Yesterday, the Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia voiced its support of SB 66, a bill which prohibits different types of discrimination in public employment — including discrimination against same-sex attracted workers. The bill defines “sexual orientation” as a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, or gender identity or expression.

Several Virginia RLC members have been vocal on the issue, including David Lampo, who penned an op-ed in The Richmond-Times Dispatch, and RLCVA Board member Rick Sincere, who spoke at a press conference organized by Equality Virginia on the bill’s passage.

Said Lampo in his op-ed, “… Republicans could lose it all again if we let our party go back to the culture wars and religious extremism that some in our party seem to relish. Not only must we resist the divisive urges of the more extreme elements of our party; we need to restore the image of our party to one of social tolerance and support for individual liberty, two of the important values it was built on.”

He continued, “One of the ways to do this is to implement a policy of employment nondiscrimination for all government employees, including gays and lesbians. Virginia currently has no statute establishing a statewide policy against discrimination in employment for any public employees.”

Rick Sincere, a longtime RLC member, spoke on the issue:

The RLC received press hits in the Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and Fredricksburg Free-Lance Star. Governor Bob McDonnell has stated repeatedly that he opposes discrimination in state employment, including discrimination based on sexual orientation — affirming the RLC’s position on the issue.

In the 19th century there were ongoing debates about the degree to which government should be involved with money. It was not until the 1930s, more than 150 years after the nation was founded, that government asserted a full monopoly on money by illegalizing the ownership of gold.

By February 1912, about 98 years ago, Senator Bob La Follette, a small business-oriented Progressive and presidential candidate that year, made a speech in which he noted that Wall Street had come to so dominate the media that even recently founded magazines were no longer independent. The next day the New York Times ran an article stating that La Follette had suffered a nervous breakdown, effectively ending his candidacy for president. He continued on as a Senator until the 1920s.

Since then the media has avoided discussion of Wall Street and the Fed. Some, like Glenn Beck, claim ignorance. Others simply kowtow to special interests across the board. Still other media outlets, the majority, do not know what news is, so cannot be expected to discuss a subject like the Fed. Still others are consciously linked to the interests of Wall Street. In any case, Beck is to be commended for being the first to speak on this issue. But is that really a good thing?

Glenda McGee just wrote me this e-mail:

“Glenn Beck and Sarah Palan had me and a few million others THRILLED for many months. The minute the TEA PARTY showed promise in Arizona and Texas they led the movement over the cliff.”

Beck needs to do a better job if he is to remain convincing as a voice for advocates of small government. To do so, he could try a few things:

1. Read a few books on money and banking, including Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money and Hans Sennholz’s Money and Freedom. He might also read some Hayek and learn about the concept of free market money, an institution that existed here in the US for most of its history.

2. He could be playing an educational role. In the videos I’ve seen of him he claims ignorance. If he wants to be a leader, he should take the time to learn the issues. It’s fine to complain about the Fed’s ownership structure, but that doesn’t lead to any policy prescription.

3. He needs to learn basic history. Money has been a traditionally central argument in American politics until the past 80 years. The bad guys won and have been controlling the debate ever since.

4. Thus Beck could teach his viewers about: (a) the basic policy options, including competing, free market monetary systems and metallic-backed currencies and (b) the historical process by which centralized monetary control was rejected, re-adopted because it facilitates war (specifically the War of 1812), rejected again by Andrew Jackson, reinstated again in small part by the Republicans in order to finance the Civil War, rejected again during the Gilded Age , rejected by the public in the election of 1896, and then adopted by subterfuge in 1913 and re-enforced through fear tactics in 1932.

Shedding crocodile tears about the Fed’s ownership structure is a good way to seem like you oppose something that your boss at Fox really favors.

Let’s hope for a better performance from the undoubtedly theatrical but so far unconvincing Mr. Beck.

I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout.  In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout.  But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.

Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed.  One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.  This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.

A reader suggested  this blog by the Alantic Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan.  Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists.  Sullivan writes:

“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”

I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York.  I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government.  There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations.  These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.

Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party.  However, Sullivan makes a good point.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced.  Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government.  They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush.  They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama.  The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again.  This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention.  Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.

I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right.  However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush.  The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party?  I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government.  Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.

Adam Andrzejewski is one of six Republicans running to become the standard bearer for the party’s upcoming statewide gubernatorial race.

Unlike each of his opponents, Andrzejewski is a common citizen — a father and businessman rather than a career politician.

