Today as in 1854, the political system has fallen into the hands of greedy and ambitious leaders who disregard the rights of the people and promote ideas which are fundamentally un-American because they see them as a route to greater political power and control. The forces of special interests, sectionalism, bureaucratic indifference and institutionalized oppression are stronger than ever before. They will not be stopped unless the Republican Party remembers its purpose and stands up against them.

From its very first platform, the Republican Party has been dedicated to the ideals of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the enlightenment belief that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Although it has occasionally lost sight of those ideals, eventually core values reassert themselves and new leaders of vision set the party back on the right course.

The party was formed in 1854 in an era when the existing parties had strayed too far from the original republican values on which the nation was formed. The new party embraced the ideals of the founding fathers with the goal of securing liberty for those held in slavery and obtaining equality for all members of society.

Through the years the Republican Party has taken the lead on the great moral issues of the times:

* In the Platform of 1860 the party made opposition to slavery a national issue for the first time and expressed clear support for the rights of workers and industry.
* In the Platform of 1876 the Republican Party became the first US political party to endorse equal rights and universal suffrage for women.
* In the Platform of 1892 the Republicans became the first US political party to endorse universal suffrage and access to the polls to Americans of all races.
* In the Platform of 1896 the Republican Party first declared its dedication to fiscally responsible government.
* In the Platform of 1900 the Republicans were the first US political party to take a clear stand in opposition to racial discrimination.

During the early 1900s the Republican party also led the way in opposition to monopolies, in passing child labor laws, workplace safety regulation, and establishing reasonable working hours. The Republican party was also the first party to propose national policies for resource management and conservation. And almost from the moment the 16th Amendment made an income tax legal, the Republican party worked to minimize the tax burden, hold down federal spending, and institute fairer and more limited taxes. By the 1950s the Republican Party had taken the lead in applying federal pressure to implement desegregation and equality in the southern states.

The differences between the Republican and Democratic parties of the modern era were clear as early as 1908 when the Republican Party platform clearly delineated the differences between the two parties, which are still strikingly apparent today:

The present tendencies of the two parties are even more marked by inherent differences. The trend of Democracy is toward socialism, while the Republican party stands for a wise and regulated individualism. Socialism would destroy wealth, Republicanism would prevent its abuse. Socialism would give to each an equal right to take; Republicanism would give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism would offer an equality of possession which would soon leave no one anything to possess, Republicanism would give equality of opportunity which would assure to each his share of a constantly increasing sum of possessions. In line with this tendency the Democratic party of to-day believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation. Ultimately Democracy would have the nation own the people, while Republicanism would have the people own the nation.

That description of the Democrats is as accurate today as it was 100 years ago, and the same Republican principles are just as valid today as they were then. Some may have forgotten the history of the party, but defending individual liberty by standing firm in the face of socialism and statism remain at the core of what makes the GOP unique.

The Republican party was born in liberty, and even in the darkest days of racial strife, that dedication to liberty and equality for all Americans regardless of race, creed, religion or lifestyle remained central to the beliefs of the GOP. The party has always dedicated itself to the ideal of the responsible individual citizen being allowed to live life in his own way without unnecessary interference from government. This principle was expressed clearly in the Republican platform of 1964:

Every person has the right to govern himself, to fix his own goals, and to make his own way with a minimum of governmental interference.

This idea of the sovereign individual goes hand in hand with an understanding that government has a legitimate, but limited, role to protect the rights and welfare of the people and to be answerable to the people for its actions. This was expressed clearly in the 1964 Platform:

It is for government to foster and maintain an environment of freedom encouraging every individual to develop to the fullest his God-given powers of mind, heart and body; and, beyond this, government should undertake only needful things, rightly of public concern, which the citizen cannot himself accomplish.

This platform from 40 years ago, written in a time of great national challenge and under the clear-eyed guidance of Senator Barry Goldwater, expresses better than almost any other document the fundamental beliefs of the party, including the principles of individual liberty, but also the importance of the Constitution in protecting that liberty:

Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land.

Perhaps most unique in that document was an awareness which seems to be forgotten today, that not only do individuals have responsibility for their actions, but that there is a greater responsibility invested in the government through the social contract to do right by its citizens:

It is a high mission of government to help assure equal opportunity for all, affording every citizen an equal chance at the starting line but never determining who is to win or lose. But government must also reflect the nation’s compassionate concern for those who are unable, through no fault of their own, to provide adequately for themselves.

