The Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota believes every citizen has the freedom of association.  This includes the freedom to decide on their own whether to join or not join a union and whether to pay or not pay union dues.  Just like workers in 22 other states, Minnesotans should not be forced to join a union or pay dues to an organization if they do not wish to belong. House File 65 proposes that all citizens be granted the freedom to decide to join or leave a union as well as to pay or not pay dues without having it affect their employment status. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota encourages the Minnesota Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment, during the 2012 legislative session, giving individual voters the freedom to decide whether to become an employee freedom state.

Thank you Sen. Thompson and Rep. Drazkowski - both are RLCMN endorsed members of the Legislature.

SENATOR DAVE THOMPSON, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE DRAZKOWSKI ANNOUNCE EMPLOYEE FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

St. Paul- Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville) and Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) announced the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would give Minnesotans the opportunity to vote on whether or not Minnesota workers should have the freedom to join a union or not. Currently, if someone is hired by a company with a collective bargaining agreement in place, that person is required to join the union or pay fair share dues.

“In Minnesota law, if a worker refuses to pay union dues, they are fired. This isn't fair and it's definitely not free,” Representative Drazkowski said. “To me, this is the most important pro-jobs bill we can pass this session.It's estimated that had Minnesota passed this amendment 30 years ago, the average Minnesota working family would be earning an additional $7,000 or more every year.Nearly 70% of Minnesotans support employee freedom - let's allow the people to decide whether they want to guarantee this fundamental right in our constitution.”

If Minnesotans vote in favor of this amendment, every Minnesota worker would still have the right to join or support a labor union, only now it would be his or her own decision. Union employees would still be able to collectively bargain the same as under current law.

“Our bill is simple: let’s allow Minnesotans to vote on whether or not an individual should be forced to pay a third party in order to work.Jobs are our number one priority – this bill recognizes Minnesota workers’ ability, and right, to decide whether or not they’d like to be part of a union.States that have granted employees this freedom have experienced rapid growth in business, leading to greater job growth.From 1993 to 2009, private sector employment increased nearly 38% in those states versus only 19.6% in forced-unionism states,” said Senator Thompson.“We have an opportunity, as a state, to increase freedom and grow jobs – it’s an opportunity Minnesota cannot afford to turn down.”

###

CONCORD, N.H.—The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire rebukes the idea that Republicans should remove uncertainty by establishing a state health insurance exchange under the terms of Obamacare, as such a move would voluntarily bind the state under the control of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department while sending New Hampshire taxpayers the bill.

Contrary to arguments from some insurance regulators, insurance companies and industry groups, creating a state exchange will remove New Hampshire’s local control and ensure Obamacare is fully enacted in New Hampshire, whether the federal law is repealed or not. In addition, establishing a state insurance exchange under Obamacare requires the state to pay for the full cost of implementation starting in 2015, which could cost New Hampshire taxpayers anywhere from $10 million to $47 million a year, according to HTMS, a North Dakota health care consulting company.

“The bottom line is that the federal government has created uncertainty by passing an unworkable federal law that depends on states to put in the time and money to fix all of its faults,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “The cloud of uncertainty created by President Obama and the Democratic Congress won’t go away just because we accept Obamacare by creating a state health insurance exchange. In fact, these exchanges will distort the market, which will make for even more uncertainty.”

Those arguing for a state insurance exchange have clamored for predictability, but by establishing a state insurance exchange, the only predictable outcome will be that the state will be voluntarily implementing the terms of the Obamacare law that voters soundly rejected in 2010. The mammoth state bureaucracy created would only serve as a nominal state organization, but it would take all of its orders from Washington bureaucrats, who would set the rules for selling insurance plans within the state, thus reducing real competition and increasing the costs of providing health insurance.

What makes matters worse, under SB 163, the N.H. Senate bill that establishes a state exchange, “poison pill” language would eliminate only those sections found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or repealed by the Congress, but it would leave everything else in place. If the bill passes, it would keep a state health insurance exchange in place even if the federal government fully rejects New Hampshire’s proposal, thus leaving us with a federal exchange plan funded by New Hampshire taxpayers.

