Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member Dr. John Hospers died at the age of 93 yesterday, June 12, 2011.

Dr. Hospers was the Libertarian Party’s first presidential candidate, running in 1972. He appeared on the ballot in just two states, but made history by receiving the electoral vote of one of the RLC’s distinguished founders, Mr. Roger MacBride of Virginia.

A professor of philosophy at California State University-Los Angeles, Dr. Hospers had a sharp mind until his resting days. Last year he had this to say about the Republican Liberty Caucus: “I’m honored to be on the RLC’s current Board of Advisors, along with many associates, colleagues and other esteemed defenders of liberty. I support the RLC’s 2010 endorsed candidates, and am encouraged with the prospects of returning power to the people.”

According to Ayn Rand’s biographer Barbara Branden, Hospers met Rand when she addressed the student body at Brooklyn College. They became friends and had lengthy philosophical conversations. Rand’s discussions with Hospers contributed to her decision to write nonfiction. Hospers became convinced of the validity of Rand’s moral and political views but disagreed with her about issues of epistemology, the subject of their extensive correspondence. Rand broke with Hospers after he criticized her Harvard talk on “Art as Sense of Life” before the American Society of Aesthetics.

In 2002, an hour-long video about Hospers’ life, work, and philosophy was released by the Liberty Fund of Indianapolis as part of its Classics of Liberty series. His passing was three days after his 93rd birthday.

Professor John Hospers will be remembered for his many philosophical and political contributions to the libertarian movement.

One week after the opening of “Atlas Shrugged – Part I”, the movie adaptation of Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged,” the film is doing quite well:

“[D]espite (or because of) Hollywood’s best efforts to keep the movie down, “Atlas” is racking up dollar signs at the box office. With a hearty $5640 per theater in its opening weekend, “Atlas Shrugged,” based on the influential Ayn Rand best-seller, has left Hollywood insiders dumbstruck to explain its success.” — The Washington Times

The Hollywood Reporter says the film will expand its release from 299 theaters to 425 this weekend and to 1,000 by the end of the month.

Tea Party supporters and libertarians and objectivists of all stripes have hit the theaters across our country to watch and support “Atlas Shrugged” the movie. According to “Atlas” executive producer Harmon Kaslow, the film has over-performed in markets like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, generating as much as $12,000 to $25,000 per theater.

“People are hungry for what these characters are saying,” says executive producer John Aglialoro. “They’re telling the government, ‘Just leave me alone. Let me hang onto my life and pursue my passions and rational self-interest. That’s what will benefit society.”

That message is what is driving the success of “Atlas Shrugged.” Although it was written more than fifty years ago, Rand’s unabashed defense of individualism seems more relevant than ever before.

Check out the movie trailer here and go to theater near you to support this amazing film!

“Atlas Shrugged” remains one of the best-selling books of all time. More than 7,000,000 copies of the tome have been sold since it was first published. It is currently #4 on the Amazon best-seller list.

by Ron Paul

This is the Appendix to Ron Paul’s new book, Liberty Defined.

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and government’s must never engaged in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

© 2011 FREE, Inc.

Republican Liberty Caucus favorite Senator Rand Paul is contemplating his future, according to today’s Charleston Post & Courier newspaper. Quoth the paper:

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is visiting Charleston today talk about his possible presidential bid, how to reign in the national debt and the current military action in Libya.

Paul, a Tea Party favorite who won his Senate seat last fall, is visiting several early presidential voting states independently of his father, 2008 presidential contender and current U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

“The only decision I’ve made is I won’t run against my dad,” Rand Paul said, adding that he wants to see the Tea Party influence the 2012 GOP nominee. Paul is set to appear this afternoon before the College of Charleston’s bully pulpit series.

This evening, he will address the Charleston Meeting, a new invitation-only, center-right organization that invites prominent politicians to address its members off the record.

I previously opined that his father, RLC Advisory Board member Dr. Ron Paul, would likely pass on running for President for the third time. I mentioned that the status of Ron Paul’s son Rand may factor into his decision.

So which Paul, if either, will run for President in 2012?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Former Congressional candidate and 2011 RLC Convention panelist John Dennis has been elected Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California. Members of the California RLC met at their annual Convention on Friday in Sacramento, a meeting in conjunction with the California GOP Convention.