The Illinois primary is today, ridiculously early, and catches us all off guard.

Illinois politics is unique, to be sure. It’s filled with a corrupt cesspool of self-aggrandizing politicians — in the Rod Blagojevich mold — each hoping to out-power one another to become king of the citizenry. It’s power politics, to be sure, and is filled with name-calling, manipulation, and maneuvering.

Adam Andrzejewski is a rare political outsider with common sense and commitment to limited and transparent government.  All of this is rare in Illinois politics, which is usually filled with special interest candidates or those with a solid family tree of political history.

Whatsmore, Adam is gaining traction and could be the GOP nominee for Governor.

As the Republican Liberty Caucus choice for Governor, we hope Illinois voters see in Adam what Rush Limbaugh and former president of Poland Lech Walesa see; both endorsed his candidacy in the last week.

In addition to being profiled at the popular conservative blog RedState, Adam was recently featured in Politico article and at National Review online.

Depending on what poll you believe, Adam is either in first or second place in the tough primary field.

Will the Tea Party impact today’s Illinois GOP gubernatorial race? If so, Adam will be the Republican nominee.  Illinois will be a better place if that happens.

Many months ago, I predicted that R.J. Harris was in a good race where he could potentially make an impact.

The latest poll numbers prove that to be the case. According to a poll from Persistence Consulting LLC, incumbent Tom Cole has 45%; Harris has 33%; and 22% of voters are undecided.

Mr. Harris is a currently serving nineteen-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer. He has been on two tours in Iraq and is a second year law student at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. He has appeared on Fox News’ Freedom Watch twice and been the featured guest on conservative/libertarian talk-radio programs across the country.

At LibertySlate.com, which is a website I help run independently to track liberty candidates, Harris is in the upper tier of candidates ranked. At LibertySlate, we conclude, “[Incumbent Tom] Cole is somewhat vulnerable because some Republicans have blamed him for losing Republican seats in Congress while he chaired the Republican National Congressional Committee. Cole did not win the seat by huge amounts in recent years, which shows his popularity is waning. In short, Harris is a better fit for this conservative Oklahoma district, and playing up his military service enough could solidify the biggest upset of the 2010 primary cycle.”

Please contribute to R.J. Harris today!

Governor Gary E. Johnson has been called the next Ron Paul.  He has not yet announced his candidacy for president, but has been widely mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate who reflects the Tea Party’s and liberty Republicans’ perspectives.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

According to the blog Libertarian Republican, Governor-elect Chris Christie (R) reiterated his support for legalizing the medical use of marijuana as long as the final bill contained safeguards to ensure that it did not end up encouraging the recreational use of the drug.

The legislation would also forbid patients from growing their own marijuana and using it in public, and it would regulate the drug under the strict conditions used to track the distribution of medically prescribed opiates like Oxycontin and morphine.

New Jersey is poised to become the 14th state to permit medical marijuana use.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
From: Michael W. Dean
Wyoming contact, Republican Liberty Caucus

[Disclaimer: This letter is from Mr. Dean himself, not the Republican Liberty Caucus.]

Dear Republican Party,

In the next presidential election, and in all state and local elections, you need to support candidates who are true Republicans and genuine lovers of liberty. The party will not succeed if it does not run candidates who truly understand and respect the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

America was once a constitutionally limited republic, and it needs to be returned to that. In the past 100 years, and especially in the past 20 years, America has been reduced to a so-called “democracy”, where 51% of the people can rob and over-regulate 49% of the people.

A true constitutional republic could last in perpetuity; whereas democracies historically survive for 200 to 300 years. After that, they devolve into socialism or oligarchies, as the people who do not want to work vote into office people who will let them not work, and can pay them to do so by stealing from those who do work.

We are at a tipping point. America is in her 235th year. The next presidential election can determine if we regain our constitutional republic, or slide into a permanent “progressive” majority helmed by a deluded far-left who do not listen to the people, and are chomping at the bit to bankrupt us into a socialist oligarchy. Those folks see Republicans not as a force to work with in a bipartisan capacity, but as an impediment to robbing from the productive so they can “give” to those who have no desire or ability to produce.

If Washington followed the Constitution, it would barely matter who was president. The checks and balances would work. But ours has been co-opted into a popularity contest wherein people vote for the candidate with the slickest tongue and the shortest slogan….especially slogans like “HOPE” and “CHANGE.” As we’ve seen, these basically mean “Get me in, and you’ll find out my actual core beliefs later, when it’s too late.”