The better approach is HB 1297, which would prohibit the state from enacting an exchange and make it harder for the federal government to implement the law. In fact, the more states that opt not to create a health insurance exchange will then send the federal bureaucrats scrambling to come up with one, without the time or funding to create one that will work. If New Hampshire and other states around the country say no to a state health insurance exchange, it all but guarantees that Congress will have to repeal or replace Obamacare, which is what the people want.

“Creating a state exchange voluntarily accepts Obamacare in New Hampshire,” McKinney said. “If we do that, this Republican Legislature will be directly opposing the voters who sent them to Concord to stand up against this federal overreach. These Republicans, and not the Obama Democrats, would be responsible for the consequences of Obamacare in New Hampshire.

“If Republicans act now to definitively reject a state exchange, however; the Republican Legislature stands a better chance of fulfilling the mandate of New Hampshire voters and leading the way toward true health insurance reform,” McKinney said.

For more information about the conclusions reached by RLCNH about state health insurance exchanges under Obamacare, please refer to these studies by the Cato Institute, the Idaho Freedom Foundation, and the Goldwater Institute.

New Jersey billionaire Zygi Wilf, owner of the Minnesota Vikings, is seeking $700 million of taxpayers' money to build his team a new stadium in the state.

“State [of Minnesota] not rushing to act on Vikings stadium,” fretted the January 13 headline of a column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. New Jersey billionaire Zygi Wilf, owner of the Minnesota Vikings, is seeking about $700 million in taxpayers’ money to build his team a new stadium in the state.

The $700 million would be roughly split between state and local taxpayers. Members of one proposed site for the stadium have been especially disgruntled by Wilf’s request to take their money for his business. A group in Ramsey County, which includes the state capital of St. Paul, has collected 2,000 signatures since January 6 in an effort to block any special taxes on their county to pay for the stadium.

The group, called The No Stadium Tax Coalition, needs to collect 15,000 signatures by July in order to amend the county’s charter. It would prevent, among other taxes, a 3 percent food and beverage tax on the county.

The prospect of $1.1 billion taxpayer dollars floating around has created a haze through which it is comedic to watch different parties blatantly promoting their own interests.

For example, Zygi Wilf would like his new stadium built in a northern suburb of Ramsey County. It would allow his team to continue playing in the Minneapolis Metrodome in the meantime, where it has been since 1979. If the Metrodome were to be replaced, the team would need to play in a less lucrative locale until construction was completed.

Meanwhile, the Minneapolis Star Tribune stands to make $45 million off the sale of its land if the Metrodome is replaced. It is hard to find news on the issue in the newspaper; most of the paper’s ink is devoted to questioning why lawmakers are not taking faster action to bring the stadium to their doorstep. Substantive news on The No Stadium Tax Coalition and other opposition comes from local publications, not from the state’s flagship newspaper.

Using budget shifts and accounting maneuvers, Minnesota lawmakers discovered they have a surplus of $876 million this year. No doubt that has some legislators reveling in the excitement of how many earmarks that will help them bring to their districts. The last time the state had a surplus was in 2007, when there was $1 billion on hand. That resulted in spending, deficit spending and more spending until the state peaked in 2011 with a deficit of $5 billion.

Due to measures taken to escape the deficit, the state needs to pay $1 billion in debt service over the course of 20 years to cover the interest on borrowed funds. It also delayed approximately $700 million in payments to schools that now need to be covered in 2012, which equates to 40 percent of the state’s aid.

Without the budgetary illusions, it is hardly the surplus that has state legislators rubbing their hands together.

However, Zygi Wilf apparently thought it would be more than enough for a generous helping of “w(i)lfare.” Wilf bought a $19 million apartment in New York last November as he was pleading with taxpayers to help him out.

There has been some encouraging news on the legislative front. Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove), a Taxpayer Protection Pledge signer, said it was “not my job” to line up votes for the stadium.