The high ideals of Republicanism also extend to the behavior of politicians and how they use the sacred trust invested in them by the people:

Government must be restrained in its demands upon and its use of the resources of the people, remembering that it is not the creator but the steward of the wealth it uses; that its goals must ever discipline its means; and that service to all the people, never to selfish or partisan ends, must be the abiding purpose of men entrusted with public power.

Today it seems as if the Republican party and many of its leaders have lost their way. Yet the basic values of the party have not changed, though some seem to only pay lip service and to have forgotten what it has meant to be a Republican for the last 150 years. In the generation since Goldwater reasserted the core values of the party, the lure of power and greed and opportunism has been stronger than ever. This isn’t the first time that this has happened. In the late 19th century the party suffered a similar identity crisis, turning away from core values of liberty towards corporatism and arrogant complacency. Leaders like Teddy Roosevelt set the party back on track, and though the leadership foundered in the aftermath of the Depression, Eisenhower and Goldwater were there to set the party on what should have been an ideal course by the 1960s. Yet Goldwater’s defeat and the rise of socialism in the 1960s followed by the failures of the Nixon era produced a generation of leaders who have been willing to sacrifice principle for votes no matter what unsavory compromises that required. Leaders like Roosevelt and Goldwater understood that it was better to be right and lose an election than to win at any cost, because the price of such a corrupt victory is invariably too high.

This problem has been compounded by an invasion of the GOP by disaffected southern Democrats who were driven away from their party when its northern wing embraced civil rights under Kennedy and Johnson and the policies of the party became increasingly socially progressive and dominated by northern issues. As the Republicans struggled to retain their identity, this influx of angry bigots and religious zealots gave power at the polls at the cost of compromises on fundamental principles which had sustained the party for a hundred years. They were followed by strong-defense Democrats whose imperialist ambitions didn’t fit with the post-Vietnam pacifism of the Democratic Party. Both of these groups brought with them beliefs which were alien to the Republican tradition, including a belief in a strong federal government, an expansionist foreign policy, a bizarre moralistic agenda, a big dose of intolerance and a willingness to sacrifice the rights of individuals in pursuit of their political objectives. Accepting these outsiders was an act of desperation which put the integrity of the party at risk in order to hold on to political power.

Now we are paying the price for compromises which have left the party fractured with no ideological center, our history forgotten and our future uncertain. The weakness of our current generation of leaders and the harm they have done to the party with foolish alliances and venal servility to every bulging purse has to end in this new millenium. We must commit ourselves to lead where our leaders have failed and to retrieve the party from the cesspit of corruption. The GOP must reaffirm an absolute commitment to the idea of true Republican government which serves the people and does not rule over the people, and of restoring a nation dedicated to preserving the liberty of every individual equally and absolutely.

This may mean purging the party of corrupt leaders and unsound ideas so that we can restore fundamental values. We need to remember that big government, corruption, and trying to run people’s lives are the politics of the socialist left and we should not tolerate leaders who are seduced by the power socialism gives to the political class. If this means giving up some power for a few years then we should accept that. We are not worthy to lead the country until we are Republicans again and can earn back the trust and respect of the people. It would be better to be a minority party and the conscience of the nation as we were when the party was born in 1854 than to carry on as an insult to the memories of the idealists who founded the party and led it as a party of principles in past eras. We must restore the party or we will lose the party. We must demand adherence to principles from our leaders or eliminate those leaders for leading the party in the wrong direction.

The party desperately needs new blood and younger leaders who can relate to young voters. Yet it’s awfully hard to get the entrenched blue-hairs to open their fists and share a little power, and even when they do they often aren’t comfortable with the results. Young people want to actually do things and stand up for principles and make the party dynamic and effective and for people who are set in their ways and just want to do the same things that have produced mediocre results for years, that’s threatening.

A classic example of this conflict between the dinosaur elite and the younger generation who want to make the GOP an effective party and a party to be proud of is now on display in Tucson Arizona. Last year they elected as Chairman a young Air Force veteran who had just concluded an unsuccessful run for Congress. 36 year old Brian Miller seemed to be the model of what the party leaders were looking for in a younger Republican to join their ranks. He was younger but not too young and had a military background they could admire, plus he was articulate and had already showed his political commitment by running for office.

For a few months it looked like the Pima County GOP was going to move forward and do great things under Miller’s leadership. Then came the horrendous death of Jose Guerena at the hands of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT Team. Guerena was a decorated Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War who was gunned down unnecessarily in a bizarrely excessive SWAT raid on his home in which he fired no shots and was shot 22 times.

The incident became an international scandal. Miller was understandably outraged by the situation and sent out an email as Pima County Republican Chairman objecting to the tactics used by the police in the raid, writing “It is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.”

