieces along the same lines. On the other side institutional libertarians at such places as Reason, the CATO Institute and the Republican Liberty Caucus appeared to be rallying around Johnson, blowing off Paul as either less libertarian or as less electable. (Editor’s Note: The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidate.) The battle lines were drawn: The R3volution vs the “libertarian power elite” (as the late Murray Rothbard called them).

For all of the antagonism, there was little animosity between the actual candidates themselves. As Ron Paul was mulling over an entrance into the race he was asked whether he would endorse Johnson if he decided not to run. His answer was simple: “I can’t imagine endorsing anyone else.” Likewise, when Gary Johnson is asked why someone should vote for him over Ron Paul, as he was on Stossel’s program recently, his canned answer was “I would never make that case.”

Luckily for our cause of liberty, a de facto truce seems to have developed between the two camps. This is a fortunate development indeed, considering the degree to which the liberty movement has succumbed to infighting and self-destruction in the past. Ron Paul enthusiasts can identify with being locked out of a debate, as Gary Johnson was in New Hampshire. And Gary Johnson followers, who were mostly Ron Paul followers less than three years ago, have given up converting any who still identify more with Paul’s brand of libertarianism. Presumably they have come to realize that his candidacy is only useful to the degree to which he attracts new voters to the cause, and dividing the fledgling movement serves no constructive purpose.

And as the race has developed and the message and rhetoric from each candidate has further evolved, it seems that the two standard bearers for liberty have tailored their message to vastly different constituencies. Beginning in March, at The Family Leader Presidential Lecture Series, Ron Paul began targeting his stump speech towards religious groups and family values voters. He makes a fantastic case for liberty based on the experience of the Israelites in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 (which he aptly points out is closely related to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). The 75 year old has also lead a personal life that is very much in line with the values of social conservatives. He has only had one wife, he has five children, many grandchildren, and even a few great-grandchildren. It‘s clear to anyone who hears him speak that his faith plays a significant role in his life.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson has not lead such a Christian conservative life. Divorced, he has two children and, while raised Lutheran, does not attend church (although he believes in God and will even “admit to praying once and a while”). To the Christian conservative base to which Ron Paul has tailored his message, this would be a huge negative. But not to the pragmatic liberals who are itching for a candidate who understands economics but are wary of the caricature Bible-thumping snake oil salesmen which have sadly become associated with “Republican.” Being a two term governor of a blue state in which he remains popular, Johnson also brings credibility to the notion that a liberty oriented candidate could actually govern if elected. As an entrepreneur who grew a one man handy-man business into one of the largest construction firms in his home state, he also has credibility with small-business types. In addition, Governor Johnson has been able to take arguably even more liberty oriented stances than Paul on such issues as abortion and immigration, stances that Paul simply could not take if he wished to maintain his appeal with Christian conservative voters even if he did agree with them himself (and there is no indication that he does).

The contrast between the two liberty candidates extends into core philosophy. Ron Paul is what a “rights-based” libertarian who advocates for liberty on the basis of the morality of personal property rights. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a “consequentialist” libertarian who would claim that everything government does should be looked at from a cost-benefit analysis. The fact that these two different perspectives arrive at the same policy conclusions should not be surprising: a geometric proof and an algebraic proof of a mathematical theorem should arrive at the same conclusion. Otherwise there is something wrong with that theorem.

Practical implications of this slight difference are significant even on issues which the two candidates largely agree. Ron Paul, for instance, would never admit to supporting “gay rights” because even though his policy would be very friendly toward gays, as a rights-based libertarian he does not believe that any group has specific rights and he is loathe to spin his rhetoric in a way that implies this is the case. This could confuse some voters who do not understand rights-based libertarianism. As a consequentialist libertarian, however, Gary Johnson is proud to say that he supports gay rights and voters who support gay rights but may not understand the issue deeply enough to take a second look at Ron Paul could be drawn towards Johnson’s campaign. Likewise, Paul’s message retains more credibility with social conservatives if he refrains from talking about “gay rights” as such.

In a similar fashion, when it comes to foreign policy Gary Johnson will not admit to being a non-interventionist. He even appears to be insulted by pundits who identify him as such. In order to stay philosophically consistent, as a consequentialist libertarian he has to view each potential conflict from a cost-benefit standpoint. Johnson will not even rule out intervening in conflicts for humanitarian purposes if he thought such an intervention would yield greater benefits than costs. That being said, he has decided virtually every conflict we are currently involved in fails the cost-benefit analysis test. He believes that much of our military spending, many of our strategic alliances, and scores of overseas military bases fail the test as well. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a strict non-interventionist. As a rights-based libertarian, he sees intervention in the affairs of other nations as inherently illegitimate. This distinction between the two candidates may lead hardcore anti-war voters to be naturally drawn to Paul while Gary Johnson is more open to receive the support of voters who are receptive to more moderate rhetoric when it comes to national security issues.