If the President and Congress followed the Constitution, DC would not be permitted to arbitrarily dictate most of what a citizen does in a given state. We need candidates who stand up for the Constitution, including the true meaning the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the original intent of all parts of the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second and Tenth Amendments.

If the Republican Party establishment supports a spend-o-crat RINO (Republican in Name Only) in the next presidential election, you will guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party.

The Democrat Party used to have some principles, but has lately been taken over by a few dozen extreme leftist “progressives” with radical ideas and ties. They think they know what’s best for everyone, consider the Constitution a detriment, and consider Republicans a speed bump to be routed around behind closed doors.

America has woken up to the waste, “legal” stealing and “legal” bribes that can only lead to the destruction of America. The Democrats are largely responsible, but some Republicans have helped along the way. If you run a RINO for president, you will guarantee AINO (America in Name Only) in the near future, and forever.

The American people have finally woken up. Americans who have never been active in politics have taken to the streets by the millions. This is just the beginning.

The Democrats have been exposed for their gross spending of other people’s money at all levels, but in doing so have also shown that the Democrats aren’t the only ones. Some Republicans have contributed to this as well.

If you run a constitutional candidate like Gary Johnson, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, or Paul (Ron or Rand, take your pick) in the next presidential election, you’ll have a chance. I’ll vote Republican, and help out. So will millions of libertarians, tea partiers, swing voters, independents and even some of the smarter disgruntled Democrats. All combined, this will be enough to make the difference in the outcome of that election.

But 2012 is likely the very last year where even this will be possible. The leftists are working 24/7 to stack the deck against the possibility of retaining any America in America.

The Republican Party needs to run constitutional candidates, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it will keep the party from being perceived as “irrelevant naysayers” without any of their own ideas on how to make the country better. Running constitutional candidates will keep you from becoming a footnote in history. And even that footnote will likely be erased with time when a permanent socialist majority takes control of all media and education.

This road to serfdom can possibly be avoided, but it’s up to the Republican Party. You must run Barry Goldwater candidates, not George W. Bush, John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani candidates. Otherwise you’re going to end up with an America you don’t recognize, while you cling to your “Don’t blame me, I voted Republican” buttons.

Politics has become far too complicated. Lawmakers don’t think they’re doing their jobs if they don’t enact dozens of new laws and endless pork-barrel projects to “bring home the bacon” every day. This leads to honest folks becoming criminals, and the federal government having a stranglehold over every single aspect of our lives. We need candidates who will simplify, not complicate. We need candidates who will leash the beast, not feed the beast.

The Republican Party must run candidates who follow the Constitution and understand natural law… people who believe in their heart of hearts that government does not grant rights, does not restrict rights, but has only one legitimate role: protecting rights.

Our Founders are likely rolling in their graves at what the Democrats are doing now. But the Founders surely wouldn’t be pleased with what some in the Republican Party have done, either.

Why make us pick from the lesser of two evils? Here’s a novel idea: how about running someone who’s NOT evil!

Try it, you’ll like it. And America will be better for it.

–Michael W. Dean
http://www.libertarianpunk.com

Three chartered affiliates and one group of members from an unchartered state are gathering from January through April for Republican Liberty Caucus state conventions or organizing meetings.

Arizona RLC Organizing Meeting: January 30

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona will hold its organizing convention at the Wheeler Taft Abbett Sr. Library from 12:00 to 4:00 pm on Saturday, January 30. Please come a little early to expedite the credentials process.

If you wish to make a motion to propose changes to the bylaws from the floor, please bring your typed motion with sufficient copies for our members to review prior to holding the debate and the vote. If you would like a copy of the proposed bylaws, contact Ken.

We hope you can attend this important event. Members have been hard at work to put this organizing convention together and to finally get Arizona chartered by the national RLC.  You can also RSVP to attend the event on Facebook.

California RLC Convention: March 13

The 2010 Regular Convention of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California will be held in 60 days, on the evening of Saturday March 13 in Santa Clara, California. The exact time and place of the Convention will be announced later. The convention will be held at or near the location of the simultaneous convention of the California Republican Party.

Any Regular RLCCA Member whose dues are paid may run for any of the 7 seats. Any Regular RLCCA Member whose dues are paid 30 days prior to the convention may vote in the elections. Nominations are now open. Nominations for Regional and At-Large Directors are now open. Nominations, which must be seconded, should be submitted via email or mail to the Secretary at secretary@rlcca.org. Nominations close 14 days before the Convention. You can RSVP to attend the event on Facebook.