On the other hand, some legislators never like to let an opportunity to spend taxpayer dollars go to waste. Greg Davids (R-Preston), who is the chair of the House Tax Committee and who has not signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, had this assurance: “I think the only people who don’t realize the stadium is going to be in downtown Minneapolis are the Minnesota Vikings.”

Republican Sen. Julie Rosen and Republican Rep. Morrie Lanning, neither of whom are Pledge signers, round out the list of legislators who are especially supportive of wilfare.

Millionaire Governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat, is supportive of all proposals for the state government to spend more.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/wilfare-billionaires-a6687#ixzz1kUWtgnOS

When our founding fathers declared our independence from Great Britain in 1776 the colonists were already in the middle of a bloody and costly war to secure their freedom. Once the war was successfully concluded it was necessary to create a new nation with a form of government that would not allow a single individual or group to establish another totalitarian regime and steal the freedom of Americans.

It took years and one failed effort with the Articles of Confederation before the founders settled on the Constitution of the United States that established a unique type of government with three separate, but equal branches of branches. These are the executive branch that includes an elected President and his cabinet appointees, the legislative branch that consists of a Congress made up of two houses, the Senate and House of Representatives, and the judicial branch that consists of the Supreme Court and any lower federal courts that Congress might authorize.

A system of checks and balances was put into place to ensure that none of the three branches would be able to dominate the others and establish a dictatorship. In addition, the basic distrust of a powerful centralized government caused the framers of the Constitution to adopt the Bill of Rights that protected the rights of both individual Americans and the various states that formed the United States of America. The system has worked so well that our country became the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world.

Yet, now, almost 250 years later, elements in all three branches of government are conspiring to shred the Constitution and rob us of our God given rights. We have a rapidly emerging dictatorship and prime examples of it can be found in what is occurring in the first days of this New Year. As part of the balance of powers prescribed in the Constitution, the U.S. Senate must approve Presidential appointments to major positions in the Executive Branch of Government. The only exception is that during the times that the Senate is in recess the President can make appointments without the approval of the Senate, but they are temporary in nature.

However, on January 4, 2012, President Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board and a new “Czar” to head the Consumer Protection Agency without Senate approval despite the fact that the Senate was not in recess. This has created a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions.

I refer to this as a Constitutional crisis because this is not the first such action Obama has taken that has clearly violated not only the provisions of the Constitution, but also his oath of office, and he obviously plans to continue ignoring both the legislative and judicial branches of government. In fact, he actually brags about what he is doing while campaigning for reelection at the expense of American taxpayers. There is now no doubt that the current President of the United States considers himself a de facto dictator who is so much smarter than the rest of us that he can ignore the Constitution, the supreme law of our nation, and do whatever he wants. History has taught that in order to establish an effective dictatorship there must be three decisive actions taken. First, if the military in the country is patriotic and pro freedom, it must be marginalized to minimize its ability to resist the imposition of tyranny. Right after the New Year, Obama announced drastic cuts in the size and strength of our military forces across the board. He is claiming to have the authority to do this under the bill passed by Congress that created the so-called super committee that was to enact wide ranging spending cuts.

If it failed to do so there would be massive reductions of the defense budget. In previous articles I pointed out that the very creation of this super committee was unconstitutional and that its failure to act would cause the “doomsday scenario” to unfold for our military. Unfortunately, not only are my predictions coming true, but Obama is not even waiting for the automatic cuts to begin in 2013, he is unilaterally moving to destroy the military now. Secondly, the citizens of any country to be subjugated must be disarmed in order to diminish their ability to resist the imposition of a dictatorship. It is now clear, by virtue of the ongoing investigation in Congress of “Operation Fast and Furious” that over 2500 semi automatic weapons were sold to Mexican drug dealers on orders from the U.S. government not for the purpose of entrapping the drug dealers, but so Obama could impose gun control laws on U.S. citizens. He has now done so by Executive Order, bypassing Congress that had refused to take the same action.

In addition, Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have pledged to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty that specifically targets private gun ownership in the United States. This treaty would essentially abolish the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution and make private ownership of firearms illegal despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a valid and individual right under the provisions of the Constitution.