Rhetorical and philosophical differences between the two liberty candidates naturally lead to slightly different geographic constituencies as well. Whether or not the candidates have understood this and communicated it to each other, they seem to recognize it. Ron Paul has made a strong effort in Iowa, where religious conservatives who will understand his references to the Old Testament and the founding documents are likely to grasp his ideas and hopefully identify with them. Being a caucus state, Iowa is also a naturally favorable state for a politician with such fanatical followers as Paul. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has pinned all of his hopes on a strong finish in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state where thousands of liberty loving activists have moved as part of the Free State Project. With a broader, simpler message of the “religion of the pocketbook”, Johnson hopes to make a big impact on a state which is known more for its appreciation of distilled liberty than its appreciation of religion.

Looking onward to the next two primary states, it is my opinion that the same strategy of “divide and conquer” should be employed in a similar way. Nevada, much like New Hampshire, is a state which is famously liberty oriented and not known for its conviction to religion. In stark contrast, South Carolina is a famously religious state and member in good standing of the so-called “Bible Belt.” By defining themselves slightly differently, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should be able to appeal to these two states in a way that a single liberty candidate would be unable to do. It should also be noted that, as a Congressman from a southern state, Ron Paul may be able to make a close connection with voters in another southern state. Likewise, as the former governor of a western state, Gary Johnson may be able to make a connection with voters in another western state.

This is not to say that Gary Johnson should abandon Iowa and South Carolina, or that Ron Paul should completely give up on New Hampshire and Nevada: there are vast numbers of individuals in each of these states who do not fit the general character of the state who would identify better with the opposite candidate. With that clarification out of the way, it is in the interest of the liberty message that each of these candidates focuses their efforts in the state most likely to be receptive to their rhetoric in order to maximize the degree to which the message of liberty resonates.

Each candidate should recognize that it is unlikely that a liberty candidate will win the nomination this time around, but it is important that the message gets out and that a liberty loving base for future liberty candidates is built. We can only win the battle for the presidency once we win the battle of ideas.

Kyle R. Johnson is a masters student in chemical engineering at the University of Idaho. He is originally from Richland, Washington.

Evidence against June 13 GOP debate sponsors CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader continues to mount as they persist in excluding former two-term Republican Governor Gary Johnson from the Manchester, New Hampshire debate.

WMUR and the Union-Leader have been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned Americans, many complaining that they are embarrassing the state of New Hampshire and jeopardizing its status as a first in the nation primary state.

And now Johnson supporters recently released a video targeting CNN:

HOPE AND CHANGE

Johnson’s supporters are hosting a MoneyBomb for his campaign in conjunction with the debate, and cries for inclusion have come from different corners of the political spectrum — ranging from Willy Nelson to the gay conservative group GOProud.

Additionally, there is hope for Johnson supporters:

CNN tried to keep former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel out of the June 3, 2007 Democratic presidential debate, but his supporters flooded CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader with requests and their decision was eventually reversed. Mike Gravel was able to debate.

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA

The specific criteria CNN and the other outlets are using to justify the exclusion of Governor Johnson also doesn’t add up. The first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” but some of the invitees not only are not candidates (Michele Bachmann), but haven’t even taken a single official step toward becoming one (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin). CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.

CNN selectively used versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (such as Palin and Giuliani) in its listed criteria. Despite excluding other polls, Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.

In the May 27 CNN poll, three different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin (but not Giuliani), and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Gary Johnson earned 2%.

In the May 26 Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.

Finally, in the May 4 Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.

So the May Johnson poll results using CNN’s poll sources are: 2 + 3 + 1 divided by 3, which equals 2%. View the poll data compiled here.

A Johnson supporter explains the math for all you visual learners:

Finally, in a just-released PPP poll, Gary Johnson leads GOP contenders in favorability ratings in their home states. Johnson is supported by 44 percent of New Mexico voters.

SKETCHY FROM THE START

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Karger explains how the CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader debate has been problematic from the very beginning. Says Karger, “The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is very clear on the rules governing debates stating that, ‘The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria.’ CNN’s criteria is objective, but was the criteria pre-established?” The following evidence was collected by Mr. Karger:

1) Invitations were sent to Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. When were the invitations sent?

2) Were the invitations sent out on a rolling basis, rather than after the criteria period closed? Donald Trump was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 16, 2011. Mike Huckabee was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 14, 2011. Haley Barbour was not invited. Barbour met the criteria after the April 22, 2011 release of a Gallup poll. Haley Barbour announced he would not run on April 25, 2011.

3) Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling criteria until he received 4% in the UNH poll, which was released on May 23, 2011 at 5pm (pdf). Jon Huntsman announced he would not participate in the debate on May 27, 2011. In the three full days between 5pm May 23, 2011 and May 27, 2011, Jon Huntsman would have needed to receive an invitation from the debate sponsors and have decided to decline that invitation.

4) Herman Cain: Herman Cain announced on or before May 24, 2011 that he would attend the NH debate. When was he invited? Herman Cain met the criteria on April 28, 2011.

5) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani qualified on May 4, 2011, when the UNH Survey Center released its Granite State Poll. When was he invited?