John Dennis (pictured below with RLC members), a San Francisco entrepreneur and father, took on Queen Nancy Pelosi during the 2010 election cycle. His campaign was endorsed by Cindy Sheehan, Log Cabin Republicans, and The San Francisco Examiner. Before entering his race, John founded the San Francisco chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

John also spoke on the foreign policy panel at the 2011 RLC National Convention on February 12 in Arlington, Virginia.

The newly elected California RLC Officers include:
Chairman: John Dennis
Vice Chairman: Rick Jacobs
Secretary: Parke Bostrom
Treasurer: Matt Heath

Learn more about the California RLC at www.rlcca.org.

It is both indefensible and intellectually dishonest to center one’s defense of the recent health care legislation’s constitutionality around the Commerce Clause or as a broadly defined “promotion of the general welfare”. It is disconcerting when such wide swaths of the population avidly recruit this argument to justify their position. To suggest the Constitution’s framers would have signed a document instituting such sweeping and arbitrary powers on the central government underscores a startling step backward in republican governance.

The “regulation of interstate commerce” power was not a blanket grant for the federal government to regulate everything it saw fit. Instead, the clause gave Congress the power to “keep commerce regular,” referring to their duty to see to it that the various states amounted to a free trade zone. This blocked the ability of let’s say, Rhode Island, to place tariffs on goods imported from Georgia. Prevention of trade wars between the states, something obviously undesirable, was the motivating factor behind the insertion of this clause. It was not “regulation” in the present day sense of the word. But good luck explaining that to the Congressional busybodies of both parties who would detest even the slightest relinquishment of those powers. This clause has been so twisted from its context that most in Congress now view it as a mandate to legislate anything they see fit assuming at some point it must impact “interstate commerce.”

Accordingly, listing the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 would have been pointless had the “general welfare” clause preceding it meant that the federal government was allowed to legislate anything they deemed in the “general welfare.” Turning to the contemporaries of the time reveals the intent of this phrase which has been mangled beyond recognition. James Madison, who played a crucial role in the Constitution’s crafting, made his stance clear, saying : “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” Madison further stated that “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

From the Wickard v. Wilburn ruling in 1942 until the U.S. vs. Lopez school zone gun case in 1995, the Supreme Court looked like it had thrown in the towel on fighting Congress’ expansion of regulatory powers. In fact, it often resembled an accomplice to their doing so. To think how far the jurisprudence mindset had changed, consider that in 1918 the Supreme Court was willing to strike down the Keating-Owen child labor law in their Hammer vs. Dagenhart ruling (and no, it was not because they endorsed the practice of child labor.) Though this is an imperfect example due to some technicalities, it did demonstrate that there was a point in our history where Congress did not have inherent power to simply ban anything they deemed undesirable.

And from wheat in 1942 to weed in the 2000s, the beat continued into the 21st century. Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the 6-3 medical marijuana ruling in the infamous 2005 Gonzales vs. Raich case, gave his thoughts on the issue by warning: “If Congress can regulate this (cannabis grown for purposes of their own usage in the state of California) under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

Perhaps, in hindsight, our founders should have been even more careful in crafting the Constitution’s wording had they known the degree to which our unprincipled politicians would gut its original intent. Maybe they felt America’s citizenry would remain virtuous, willing to take principled stands even if they had no immediate stake in a ruling. But currently, those effected will immediately rush to lobby for their cause, while others with no vested interest are willing to stay on the sidelines; the problem of concentrated benefits certainly merits close scrutiny. Returning to an understanding of the tight regulations our Founders put on the federal government would be a wonderful step forward, albeit one fought tooth and nail by the elected officials who profit further each time it is watered down.

Real ID Must Be Implemented By May 11
_____________________________________

There isn’t much current information about REAL ID despite that a major implementation benchmark for the law is scheduled occur in just two months.

The REAL ID Act requires state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards to meet federal standards by a certain date in order to be accepted for federal purposes, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. The Department of Homeland Security sells REAL ID as a tool “to help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents.”

States must now be in full-compliance by May 11, 2011. The penalties for residents in non-compliant states are pretty tame …, or not.