Miller continued to be personally outspoken about the need for an investigation and accountability in the case, not saying anything much different than the criticisms of the raid in local and national news media, but this began to rankle some members of his County Republican Executive Committee who like many older Republicans subscribe to a law and order mentality which assumed that whatever the police did was right because they were the good guys and anyone they went after was automatically guilty by assumption.

Miller disagreed, citing things like the rule of law and due process and the Bill of Rights, but that didn’t mean much to his critics who accused him of causing “division and chaos” and that his statements “created serious problems for our elected officials.” The Executive Committee board issued a statement condemning their own Chairman and ultimately demanded his resignation. When he refused they voted 10-2 to effectively suspend him as chairman pending a vote of the entire County Executive Committee on the issue of removing Miller from office. That vote would require a 2/3 majority and is scheduled for tonight.

Miller has been waging a quiet campaign to build support for his position in the several weeks leading up to this vote. He has sworn not to give up without a fight. The outcome of the vote is by no means certain, because as is the case in many county parties nationwide the rank and file precinct chairs are a much more diverse than the established leadership and also tend to be younger. With a 2/3 majority required to oust Miller the vote will likely be very close.

Miller has described the campaign against him as a “political witchhunt” and that some on the board are “avenging old political scores.” It seems quite likely that outrage against Miller’s statements in some quarters are being used by others to advance their desire to regain control of the party leadership.

This specific situation is troubling, but what is more worrisome is what it says about the current state of the Republican Party at a key organizational level. This problem is not isolated and it is not unique. It is something the party will need to come to terms with if it is to survive. It is unhealthy to suppress the next generation of leadership and alienating Republicans who want to be involved from the party leadership is a sure formula for disaster.

It’s a particularly ugly situation because in this case Miller was just speaking up for principles which he grew up believing were what the Republican Party stood for. The party claims that it champions civil liberties, human life and keeping the government off of our backs. The preamble to the Arizona Republican Party Platform says:

“…the citizens of our great state might blossom under
new freedoms borne from less government regulation; and, the prosperity of a society that shall one day come to recognize fully the value of life, the value of each individual, the value of responsibility, the value of the rule of law, and the value of personal dignity.”

Those are the kinds of values the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. In his statements about the Guerena case Brian Miller was clearly concerned about those very issues, justifiably angry that Guerena was deprived of life and dignity and his individual rights in violation of the rule of law and the kind of responsibility we should expect of our government and its agents.

Miller merely asked his fellow Republicans to stand up for the values they claim to believe in and that got him labeled a traitor.  What kind of message does that send to the other young Republicans around the country who might want to get involved in the party?  What kind of party is represented by that kind of hypocrisy?

More and more it has become clear that we have two Republican Parties in the United States.  One is dedicated to principles and one is dedicated to holding on desperately to status and position and failed ideas.  The party of principles is the party which Brian Miller spoke for which he spoke up for Jose Guerena.  That’s the Republican Party I want to be part of.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

The failure of the bill was made considerably more bitter by the underhanded tactics by which a tiny faction of the House leadership scuttled the bill against overwhelming support from both parties and the public. With all of the hard work put into promoting the bill by grassroots groups, its defeat under questionable circumstances has redirected anger originally aimed only at the TSA to political leaders in Texas, particularly House Speaker Joe Straus.

The story of how such a widely supported bill could end up not being passed is an object lesson of how easily the will of the people can be subverted by those who value power over principle.

During the regular legislative session Rep. Simpson’s anti-groping bill made it through the House of Representatives by unanimous acclamation . It was passed out of committee and onto to the floor of the Senate where it was set to pass when the TSA stepped in and lobbied against it and the Department of Justice issued a letter threatening to close Texas airports if it passed. This lead Lt. Governor David Dewhurst to apply his influence to get the bill which was minutes from passing pulled from the floor.

As the inevitable special session approached, Senator Dan Patrick and other supporters convinced the governor to come on board and support the bill and agree to sign it if they could get a pledge from a majority of the members of the House and Senate to support it. This would let them fast-track the bill through both houses and to the governor for his signature quickly without unduly delaying other legislation.

They got the votes. They notified the Governor’s office that they had the votes and they asked the Governor to call the bill for the special session. Governor Perry was out of town doing a pre-presidential tour and when confronted by a citizen journalist and asked about the bill he said that he was not aware that the necessary votes had been pledged, but when he returned to Austin on Sunday the 19th of June he did put the bill on the call for Monday the 20th.

