What the heck is going on in Montana?

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

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

Montana Republicans Try to Gut Medical Marijuana Law

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

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

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

According to BusinessWeek,

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

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

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

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

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

Renewable Energy, Curbing Property Rights via “Corporate Socialism”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illinois School Bans Homemade Lunches

A westside Chicago school, Little Village Academy, has banned schoolchildren from bringing their own lunches from home. They now require all students to purchase their meals from the school cafeteria. An age-old American tradition has fallen by the wayside in Illinois.

Libertarian Republican radio talk show host Neal Boortz comments,

“So there you go folks … government knows best. If you surrender your child to the government to be educated, they you surrender your right to determine what type of lunch that child will eat. While the government has physical possession of your child in their indoctrination centers your rights are essentially terminated.

“There are two messages at work here. One is that parents have to come to the understand that parents don’t know nearly as much about how to raise their children as the government does. The second message is delivered to the children — and that message is that now is as good a time as any for you to learn that the government is going to be involved in virtually every aspect of your life — even down to what you are allowed to eat for lunch.”

Michigan State Police Extracting Data from Driver Cell Phones

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations, according to TheNewspaper.com, a journal of the politics of driving.

If you’re pulled over by the Michigan State Police for anything — an improper turn, a partially obscured license plate, or an officer’s whim — they can search your cell phone using a device called the CelleBrite UFED. That means text messages, photos, videos, contacts, who you’ve called, what apps you’ve downloaded, GPS data that reveals where you’ve been, even deleted data.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.

“The Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure,” said ACLU attorney Mark P. Fancher. The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. We have that same concern.

A U.S. Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

Nevada’s Libertarian Streak on Seatbelts and Helmet Laws

According to our friends at LibertarianRepublican.net:

“Two big victories against the Nanny-State in Nevada this week. The State Senate Transportation committee voted against tougher enforcement for seat belt non-usage, and for legalizing motorcycle use without a helmet. Predictably, all Republicans sided with the pro-freedom side. And virtually all Democrats voted against freedom.

From the Las Vegas Sun, “Senate committee says no to helmets, tougher seat belt law,” April 14:

“The seat belt bill would allow police to stop a motorist and issue a citation solely for not wearing a seat belt. The present law allows officers to issue a citation only if the driver is stopped for another traffic infraction. Sen. Elizabeth Halseth, R-Las Vegas, who opposed the bill, SB 235, said Nevadans use safety belts at a higher rate than neighboring states.

Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, in arguing for the bill, said the buckle-up rate is only 30 percent at night. The 93 percent figure cited is falsified to get federal funds, he charged. He said opponents of the bill argue not wearing a seat belt is a personal choice, but everyone ends up paying to treat those injured because they aren’t buckled up. Voting against the bill were Halseth, Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, and John Lee, D-North Las Vegas.

On the helmet law:

“The helmet bill, SB 177, removes the helmet requirement for motorcycle drivers and passengers if they are at least 21 years old and the driver has held a license for a year or more and completed a safety course. Halseth said whether to wear a helmet should be a personal choice. She said figures from University Medical Center show riders injured while not wearing a helmet actually cost less to treat than those hurt while wearing helmets.

Schneider, however, said everyone bears the cost. “This is costing society millions of dollars. No way does this benefit the state of Nevada,” he said. Manendo, Schneider and committee Chairwoman Shirley Breeden, D-Las Vegas, voted against the bill.

Illinois Moves to Ban Trans Fats

The Pat Quinn/Rahm Emanuel/Dick Durbin/Rod Blagojevich/Barack Obama State strikes again.

Note the blatant editorializing in this “news report” by the Gate House New Service out of Springfield, Illinois (via GalvaNews.com): “Illinois House moves to ban trans fat in foods”:

“Illinois is poised to become the second state in the country (after California) to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats. The Illinois House last week approved a bill to eliminate artificial trans fats from restaurant and bakery food and food sold in school vending machines by January 2013. Cafeterias operated by state and local governments and schools would not be included in the ban until January 2016.

“Trans fats are like bacon grease pouring down your sink clogging your pipes,” said Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, sponsor of House Bill 1600. “That’s exactly what trans fats do to your arteries. You can still have fried foods and baked goods without trans fats.”

Republicans and one brave rural Democrat are the only ones standing against this nanny-state imposition on individual liberties: “It’s yet another nanny-state mandate on the public when the businesses and communities are perfectly capable of making these decisions themselves,” said Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria.