Those innocent, law-abiding citizens will not be able to use their driver’s license to board commercial aircraft, gain access to federal facilities or enter nuclear power plants.

Some Republicans Are Pushing for A National ID Card
_____________________________________

Earlier this week House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano encouraging her to fully implement the REAL ID Act of 2005.

According to FOX News, REAL ID has won support from many anti-immigration advocates because it requires driver’s licenses issued to immigrants to expire at the same time as their stay in the U.S. and therefore invalidates licenses of immigrants who overstay.

According to former Congressman Bob Barr, a privacy advocate, “A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Yet REAL ID is still being implemented. And it’s being implemented despite that half of the states in the country have opted out of REAL ID or have passed resolutions objecting to the national ID law. The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly extended the deadline and reduced the compliance bar to suggest progress on the national ID effort, according to the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper.

What Can Be Done to Stop REAL ID?
_____________________________________

H.R. 1 is the budget bill Republicans are pushing in the House. If passed, it would would fund the government from March 4 through the September 30. Congressman David Price, a Democrat from North Carolina, proposed Amendment #277 to add the following language to the FY 2011 spending bill:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-13).”

This Amendment may be the last opportunity to hit the REAL ID Act before it is thrust onto the American people. While many states have opted out, don’t be so sure that the federal government won’t ignore state opt-outs. It’s much easier for them to implement a national ID card if every state is forced into the plan.

Please ask your members of Congress to support Amendment 277 to H.R. 1. Once implemented, REAL ID will be required by employers to hire you and will restrict your ability to travel in “the land of the free”. It’s imperative that you contact Congress today on this important issue.

(A special thanks to Jim Harper for providing the details on this Amendment.)

Since 1991, the RLC has kept our dues rate at the same amount without adjustment. At the 2011 RLC National Convention, delegates approved a set of changes to the Bylaws, Rules, and Statement of Principles of the organization which included an increase in the minimum dues to become a member of the RLC.

Minimum dues for a regular member of the Caucus will be $45 after March 31. The new dues schedule is as follows:

• Regular: $45 (was $30)
• Premium: $75 (was $50)
• Sustaining: $150 (was $100)
• Patron: $350 (was $250)
• Benefactor: $750 (was $500)
• Roundtable: $1500 (was $1,000)
• Student/Military: $30 (was $20)

Chartered state chapters of the RLC will be advised that they need to modify their Bylaws to conform with the $45 regular dues and $15 dues sharing amount, effective April 1st. Boilerplate chartering rules (bylaws) in the state chapters will also need to be modified to conform with this dues adjustment.

Those who joined the RLC prior to April 1 at the previous dues amounts will still be considered paid members until their membership expires.

Brief Video History:

The Republican Liberty Caucus is one of many elements within the general libertarian movement, focused on the specific objective of bringing the Republican Party back to the principles of individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise. The Caucus embodies the unique strategic vision of working within a major party to achieve liberty. Although we share our basic principles with many other libertarian groups, we welcome constitutionalists, classical liberals, tolerant conservatives, and free market advocates who support our objectives.

The movement finds its roots in the ideals of the founding fathers, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but also in the writings of many pre-revolutionary political thinkers. The Caucus is the result of the activities of several organizations that were active in the 1980s, but the concept of developing libertarian principles within the GOP could be traced back to the 1964 Presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. Although he labeled his position as “conservative”, he espoused the “classical liberal” principles that we champion today.

Goldwater’s defeat discouraged his supporters, who tended to gather in the Young Americans for Freedom [YAF] in the late sixties. David Nolan, a Chairman of the Colorado Young Republicans, founded the Libertarian Party [LP] in 1972. Many libertarians abandoned other efforts to participate in the LP during the early years, while many prominent LP officers and candidates have left the party to join the RLC effort.

Dana Rohr- abacher

The earliest libertarian to gain standing within the Republican Party was Dana Rohrabacher. Historian Sam Konkin III says Rohrabacher was “the most successful and most beloved libertarian activist,” critical to the development of YAF, the Libertarian Alliance, and the Society for Individual Liberty [SIL] in the late 60s and early 70’s.