Of course, the Constitution requires that any treaty that is signed by a President must be approved by two thirds of the Senate to be valid. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that no treaty can supersede the provisions of the Constitution, particularly those that deal with individual rights. All of this would seem to render the treaty moot since two thirds of the current Senate will not ratify it, and it clearly violates the provisions of the second amendment. So why is Obama pushing for it? Simply put, he believes he can ignore the Senate and the court, sign the treaty, and then allow the United Nations to begin enforcing it. If you believe that he won’t try that, just look at what he has done in other areas.

The third goal of an effective dictatorship involves limiting the rights of the citizens to have free speech and a free press. People who can’t communicate and learn the truth are easier to control. Most of the main stream media in this country have already relinquished their freedom of the press and are doing whatever Obama tells them to do. Those that oppose him are under constant assault and Obama’s minions on the Federal Communications Commission are looking for ways to shut down conservative talk radio and control internet content. This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said that the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet. Once again, Obama has issued orders that the Supreme Court and the Constitution be ignored.

Even more frightening is the fact that legislation pending in both houses of Congress will effectively give Obama an Internet kill switch. It is being pushed in the Senate by the usual leftists like Reid and Schumer, but in the House of Representatives it is some Republicans that are pushing it. My next blog article will contain more information about these and other bills pending in Congress.

The bottom line is, we are headed for a country that is no longer a Republic, but a nation controlled entirely by a small group of elitists, and unless the American people wake up soon it will be too late to stop it.

Michael Connelly mrobertc@hotmail.com www.michaelconnelly.jigsy.com www.constitution.jigsy.com]]> http://www.rlc.org/2012/01/16/america%e2%80%99s-emerging-dictatorship/feed/ 2 http://www.rlc.org/2012/01/08/carolyn-mckinney-of-the-rlcnh-on-c-span/ http://www.rlc.org/2012/01/08/carolyn-mckinney-of-the-rlcnh-on-c-span/#comments Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:25:41 +0000 Dave Nalle http://www.rlc.org/?p=6395 An excellent and in-depth interview with Carolyn McKinney, Chair of the RLC of New Hampshire from Saturday. Good material here for other state chapters to pay attention to. And chapter leaders should remember that they should be prepared for an opportnity like this if it comes their way during the election cycle.

Ron Paul has now surged as the GOP Presidential Frontrunner in Iowa. This is making the Republican Warfare Establishment very nervous and some speculate there will be a GOP backlash if Dr. Paul wins the Iowa Caucus.

But will this be smart on behalf of Reince Preibus’ Republican Establishment?

Over the past several years, I have been deeply entrenched in all-things-Paul. Studying the comments in the forums and watching how the independents are polling, it’s obvious that there is a very deep resentment for the treatment Ron Paul has been receiving thus far. The GOP mainstream is disenfranchising the Ron Paul loyalists by contributing to this ridicule and shunning.  This is very surprising being that Ron Paul has garnered 27.5% of the vote in the recent poll.

Can the GOP afford to lose 27.5% of their Republican vote if Ron Paul is not the GOP Nominee?

Seeing how passionate Ron Paul’s supporters are for this man of Constitutional consistency, it would set off red lights and buzzers for me if I were Reince Priebus.  I for one would have at least tried to use my RNC Chair influence to make sure that major news media outlets were reporting equally on all GOP contenders.  If that didn’t work, then I would have made my own personal appeal to the GOP base.  But that didn’t happen. Reince Priebus has been silent in his own words and has not made a plea to keep things  ”Fair and Balanced”.

Now, the Ron Paul loyalists are angry.  You can see it in their online posts, their activism at events they volunteer for; especially in helping his campaign in Iowa, and impressively in their campaign contributions to any one of Ron Paul’s Moneybombs.  In fact, the latest TEA Party moneybomb had collected over $4 Million dollars. Yes, the Ron Paul loyalists are angry; and angry they should be.

Why are these supporters so loyal you might be wondering?