“We don’t have to be a watchdog for everyone,” argued Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley. “We tell people to do a lot of things, and it would probably be good if they did them, but maybe at some point they’d like to decide on their own if they should do them or not.”

The New Hampshire RLC is playing kingmaker in state politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please get involved in the New Hampshire RLC today!

New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway.

Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member Congressman Ron Paul had stern criticisms of the Paul Ryan budget proposal. According to Dr. Paul,

“We don’t have a king today, but, unfortunately, I think we’re drifting to a point that our big government is king — and the government tells us what we can do and be responsible for us. And, if we don’t have a house, they’ll give us a house. If we don’t have education, they’ll give us free education. If we’re hungry, we get food stamps. And deficits don’t matter. And if you need money, you print the money. And we have this moral obligation to police the world. It goes on and on … the king will take care of us.”

Released last week, the Paul Ryan budget has been praised by some conservatives. Many on the left have said Ryan’s plan is unfair to the elderly and the poor — who would also be affected by Ryan’s approach to Medicare and Medicaid — and benefits corporate interests and the wealthy. Ryan’s budget is set to pass the GOP-controlled House this week.

Paul, who will turn 76 this summer, said Ryan’s plan doesn’t go nearly far enough toward dismantling the welfare state. “We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem. What is the philosophy of government? What should the role of government be?”

The Congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. “(Paul) Ryan doesn’t reject (the) notion (of a government-run welfare system). I do.”

Congressman Paul also criticized spending on “maintaining our empire” and “being the policeman of the world.”

“All great societies have ended for foreign policy reasons,” Paul said. “That’s what brought the Soviets down.” Paul, a likely 2012 Presidential candidate, said he also opposes raising the nation’s federal debt limit.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin has been critical of Congressman Paul Ryan for his previous support of Big Government.

The Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability approved an amendment to include “electronic authentication” as well as “biometrics” to Florida Driver’s licenses last week. The Amendment also instructs the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to provide a security token that can be electronically authenticated through a personal computer.

The 1787 Network does a great job explaining the problems that these two items could pose for non-violent Florida residents if implemented. Read their article.

Patriots, it’s time to go RINO hunting in beautiful North Dakota!

Yesterday twenty-nine RINOs in the North Dakota State House voted to block an amendment to the state Constitution to prohibit North Dakotans from having to purchase health care.

The bill, HCR 3014, received support from 39 House Republicans but was blocked when 29 RINOs joined with 25 Democrats to kill the modification language.

The amendment is necessary to both strengthen North Dakota’s legal challenge to Obamacare and to protect residents from whatever comes after the courts rule. So why did 29 Republicans, many of them claiming that they’re opposed to Obamacare, vote down this amendment?

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (pronounced Sten-jum), Republican.

Stenehjem, a likely candidate for higher office in 2012, did help North Dakota join the federal lawsuit challenging Obamacare. But he has also been working behind the scenes to convince state legislators that North Dakota is powerless in the face of federal law. In February, Stenehjem issued an opinion at the request of legislators in which he concluded that federal laws, once vetted by the states, are the supreme law of the land and that it is unconstitutional for the states to resist them.

Stenehjem has been working with State Rep. Bill Devlin to persuade Republican legislators that they are powerless until the court rules. Their campaign saw success in that it convinced Republican legislators to vote with the bloc of Democrats who supported Obamacare.

In response, please contact Wayne Stenehjem (Republican) at (701) 328-2210 today and express your disgust with his efforts to dissuade legislators from voting the will of their constituents. And please contact Bill Devlin (Republican) to express your feelings about his miseducation campaign in the North Dakota House.

Writes North Dakota blogger Rob Port, “This school of thought is based on a misunderstanding of the supremacy clause. Yes, the Constitution and such laws as the Congress may make are the supreme law of the land, but when the laws Congress makes violate the constitution then they cannot, by definition, be the supreme law of the land. That a federal court may endorse an unconstitutional law doesn’t make it any more constitutional.”

Concludes Port, “With Wayne Stenehjem clearly harboring aspirations for higher office, voters in North Dakota might want to remember just how hard he campaigned against the sovereignty of our state, and just how weakened his campaigning leaves our state in our battle to overturn Obamacare.”