Already a week had been wasted, but there was still time to pass the bill. Despite the Governor’s support, after the session began on the 20th the bill was not scheduled for consideration until the Friday the 24th, wasting more precious time. Then, when it was scheduled to be introduced on Friday, House Speaker Joe Straus made a public announcement that he thought the bill was a “publicity stunt” and not serious legislation, sending a clear message to his supporters to oppose it. This despite the fact that he had not voted against it in the regular session.

Nonetheless, a version of the bill was introduced in the House and another in the Senate with wording which had been edited by the Attorney General’s office to reduce the chances of the bill being contested in court and to satisfy complaints from Speaker Straus, but because of wrangling over the language any votes on the bill were delayed until Monday with the session scheduled to end on Wednesday.

With the Speaker apparently unwilling to advance the House version of the bill, desperate supporters in the Senate passed their version through committee and passed it on the floor in a matter of hours and sent it on to the House where the decision was made to use the Senate version as written to avoid the possibility that the Speaker would keep the House version off the floor.

The House session didn’t start until 2pm on Tuesday and when the messenger from the Senate arrived with the bill the Speaker’s office refused to accept the bill and it was kept waiting for several hours. This final delay guaranteed that passage of the bill would be extremely difficult because of Constitutional rules about how bills have to pass the House.

Under the Texas Constitution, for a bill to pass the House it has to be read and voted on three times, on three separate days and win each vote. At the point where the bill finally made it to the floor there was less than 24 hours left before the end of the session on Wednesday, so the only way to pass the bill was to hold a vote to suspend that constitutional rule to allow them to hold two of the three votes on the same day. Although there were plenty of votes in favor of the bill – enough to make up a supermajority – the vote to suspend the Constitutional rule required a 4/5 majority, and that was going to be very difficult.

The bill passed its first reading easily on Tuesday and then passed a second reading on Wednesday morning easily 106-27, but by the time the held a vote on the motion to suspend the constitutional rule some members had left and it passed with a 96-26 majority – an overwhelming vote in support of the bill, but not quite enough to meet the 4/5 requirement. Ironically the previous vote did meet that requirement, but it didn’t apply to that particular motion. At that point the bill which so many supported and which was enormously popular with the public, was dead.

Before adjourning the special session, the Speaker allowed Rep. Simpson to make a final speech about the bill and how the legislative process had failed so dismally. Simpson was not afraid to point fingers, saying:

“The people in support of this bill have succeeded in shining the light on those who collaborate with the growing tyranny of our federal government….Its’ defeat only propels the liberty movement in this state. The people now know that it is possible to fight back.”

His sentiments were echoed by a statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, one of the grassroots groups which had made calls to legislators in support of the bill, which said “We may not have won the final victory today, but we sure flushed out the enemies hiding in the brush.” Another grassroots group, Stop Austin Scanners thought that Governor Perry should share the blame, citing Perry’s “failure to call the bill in a timely manner despite numerous requests to do so, his total lack of stewardship in the process, and Speaker Joe Straus’ willful misconduct are the principal reasons why the legislation was derailed.”

At every step Rep. Simpson and his allies did what was requested by the leadership. They amended the bill. They watered down the language. They even ultimately changed “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” to give the Feds an easy out. Yet despite promises from Governor Perry, they were met with obstruction and delays from the Speaker at every step of the way. With two weeks to pass the bill they ended up having to try to pass it in two days with a special suspension of the rules requiting an outrageously large majority and creating the ironic outcome that a bill which passed easily with a 4/5 majority in the morning when it didn’t need it could not get that same majority in the afternoon when it did.

The defeat of the bill was not a complete loss.  It raised awareness of the issue substantially and drew attention to the forces opposing it and exposed the heavy-handed tactics of the TSA. There’s also some evidence that Simpson’s bill helped influence the TSA’s recent decision to reduce the intensity of their searches of children, though it did not stop them from carrying out a horrendous and highly publicized abuse of a 95 year old Leukemia patient.

This fight is not over. The issue still draws great public interest and anger at the TSA and its practices has never been higher. Supporters in Texas promise to continue to pursue the issue and legislators in a growing number of additonal states are introducing similar legislation. People don’t like having their privacy invaded and their persons violated in the service of excessive security procedures which have never been proven to be at all effective. The people may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over.

A version of this article appeared previously at Blogcritics Magazine.

Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, RLC Advisory Board member Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan’s plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

Ryan gave it right back to him. The budget committee chairman went directly after Sen. Paul’s five-year budget plan, which he had clearly studied closely. Ryan’s criticism went roughly like this: yes, he said, you slash the Department of Education and make fast, dramatic cuts, but you don’t deal with entitlement spending. In the out years the deficit would sky-rocket, he said, making an air chart with his hand moving through the air and pointing sharply upward.

