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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raise your hand if you support torture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Advantages

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

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

The Right Ideas

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

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

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

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

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

Winning in 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cosmo-wha?

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

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

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

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

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

“Humanitarian Wars”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big, Bad Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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