The Republicans who voted against the measure include: Dick Anderson, Thomas Beadle, Dennis Johnson, Stacey Dahl, Duane DeKrey, Bill Devlin, Glen Froseth, Kathy Hawken, Joe Heilman, Curt Hofstad, Jon Nelson, George Keiser, Joyce Kingsbury, Matt Klein, Larry Klemin, Bill Kretschmar, Curt Kruen, Andy Maragos, Bob Martinson, Nancy Johnson, Gary Paur, Vonnie Pietsch, Todd Porter, Raeann Kelsch, Mark Sanford, Wayne Trottier, John Wall, Robin Weisz, David Drovdal

The form at this website will allow you to contact them in one fell swoop.

………………………………………

Two Republicans, Bill Devlin and Wayne Stenehjem, persuaded 29 Republican legislators to vote against asserting freedom from Obamacare in North Dakota. TAKE ACTION!

by David Badash

A new study released by Gallup finds that only 17% of Americans who vote or lean Republican say social issues and moral values are important, and rank them third of four major categories, after government spending and power (38%), and business and the economy (32%), in stark contrast to the focus of over a dozen current Republican presidential candidates and aspirants.

Despite an overwhelming focus by over a dozen possible GOP presidential candidates who claim that social and moral issues are tied together, their own constituents believe they are not. Moreover, other studies show the American people want their political representatives to focus on jobs and the economy, not social issues like marriage equality, abortion, or religion.

That said, the study notes that “Republicans who care the most about social and moral issues are most likely to support Huckabee and Palin. All other candidates gain only single-digit support among these voters. Romney, who is in first or second place among all other groups, does no better than tie Gingrich and Ron Paul among social issues voters.”

“Despite some observers’ claims that Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have a special following among social conservatives, these two politicians do not have an unusual appeal among Republicans who care most about social and moral issues.”

The Gallup study found national security and foreign policy were the least important of the four categories, with just 12% of respondents giving it weight.

What is striking is how many GOP presidential aspirants are not only willing to associate with radical religious extremists — but are actively seeking them out — to been seen as rubbing elbows with America’s religious conservatives in hopes of gaining credibility on social issues.

Last week, Republican hopeful Michele Bachmann (R-MN) announced, “Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism.” Bachmann teamed up with Republican presidential aspirants Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Haley Barbour to headline a fundraiser for Tony Perkins, president of the certified hate group the Family Research Council (FRC), and other hate preachers, such as Lou Engle and David Barton to create the fundraiser, which was broadcast to churches Sunday.

Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist Minister, also spoke at Perkins’ fundraiser, titled, “Rediscover God in America,” saying, “I pray that God will raise up spiritual warriors who will say America will not fall – that we will not let this nation fall to the hands of those that will enslave us. This battle is one that pits good against evil. There are things that are right and there are things that are wrong and the great battle that we will live or die by to preserve this nation is one in which we identify and then we fight for until the last breath – that there are some things that are holy and pure and that are just.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee also spoke about what he sees as the need to stand up for traditional marriage, and against same-sex marriage, even at the risk of job loss.

Newt Gingrich, despite two divorces, three marriages, numerous adulterous affairs, and House ethics violations, has also made a career of focusing on social issues, religion, and so-called morality. On Sunday, Gingrich gave a speech at a San Antonio, Texas megachurch, Cornerstone Church, and stated “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America,” he fears America will become “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”

Cornerstone Church is led by Rev. John Hagee, who had close ties to John McCain’s 2008 Republican presidential campaign. Hagee was criticized for comments he had made, like saying Hurricane Katrina was “the judgment of God on the city of New Orleans” for its “level of sin,” relating to a gay pride parade.

Hagee also was criticized for suggesting Hitler was God’s “hunter,” and hastened the Jews’ return to Israel in accordance with what he suggested was God’s will.

The question is, why, in stark contrast to what the American people have said repeatedly they want their political leaders to focus on, namely the economy and jobs, are Republicans politicians focusing on anything but?

__________________________________________________

This article was posted with the permission of its author. The original article appeared at The New Civil Rights Movement website.

If the American intervention into Libya’s civil war was puzzling beforehand, the president’s inability to coherently explain it during his address to the nation only made things murkier.

But if there is one thing this entire situation has reinforced, it is that the foreign policy agenda erroneously passed off as conservatism during the Bush years was anything but. After all, the language used by Barack Obama to justify his attack on Libya was unmistakably similar to George Bush’s reasoning for going into Iraq.