Michigan RLC Convention: February 27

The Michigan chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus will hold its annual convention at Andiamo Italian Restaurant in Novi on February 27 from 4:30 to 6:00pm. In addition to hearing remarks from Governor Gary Johnson, the RLC will also hold its annual business meeting to elect officers for 2010-2012. Hors d’oeuvres will be served.

We are asking for a small $10 entry fee for non-RLC members. In order to vote or run for an officer position, you must be a dues-paying member of the RLC ($30 annually; $20 for students). You can RSVP to attend the event on Facebook.  Contact Tyler for additional details.

Utah RLC Convention: April 17

On Saturday, April 17, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Utah will be having its 2010 convention. We will be electing state officers and endorsing candidates for public office.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be our keynote speaker. Possible public office endorsees who have been invited to speak include U.S. Senate candidates Mike Lee and James Williams, U.S. Congressional candidate Morgan Philpot, State Representatives John Dougall (confirmed) and Craig Frank, and State Representative candidate Rob Alexander (confirmed). You can RSVP to attend the event on Facebook.  Contact Rob for additional details.

Jim Greer and John Thrasher.

Many readers are aware that Jim Greer, Chair of the Republican Party of Florida, resigned his post and State Senator John Thrasher was appointed to serve in the interim.  Of course, that appointment was created to help secure the position for Thrasher in February, when the actual successor is chosen.

Below is a statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida on recent events in the Republican Party of Florida:

“Several members of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) attended the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) annual meeting January 8th and 9th. With factors such as the recently announced resignation of RPOF Chair Jim Greer, the growth of the RLC, the emergence of Tea Party movements and the influence of the “We Surround Them” (912) groups, we had high hopes for a new direction for the RPOF.

New opportunities were opened with the anger and energy of these activist groups, and the RPOF state committee recognized this with a resolution to encourage county executive committees to reach out to “Tea Party people.” This would have given the RPOF a solid boost heading into the 2010 elections. But they failed to understand that those “Tea Party people” want principled leadership and bottom-up representation, not the party-first top-down mentality currently in place.

At the annual meeting, the RPOF leadership demonstrated that they still don’t get it. Chairman Greer received a standing ovation from party leadership when he exclaimed at the conclusion of his speech, “It’s about the party, party, party”. The cries heard at a Tea Party or grassroots function, however, are for “principles, principles, principles.”

Rank-and-file Republicans are clearly angry over the unprecedented growth of the federal government in 2009. They are also disgusted at our Governor Charlie Crist’s display of support for Obama’s stimulus package. Yet, when Crist addressed the RPOF at the meeting, he stated that “Florida needs to get her fair share,” and added that he would “not apologize for supporting the stimulus.” Such a statement would be met with scorn from the majority of voters of the Republican Party and Tea Party attendees, but was met with a standing ovation by party leadership.

The first person to speak on policy was Jeff Kottkamp, candidate for Attorney General. Kottkamp did not talk about reducing the size and scope of government, cutting spending, or removing regulations and encouraging free enterprise. Instead, he focused his remarks on expanding the Defense and Space industries in Florida. Grassroots Republicans are pleading for leadership that understands the core issues of fiscal responsibility and limiting the size and scope of government, but RPOF leadership offers only promises to protect special interests.

Most discouraging of all, however, was the apparent coronation of Senator John Thrasher to replace Jim Greer as Chair of the RPOF. In much the same fashion Jim Greer was chosen, the word is that Thrasher had been chosen before the conference call announcing Greer’s resignation had even ended. Many in leadership have rallied around Thrasher because of his ability to raise large sums of money, something the RPOF is in need of. What the RPOF needs more than money, however, is to discover its principles and to get candidates who truly understand those principles elected to office.

A Sign of Hope

In spite of the leadership’s general disconnect with the grassroots, there was a significant sign of hope. There appears to be some serious resistance to the leadership-led coronation of John Thrasher as the new RPOF Chair. Sharon Day, who currently serves as national committeewoman for Florida, stated that she too is running for RPOF Chair in the election that will take place at the February 20th special meeting in Orlando. “I’m running to give the RPOF members a choice, because there should always be a choice,” Day said when she addressed the state committee Saturday morning.

The RLC applauds those in the RPOF that are supporting the courage of Sharon Day and others that seek to offer a voice to the rank-and-file Republicans. We hope that more in party leadership will stand against the top-down approach taken by many in the RPOF.”