6) Polling firms excluded: Why did the criteria exclude the following polling firms: Rasmussen, Zogby, Public Policy Polling and Suffolk — all of whom conducted national polls on the Republican 2012 primary during April and May 2011?

7) Debate Date Moved: The Debate was originally set for June 7th, but was rescheduled to June 13th. The decision to change the debate date was announced on April 27, 2011. Why was the date moved?

8.) UNH Survey Center Polls: When were the UNH Survey Center’s two polls about the 2012 Republican primary (which came out in May 2011) commissioned? Were they commissioned prior to April 1, 2011 (the beginning of the criteria period)? It is important to note that in May 2007, the UNH Survey Center did not conduct any polls about the Republican primary.

The 2007 debate was also hosted by CNN, WMUR TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader. In this debate there were 10 participants: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. The pre-established objective criteria for this debate was never released; however, by 2011 standards, it would have been a 6-man debate. During April and May of 2007, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson did not average 2% on three national polls.

If the same criteria was applied 4 years ago, UNH Survey Center polling would have excluded Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul, all of whom would not have met (.pdf) a 2% polling criteria.

TAKE ACTION

Please take five minutes to contact CNN, WMUR, and the NH Union-Leader and demand that Gary Johnson is included in their June 13 GOP debate.

A former Republican Governor should automatically gain inclusion in a GOP debate. It’s really that simple.

For WMUR, call 603-669-9999 or email them; for the NH Union-Leader, call 603-668-4321 (redirect to the Newsroom) or email them; for CNN, call 404-827-1500 or text CNN (space) and your news tip.

Also, please sign this petition for inclusion.

CALLING FOR INCLUSION

A variety of individuals and groups are calling for Johnson’s inclusion in the June 13 debate. A sampling of comments is found below.

“The decision to exclude Gary Johnson is completely out of step with the spirit of the New Hampshire primary. We endorse an open political process that keeps New Hampshire special. We respectfully request that the debate partners — CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader — reconsider this decision and welcome Gov. Johnson to the June 13th debate.”
– David Hurst
Chairman, New Hampshire Young Republicans

“When any media outlet decides they are the judge of a “viable” candidate, such as the denial of Governor Gary Johnson (in a GOP debate at St. Anselm’s College Monday), at that point they are usurping the voter’s right to choose a candidate. I say shame on any news agency putting itself in a position to decide which candidate is worthy for America to hear. Just on the face of this issue it seems un-American.”
– Jerry DeLemus
Chairman, Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC

“Man, Gary Johnson’s supporters are dedicated, and unrelenting.”
– Jeff Winkler
Columnist, The DailyCaller

“GOProud has significant policy differences with Governor Johnson, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, we believe strongly that Governor Johnson deserves to be included and that Republican primary voters’ best interest would be served by having his voice in this important debate.”
– Jimmy LaSalvia
Executive Director, GOProud

“CNN appears to be aiding and abetting the attempted overturning of gay marriage in one of the five states where it is legal. CNN should lead the way and open up its debate to all serious Presidential candidates, not just some.”
– Fred Karger (who also wants to be included in the debate)
GOP Presidential candidate

“Sign the change.org petition to get Gary Johnson into the debate!”
– Willy Nelson’s TeaPot Party

Let us not accept NO as the answer. Doing so would allow CNN too much power over the GOP primary.

Seven Republicans will meet this month for the first New Hampshire debate of the 2012 election, taking place on June 13 in Manchester and sponsored by CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader.

Unfortunately, RLC Advisory Board member Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico twice elected in a Democrat state, was not invited. This despite the fact that Johnson polls at 3% nationally and participated in the first GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina. Several of the candidates invited have not even announced they are running, but Johnson formally announced his candidacy.

RLC members believe that Governor Johnson (as well as Congressman Ron Paul) has solutions to offer Republican voters. If they are not permitted to hear the liberty message, they can’t become a part of the liberty movement by joining groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Johnson’s positions and viewpoints have particularly strong appeal to New Hampshire voters and not including them is doing them a real disservice.

TAKE ACTION

If concerned Americans don’t protest the exclusion of Governor Johnson from the debate, he will surely not be included. However, if we let folks know what our opinion on the matter is, they are more likely to give him consideration.

Please request to hear Governor Gary Johnson in the debate!

• There is now a grassroots petition being signed up online Change.org which will be sent to media and GOP leaders.

• Call WMUR at (603) 669-9999 and fill out their contact form.

• Call the NH Union-Leader newspaper at (603) 668-4321 or e-mail them.

• Call CNN at (404) 827-1500 or (202) 898-7900 or text CNN (space) and your news tip to 772937. You can also submit your comment online.

• Post your comments at CNN’s article about the debate.

Another option is to contact the Advertising Departments for each of these outlets and inform them that you will not be purchasing anything they sell until Gary Johnson is included in the debate. If the Advertising Department believes they will lose customers, they will pressure other departments to change their strategy.

If prospective GOP voters do not get to hear from Gary Johnson, it’s one less liberty advocate providing the solutions our country needs.

Please forward this message to other concerned Americans.