Conservatives who dismissed criticism of Republican foreign policy during the mid-2000’s as dissent voiced only by disenchanted left-liberals might now be thinking there was more to these critiques than they were willing to admit. In fact, the foreign policy positions taken by many of the Bush Republicans resulted in the U.S. military’s role being viewed as one of “spreading democracy” around the globe, a notion not rooted in our history and an idea historically associated with the American Left. This idea had nothing to do with conservatism, but amazingly was passed off as such during the post 9/11 years. If more Republicans do not wake up from this mind set, the United States will ensure its bankruptcy and currency collapse sooner rather than later.

In years past, it became conventional wisdom that most liberals were rhetorically opposed to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while conservatives were expected to fully support them. This much was apparent.

Anyone questioning the cost or wisdom of two simultaneous Middle East occupations was written off as a “liberal” no matter how impressive their small government credentials. In hindsight, this simply made no sense; true, many on the Left did oppose Bush’s foreign policy, but that was based on the simple fact that it was Bush’s foreign policy. And the conservatives who unflinchingly supported the Iraq occupation and mission creep in Afghanistan largely did so out of a commitment to the administration, not because the installation of democracy in the Middle East was some longstanding goal of American conservatism or something they particularly were dogmatic about.

The degree to which so many otherwise intellectually curious conservatives were willing to dismiss facts and shut down critical thinking skills was truly disappointing. That they were so willing to do so was illustrative of a movement which had lost touch with its intellectual moorings, damaged largely by a blinding hatred of Bill Clinton in the 1990s which led to the embracing of a president ungrounded in his political philosophy in the 2000s.

Equating conservatism with ambitious nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan caused confusion over what the ideology even stood for. Attempting to install a democracy overseas and rebuild the fabric of a society from the top down are actions requiring an autocratic, centralized government to have any hope of success. Liberals would be the natural allies of such attempts due to their willingness to embrace Orwellian bureaucratic planning and the lack of aversion they show to using government for drastic societal change. Conservatives have generally understood that civil society must develop organically, naturally recoiling at ambitious projects with hefty price tags.

But the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush years, as both sides selected their positions based primarily on which party was in power. The relative silence of many anti-war groups after the election of Barack Obama showed their agenda had much more to do with electing a Democratic president than with ending any particular war; the only wars the Left seems to oppose are those started by a Republican or not given the U.N.’s stamp of approval.

And each side’s view of the particular war we happen to be involving ourselves in at the moment is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Evidence of this is ample: many of the same conservatives who denounced Bill Clinton’s humanitarian Kosovo operation were either silent on or vocally supportive of  intervention done largely on the same grounds in Iraq; before being opposed to such a policy once again when done in Libya.

These contradictions occur because the positions taken on so many foreign policy questions are not done out of any underlying principle, but simply result from partisan cheer-leading.

When Republicans passed the ruinous Medicare Part D expansion, the same ‘conservative’ commentators who would have been howling nonstop had it  been a Democratic initiative were comparatively silent. We heard warnings of “socialism” for a solid year during the debate over Obama’s health plan, but George Bush’s own foray into governmental health care involvement was treated with kid gloves.

Scenarios like this one paint a clear picture of how partisanship for sport creates an obvious and self-perpetuating double standard. After all, both sides can always finger point and decry the other side’s hypocrisy to justify their own hypocrisy; this vicious cycle, though financially lucrative for television and radio hosts, has been ruinous to conservatism and deleterious for the country at large.

Any impartial observer should have two eyebrows raised by Obama’s willingness to continue Bush’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric. This should make it clear there was never anything inherently conservative about it to begin with. In fact, liberal internationalism was what was on display during the foreign policy of the Bush years, not the non-interventionism fostered by true, prudent conservatism. Barack Obama genuinely believes the federal government can and should be used to help people in spite of how much debt it rings up or abysmal its track record. So of course he sees nothing odd about intervening in Libya; indeed, his entire philosophy is predicated on government action.

Frankly, Barack Obama’s public policies were more similar to that of his predecessor than those with partisan blinders on would care to admit, and, viewed through this lens, our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan actually repudiated the very centralization of government power conservatives are taught to abhor.