It’s very simple really.  In his 12 terms as Congressman, Ron Paul has a very consistent voting record.  Adhering to the Constitution, Dr. Paul makes no vote in favor of a bill unless it is granted in the US Constitution. He predicted the recession.  He is not afraid to acknowledge the unsustainable debt of our country, and that we cannot spend money we don’t have.  Ron Paul understands the military-industrial complex– the perpetual cycle of overseas wars and imperialism that has depleted our budget, caused enemies abroad, and resulted in tremendous casualties. And he has exposed the conflictions the Federal Reserve poses to our Free Market Economy.

Although these are just a very few of the major reasons Ron Paul loyalists are so enthralled with him, many can cite several pages for their support. But just these few reasons are examples that no other GOP Presidential Nomination contender can self-apply.  The field is currently stocked with the same old dyed-in-the-wool Neoconservatives and Big Government Progressive Conservatives.  With his never-ending passion to uphold the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ intent, Ron Paul stands above all other Republican Presidential hopefuls both different and alone.

So why are so many Republicans against Ron Paul?

Today’s Republican Party has become a Big Government Conservative Party.  (Huh? Yes, I know…) The sentiment that is present is that Republicans can run a better Big Government than their Democratic counterparts. But Big Government policies and global stormtrooping are policies that are completely different from the Republican principals when the Party was established in our Great State of Wisconsin back in 1854. Ron Paul poses a serious threat to the GOP establishment and Republican Beltway politicians. In his struggle to keep a limited government, Ron Paul’s vision of limiting government would put many in government out of business and yield power to many of the powerbrokers.

Despite the new scene within the Republican Party, the major consensus that still stands strong is to keep government out of the hands of the Democrats. This is a core struggle that is the essence of the Party itself. Many Party loyalists go as far as to claim that come 2012, they will vote for “Anyone But Obama”.

REALLY?

If that is the sentiment within the GOP, then a Ron Paul nomination is not so far fetched.  In another poll recently released, Ron Paul is deemed the most likely to beat President Obama.  If the current crusade is “Anyone But Obama”, then only a fool would stand against Ron Paul being given the nomination. After all, polling reflects he can clearly beat the current President, whose base is fleeing as much as his approval rating is diminishing.  In addition, many are speculating that even anti-war/pro-civil liberties Democrats are looking to vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama, if that is the match up come general election.

The Ultimatum

The Iowa Caucus will kick off all caucuses and primaries on January 3, 2012. Since there has been not one vote cast for any Republican contender, the field remains completely open.  No candidate is an actual frontrunner, as far as official votes are concerned, or Party favorite as of yet.  Therefore, despite what many in the mainstream media are trying to portray, Ron Paul IS NOT a spoiling third-party candidate; he is a valid Republican contender and should be treated as such.

Taking into consideration the current polling and the strong, unwavering support for Ron Paul by his loyalists, the Republican Party, if they wish to unseat President Obama, has to seriously consider nominating Ron Paul as the Republican Presidential Candidate.

Why?

As the RLC-WI Chair and fellow Ron Paul supporter, I am calling on all the members of the entire Republican Liberty Caucus nationwide, to vote for Ron Paul not only in the Republican Primaries and Caucuses, but in the Presidential General Election too.

I, along with many others, am done with having to be forced to choose the lesser of two evils in what really is a two-party dictatorship.  I see absolutely no difference between the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Individuals like these, both Democratic and Republican, have the same Big Government Statist, globalistic agenda. Sure, they may differ on some issues, but ultimately they have proven by their track records to be proponents of expanding government, not of limiting government. They have restricted individual rights, not upheld them.  And they have restricted and regulated our Market Economy, not completely allowed to maintain and keep it fundamentally free.

Come general election day, I shall vote for Ron Paul.  Whether I check the box for Ron Paul as the nominated Republican candidate or have to write-in his name, Ron Paul and only Ron Paul, shall receive my vote.  I call on all defenders of Liberty and the Constitution to join me as well; and encourage all those in your spheres of influence to do the same.