“There would not have been a libertarian movement without him,” says Konkin. With the financial support of David Koch (later an LP Vice Presidential candidate), Rohrabacher twice ran unsuccessfully for the GOP con­gressional nomination in Southern California. Later, he worked as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and was subsequently nominated by the GOP and elected to the 42^nd Congressional District of California. His early years earned him ‘libertarian’ ratings in the RLC Liberty Index, but he has recently tended toward a more conservative philosophy.

Roger MacBride

Roger MacBride, heir to the Laura Ingalls Wilder estate (“Little House on the Prairie”), may have been the first candidate to explicitly describe himself as a “libertarian-Republican” while he served as a Vermont GOP Assemblyman and ran for Governor in 1964. As a GOP Presidential Elector for Nixon in 1972, MacBride cast a rebel ballot for the LP Presidential candidate, John Hospers. MacBride gained the LP Presidential nomination in 1976, but later returned to the Republican Party and was critical to the early formation of the RLC.

Dr. Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul was strongly influenced by Austrian economists and advocated clearly libertarian positions after his election to Congress in 1976. He served as a Texas GOP Congressional Representative until 1984, when he was defeated in a race for U.S. Senate. He joined the LP as their Presidential candidate in 1988, then returned to Congress as the 14^th District Republican Representative in 1997, where he continues to serve. Dr. Paul has served as Honorary Chairman of the RLC and has earned the highest lifetime rating of any federal representative in the history of the RLC’s Liberty Index of Congress.

There were at least three precursor organizations to the RLC, from which it derived most of its early membership: the Libertarian Republican Alliance [LRA], founded by Joe Gentili, Larry Penner and Gerry O’Brien in Brooklyn, New York in 1972 with Professor Clifford Thies of Virginia as a prominent member; the “Radical Caucus” of the LP, which included Murray Rothbard and Williamson ‘Bill’ Evers of California (who was active in the Bush Administration), which evolved into the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee [LROC], founded in 1988 by Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris, and Colin Hunter.

The LRA disbanded in 1981, in light of the growing successes of the LP during that period. The “Radical Caucus” members split from the LP, but failed to develop a viable organization. The LROC group developed a large mailing list and supported several Republican federal campaigns in California. Efforts to expand the organization nationally were not successful.

Vernon Robinson

The first use of the name “Republican Liberty Caucus” was by a group of libertarians supporting the election of Republican Art Pope (a former LP member) to the North Carolina State House in 1986, recalls Alan Turin. Organized by Stan Ayeres, the group included Bobby Eberle, Vernon Robinson (a successful State House candidate in 1988 and a recent GOP candidate for Congress, both with RLC support and endorsement), and a dozen others. According to Eric (Dondero) Rittberg, Ayeres credited Robinson with suggesting the name. For a time in the late 1980s, the North Carolina RLC was listed as a state chapter of the national LROC organization.

Although LROC was active for seven years, publishing “The Libertarian Republican” newsletter with Reason Magazine advertising, participation dwindled and the founders pursued other interests when Hunter withdrew his financial support. (Raimondo and Garris now operate the popular AntiWar.com website.)

Early in 1990, at a meeting of a group of Florida LROC members at a Young Republicans Convention, including Phil Blumel, Tom Walls, Eric Rittberg and Rex Curry, who agreed to develop a national RLC organization. Alan Turin and Curtis Dietrich joined the group shortly thereafter and it was initially listed, with North Carolina, as a state chapter of LROC. A few months later, Rittberg says he obtained the complete list of 450 LROC members and agreed with Ayeres to make the RLC an indepen­dent national organization.

Other LROC members, Fred Stein of New Jersey, Alan Lindsay in Texas, Earle Smith of Georgia, Norm Singleton (now Legislative Director for Congressman Ron Paul) of Pennsylvania and Gene Berkman of California were among the first RLC State Coordinators. Lindsay operated an RLC national office in Texas for several of the early years.