Those in the Tea Party confessing concern about our budget can no longer be intimidated into unquestioning acceptance of the foreign policy status quo. Americans have repeatedly rejected the ideology which demonized anyone who questioned our overseas policies, and the skittishness which greeted the Libyan intervention further underscored this. The same kind of thinking that gives birth to our costly welfare state at home only causes more difficulty for our country overseas when carried to fruition on an international scale.

Last weekend, Republicans in California gathered for their 2011 GOP Convention in Sacramento. Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California hosted their Convention on Friday night and participated in numerous activities throughout the weekend at the state GOP Convention.

On Saturday, the RLC-CA hosted a straw poll at its booth at the CAGOP Convention at the Sacramento Hyatt. Participation in the straw poll was limited to convention delegates, party activists, and registered Republican voters.

Republican Congressman and RLC Advisory Board member (and past Honorary Chairman) Dr. Ron Paul of Texas won the 2012 Presidential straw poll with 17.8 percent of the vote.

On Wednesday afternoon, Ron Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News and was asked specifically about the RLC straw poll victory (see screenshot above). Watch the clip.

Below, members of the California RLC administer the straw poll at the booth.

Wisconsin RLC Chairman Michael S. Murphy is setting a good example for RLC members in his state and for state chapters in other parts of the country.

Gaining Election

Murphy was recruited by GOP members to run for South Branch Chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party earlier this year, which is the most populated of the six branches of the county Republican Party structure.

In late January, Murphy won election uncontested after it became clear that he was going to win even if the establishment put up a candidate against him. Murphy and Vice-Chair Alfredo Rios joined several pro-liberty allies on the Milwaukee County GOP Committee and, together, have been able to change some minds of members. For example, the Republican Party of Milwaukee County’s main page features a link to Ron Paul’s Facebook Fan Page and headlines an article by Thomas Sowell.

The Unwritten Rule

Last year, Murphy helped expose an unwritten rule that Wisconsin Republicans and Wisconsin Democrats have been upholding for many years. His efforts brought attention to a rule that was not previously known by Republican Party registrants or members.

The agreement is that incumbent Members of Congress will not campaign against each other. The agreement is between all Members of Congressional delegation. In Wisconsin, there are three Democrat incumbents and five Republican incumbents, none of whom will mention each other by name (except in a positive light) in the 2012 election cycle as a result of this unwritten agreement.

The absurd agreement is one of the reasons that RLC-endorsed candidate for Congress Dan Sebring, who ran against Democrat Gwen Moore, did not receive party support for his campaign in 2010 — despite that Sebring was the Republican nominee in the race.

Prior to November, an incumbent member of Congress had not lost in the state in over ten years and only four Members of Congress had lost in The Badger State in the last 28 years.

Participating in the GOP Process

Wisconsin RLC Chairman Mike Murphy, who received an award for his efforts to lead the state RLC chapter at the 2011 RLC National Convention, focused on bringing light to the “Unwritten Agreement” between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians in Wisconsin.

As Chairman of the South Branch of the Milwaukee GOP, Mike Murphy introduced and passed a resolution condemning and disallowing the elected Republican members of Congress to participate in a sweetheart deal with Democrat incumbents.

Shortly before the Milwaukee County GOP Caucus, the Milwaukee County Resolutions Committee shot down Murphy’s resolution. Murphy took the resolution to the floor for delegates to hear. After explaining the “Unwritten Agreement”, he received support from delegates and even from members of the Resolutions Committee who previously discarded the proposal. The resolution was agreed to by the Milwaukee County GOP body.

On Saturday, March 26, the 4th District Republican Party will also consider the resolution. Murphy anticipates it will pass.

Erasing the Unwritten Rule

Two separate entities — the 4th Congressional District GOP and the Milwaukee County GOP — will be recommending Murphy’s resolution to the State Republican Party Resolutions Committee. Of course, having two GOP groups supporting the resolution will strengthen its appeal.

The state GOP Convention will occur on May 22 in Wisconsin Dells, at which time the State Resolutions Committee will consider the proposal. If passed by the Resolution Committee, the proposal will be listed in the state GOP program for delegates to consider. Should the Resolutions Committee not adopt it, Murphy will introduce the measure from the floor so delegates will have a say on it.

Republican pols like Jim Sensenbrenner should not be protecting Democrat pols like Gwen Moore.

Patriots like Mike Murphy lead by example and show other liberty-minded activists the path to success to restore liberty in the Republican Party.

Gwen Moore, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Paul Ryan have a deal.