A GOP aide sympathetic to Sen. Paul said that Rep. Ryan’s criticism unfairly isolated a single part of his plan and treated as if it represented Paul’s global approach to deficit reduction. Paul does plan to announce a proposal for cutting entitlement spending, the aide said, but wanted to put the domestic spending plan out first.

The private challenge from Sen. Paul reflects criticisms of Rep. Ryan’s plan Paul also made to HuffPost. Paul thinks that Ryan’s approach doesn’t go nearly far enough.

“Here’s how bad it is: The president’s proposal, his ten year plan, is 46 trillion in spending. Paul Ryan’s alternative, which everybody is going crazy over, is still 40 trillion dollars in spending,” Paul told HuffPost. “My problem with the whole thing is that all of the proposals basically increase spending.”

Rand Paul said that Paul Ryan’s plan relies too heavily on deficit spending. “The president adds, I think, 11 trillion to the gross debt and Ryan’s plan adds eight trillion. I don’t think anybody up here realizes that we can’t withstand trillion dollar annual deficits,” he said.

A Ryan spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The House recently approved Ryan’s spending plan, but it was rejected by the Senate. A compromise budget expires at the end of September.

(Source: Ryan Grim at Huffington Post)

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.

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.”

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.

One of the fallacies that leads many to oppose cutting foreign aid, be it to Israel or another nation, is the assumption that the absence of federal aid to Israel would somehow impoverish the nation having funds cut off.  But this notion is very suspect. Americans are a notably charitable people, and the wide support for Israel demonstrated by public opinion polls indicates Americans would be apt to generously give to that nation by way of private donations. Sure, there will be initial howls and obligatory accusations of callousness. But the public dole would quickly be displaced by donations from private organizations and individuals, which is the means conservatives are supposed to favor when it comes to helping those in need. Numerous Jewish and evangelical Christian organizations would no doubt pick up any slack left over from the elimination of government funds.

Domestically, we refer to recipients of government transfer payments as ‘welfare recipients’, but as far as I know this title is rarely applied when referencing foreign aid. Rand Paul indicated as much when discussing his foreign aid proposal; do conservatives really think the Israelis so lack self-sufficiency that they would be an economic basket case if not for U.S. taxpayer dollars? Do we really want other countries who receive the other $22 billion worth of foreign aid to feel as if America is merely buying their goodwill, or would we instead prefer to have peaceful exchanges of trade and commerce with them that foster reciprocal good feelings?

Whether applied to Israel or Egypt, conservatives should not favor the spreading of American’s tax dollars around the globe on the whim of a D.C. politician. Instead, individual donating on their volition and time would not only be more rewarding for all those involved, but it would allow our government to take a small step in the direction of solvency.

For years, we have given money to Israel’s avowed enemies, some of whom even share a physical border with that small nation. The subsidization of Mubarak in Egypt was just one of many foreign dole practices that should cause Americans to scratch their heads. Would not an even handed approach dictate that we simply cut off the spigot of money to all overseas governments? It is astonishing that our politicians are all but oblivious to this sentiment, one that is widespread among the everyday public.

After all, we are rapidly nearing $15 trillion debt; at what point do we begin taking the steps necessary to get our own house in order and cease subsidizing the lifestyles and military budgets of countries thousands of miles from our shore? Some might incorrectly call this “isolationism”, but our current foreign aid policy, when you get down to it, comes perilously close to qualifying as socialism. Is that any better?

We need to begin treating the Israelis like the grownups they are and stop interjecting ourselves in their finances and internal affairs. To do so is in no way to be anti-Israel, but instead would be a commonsensical approach for fiscal conservatives to adopt across the board. The minimal amount of money saved would pale in comparison to the feelings of sovereignty this would grant both to Americans and Israelis, as a recent Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies study shows.

Countries who formerly received aid would no longer need a paternal figure looking over their shoulder as they are freed up to manage the affairs in a manner they, not America per se, see fit. Many of us have been taught as conservatives that success should be defined as how many people are able to leave, not sign up for, welfare programs. This line of sound reasoning need not be divorced from our approach to overseas assistance either.

Douglas Casey once stated that: “Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” This quote has a lot more truth to it that those in Washington are willing to admit.

Perhaps the time has come to stop forcing Americans to aid those in poverty overseas by gunpoint, and instead let them do so out of the goodness of their own hearts.

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.

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.