Dr. Cliff Thies

On April 6, 1991, Roger MacBride invited Turin, Alan Lindsay, Eric and Barbara Rittberg, Rex and Susan Curry, as well as Tim Condon, to his Naples, Florida estate to formally organize the national RLC and plan for a “coming out party” at the National YR Convention in July 1991. MacBride agreed to fund the RLC newsletter “Republican Liberty” and to head an RLC “Council of Trustees” with Clifford Thies and William Hunscher as members. Michael Holmes of Texas was recruited as Senior Editor of the newsletter and RLC Treasurer. At that July meeting, officers were elected, including Chair­­man Rittberg, Vice-Chairman Thies, Sec­retary Norm Singleton and Treasurer Mike Holmes. Other National Committee members were MacBride, Wainwright Dawson, and Richard Duprey.

Throughout the 1990s, Clifford Thies served as Chairman, Mike Holmes as Treasurer, and Rob Booth as Secretary.

Other RLC Chairs include Roger MacBride in 1992, Ron Paul in 1995, Chuck Muth in 2000, Douglas Lorenz in 2002,  William Westmiller from 2004 to 2009 and Dave Nalle from 2009 to present. Many others have been long-term members and made major contributions to the RLC national and state-level organizations.

The first RLC newsletter can be found online here and a video overview of the history of the RLC can be found here.

Republican Liberty Caucus National Conventions

Above: Original RLC members Rex Curry, Roger MacBride, Eric Rittberg, Alan Lindsay, and Alan Turin.

It is always fascinating to hear a longing expressed for the American government to rekindle the sort of unity it displayed after 9/11. That this statement is often mouthed by self-described conservatives is disturbing to say the least. For years after the September 11th attacks, Republicans have cynically played the “national security” trump card to ensure their own version of raw government power was able to be unquestionably wielded.

Despite denouncing Democrats for instituting their nanny state measures and own version of draconian intervention by the State into our private lives, post-9/11 Republicans were more than happy to embrace drastic police state measures which torched constitutional protections as much as any handout promoted by a liberal politician. On domestic policy, Democrat politicians never failed to capitalize on each heart wrenching story of the uninsured to make the case for universal health coverage. But on foreign policy, Republicans, particularly those carrying the banner of the militaristic, post-9/11 brand, were just as willing to trot out some injustice needing correction by the federal government. But in their version of conservative statism, this manifested itself in the form of a select dictator that needed toppling or some country which needed the entire fabric of its society to be uprooted; to make it safe for “democracy,” of course. Even worse, the police state conservatism that reared its unwanted head following September 11th was not content to simply invade and socially engineer foreign lands; occupations which illustrated that many Republicans forgot that government intervention overseas ends with the same unpredictable results which intervention at home causes.

Ranking as one of its most heinous contributions, the state of apprehension that defined our daily lives in late 2001 and early 2002 produced its crowning domestic achievement with the Orwellian named “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” The Patriot Act, for us common folk.

If not for the fearful environment that understandably descended on America after the 9/11 attacks, such a behemoth piece of legislation would never have been accepted by American’s normally vigilant citizens. The same outrage which was shown towards the Obamacare health care monstrosity should have been meted out towards this bill, but, in typical Rahm Emanuel fashion, the previous administration was unwilling to let a crisis “go to waste.” Reflecting on an atmosphere where too many Americans were willing to accept massive government intrusions into their private lives in exchange for feeling “safe,” it is curious that so many conservatives often make positive statements when reflecting on this time in our history.

The recent uprising among House Republicans which temporarily blocked extension of several of the Patriot Act’s key provisions would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. But the mind set is changing, as our current Tea Party atmosphere has caused many conservatives to realize that battling unbridled government intervention is critical in both the domestic and overseas sphere. Simply attaching the word “terrorism” or “national security” to legislation is no longer enough to placate conservatives who were previously willing to excuse massive excesses when these phrases were included. No longer willing to be bullied by the GOP leadership into accepting restrictions on privacy for some imprecise promise of safety, insurgent constitutional conservatives are slowly taking back the definition of conservatism.

This mantle was seized by a network of overtly militaristic Congressmen and Senators in the post-9/11 confusion, whose actions made many equate saber rattling and unproductive jingoism with being a “conservative.” But in the days of record debt and a born again interest in finding out what the government actually is and is not allowed to do, the authoritarian conservatism that arose after 9/11 is in its final throes. A return to a Barry Goldwater-style, traditional Republicanism that emphasis liberty over fear and freedom over falsehoods is emerging, and it could not come a moment too soon.