This Republic shall no longer be held hostage to the party elites and the agenda spinning media.  We, as citizens, shall no longer have to choose such marginal candidates who after time and time again, fail to keep their promises.  Ron Paul has a proven and consistent track record which backs every thing he says.

The option is now for all Republicans to decide…  Choose Ron Paul as your GOP Presidential Nominee or face a significant voter shortage come the general election for an alternate candidate that will suffer the same fate as John McCain did in 2008.

Many will claim that this action is simply another vote for Obama.  If Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney becomes President, it is my personal belief that we will not see that much of a difference, if any.

If Republicans want Barack Obama removed from office, the only secure option is to vote Ron Paul as the Republican Presidential Nominee.

This is now the Republican’s ultimatum. Choose wisely.

According to the Roll Call Vote, which concluded with a 283-163 vote in favor of the conference report, the RLC-WI learned that Rep. Reid Ribble was the only Republican Congressional member from the State of Wisconsin to vote against HR 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  All other Republican Congressman (Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, and Duffy) voted in favor of this Bill of Rights killing legislation.

RLC-WI Chair, Michael S. Murphy, commented:

“I am literaly shocked to learn that only one lone Republican Congressman from Wisconsin had the courage to uphold and defend the US Constitution, a solemn oath he swore to keep upon taking office, while his colleagues simply negated the very same document that allows them to serve this great Nation.”

Murphy continued:

“I want to sincerely thank Congressman Reid Ribble for standing against his collegues and performing his Constitutional duties to uphold our civil liberties;  not only for his constituents, but for all American People. Rep. Ribble has shown that he can stand out on his own and do the job he was voted in to do for the people he serves.”

Sections 1021 and 1022 have been in heated debate during the course of this bill in Congress. Law enforcement -including the FBI, national security agencies and the military itself, all oppose this aspect of the NDAA. The RLC-WI believes if citizens commit crimes that they should not be held without being charged and should be prosecuted in civilian courts with their rights appropriately protected so that they receive a fair trial as defined in Amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the US Constitution.

The Senate is set to vote on this bill around 4 pm eastern today.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin was founded in 2009 to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party.

CONCORD, N.H.—Because the right to freely associate is fundamental to liberty in a free market economy, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire has decided to use the Right to Work override vote as a litmus test for candidates running for reelection in 2012.

To be clear: any representative or senator who votes to sustain the governor’s veto of the Right to Work bill, HB 474, will not receive an endorsement or assistance of any kind from the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire during the 2012 election cycle. In some cases, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire will actively support these incumbents’ opponents in their primary elections, especially if those opponents pledge to support a Right to Work law. (UPDATE 11/30/11: A full list of the Republicans who voted against Right to Work, the Republican Platform and the People of New Hampshire on Nov. 30, 2011 follows this article).

“Right to Work is a watershed issue when it comes to a legislator’s commitment to limited government and individual liberty,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “People have a natural freedom to associate with whom they please, and in this country, the freedom of association is even protected by the constitution, but this right is being regularly denied by unions in the workplace.

“Especially in these hard economic times when so many families are struggling, people should never be forced to hand over their hard-earned money to a third party just so they can hold a job and provide for their families,” McKinney added. “Clearly, people will voluntarily choose to join a union if they believe the costs are worth the benefits. But unions given unchecked power—as they have had for so many decades—have shown they will not always support the best long-term interests of their members. Right to Work would fix this by ensuring that unions will have to compete for members by actually serving them.”

The Right to Work veto override vote may come up as soon as tomorrow, but the Speaker of the House has the authority to call the vote at any time prior to the beginning of the 2012 House Session. The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire supports any effort by the Speaker to call the vote when he knows it will be successful.

UPDATE 11/30/11: The following Republicans voted against Right to Work, the Republican Platform and the People of New Hampshire on Nov. 30, 2011, and will NOT receive an RLCNH endorsement. In addition, the RLCNH advises activists to do everything they can to recruit liberty-minded Republican candidates to defeat these Republicans in the primary election of 2012: