States


May 15, 2013 (Arlington, VA) – The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia announced its endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli for Governor, and Mark Obenshain for Attorney General, ahead of the Republican Party of Virginia state convention on May 17th and 18th. Cuccinelli, the sitting Attorney General, is unopposed for the gubernatorial nomination at the convention. Obenshain, a member of the Senate of Virginia from Harrisonburg, is seeking the nomination at the convention, with voting by delegates to come on Saturday the 18th.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has demonstrated ample commitment to limited government, liberty and federalism during his term in office, becoming perhaps the leading champion in the nation for federalism and opposition to federal overreach, in areas from health care to gun rights to education. The board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia is proud to wholeheartedly endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor.

RLC-Virginia Chairman Robert Kenyon said “We’re very glad to have the most pro-liberty gubernatorial candidate in Virginia that we’ve had for generations. The board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia is proud to endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor.”

Senator Mark Obenshain has been one of the leading lights of the Senate of Virginia since he was first elected in 2003. He has led the Privileges and Elections Committee, working to ensure the integrity of Virginia’s electoral process. He’s also led the fight in protecting the Second Amendment rights of Virginians, and working to pass legislation like the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, which helped make Virginia’s first-in-the-nation court challenge to Obamacare possible. Virginia has a chance to elect an Attorney General who will carry on the incumbent’s fight against federal overreach, and for the Old Dominion and her citizens.

Kenyon added, “While both men pursuing the Republican nomination for Attorney General at the convention this weekend are fine candidates who would both make outstanding Attorneys General, we support Mark Obenshain. He clearly understands what the stakes are in the fight for liberty, not just in Richmond, but against Washington and the ever-growing leviathan that is the federal government. Mark has the enthusiastic endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia.”

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

Once again Texas is taking the lead in challenging the overreach of the Transportation Safety Administration with a new bill to protect individual privacy against unreasonable and invasive searches. Rep. David Simpson has a new bill called the Texas Travel Freedom Act (HB80) in committee in the Texas House this week. It would provide punishment under Texas law for federal employees of the TSA who engage in inappropriate acts which would now be classified as “Official Oppression.”

It is not acceptable for government employees to treat innocent travelers like criminal suspects. As Rep. Simpson said, “Traveling is not a criminal act. Treating travelers as criminal suspects and forcing innocent citizens to submit to humiliating and unreasonable searches without probable cause as a condition of travel violates protections our forefathers envisioned in Section 9 of the Texas Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Contrary to what some TSA agents have claimed, we do not believe that you give up your rights when you travel in public.”

Last legislative session state government leaders like Joe Strauss and David Dewhurst did everything they could to block this legislation, including using some very underhanded tactics. We can express them to face a lot of pressure from the TSA this time as well and to do what they can to undermine support for the bill and bully legislators into opposing it. They lack the strength of conviction to support the confrontation with the federal government over individual rights and state sovereignty which this bill is designed to oppose.

Legislators need your encouragement for the confidence to stay strong in the face of all this opposition. They need to know that the people are behind them.

The first step is to tell your Texas House member and key members of the State Affairs committee that you support the bill. Please use this form to send an email to the House before noon on Wednesday. The hearing on the bill is at 1pm. Change the wording of the letter to represent your personal concerns.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

In my 20 years as an activist for liberty, one of the many things I have learned is that events attract attention and good events will bring growth.

January 26 of this year, our county RLC charter hosted a state RLC 2014 KICK OFF event (2014 signifying our goal date for becoming the voice of the Party). 165+ liberty activists from 28 counties attended this event with 32 people registering as members that day.

Last month we had a gun show booth, not only drawing hundreds of people to our booth, but receiving an offer for a 10×20 booth at the state’s largest flea market. This event takes place both Memorial and Labor Day weekends and attracts 20-30,000 people during each of those holidays.

Our vice chairman started a Liberty on the Rocks group. This Saturday, March 23, we will be meeting from 4-6 with a theme of ‘Why Don’t We Get Droned’. We typically have 40+ people turn out for these events. They are non-partisan and we allow folks a two minute soap box opportunity. We will have a RLC candidate speak as well.

April 26-28, we will be hosting our first RLC state convention. We open Friday night with Liberty on the Rocks, tend to business Saturday, finishing the night with Jordan Page. Sunday morning will finish up with a dynamite sermon, “RECOVERING THE PATRIOT CHURCH: REPENT AND RELOAD”, and a talk by our own Blue Republican, Robin Koerner.

May 15-16, we will have KrisAnne Hall teaching on the Constitution. We start off the evening of the 15th with a session for leaders only. The 16th will include a lunch training, a session for those who are elected, especially sheriffs, and an evening session for the general public.

In June we will kick off our first quarterly Saturday training. This particular one will be geared toward PCO’s and other neighborhood activists.

We meet every month and ALL of our meetings are open to the public. After a quick board meeting, we always have a training, a video, or a guest speaker.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

For Release: July 30, 2012

Contact: Dave Nalle (chairman@rlc.org or 512-656-8011)

Dewhurst-Cruz Race is a Test of the Character of Texas Republicans and the Future Direction of the Party

AUSTIN, TX – Tomorrow Texas Republicans will vote on more than just two candidates in the Senate runoff.  We will be voting on the character of Texas politics.  Our choice between Dewhurst and Cruz has become a choice between the failed practices of the party establishment and the principled conservatism of the grassroots.

“This is a referendum on whether a candidate can buy an election by spending millions of dollars on negative advertising or whether the people will see through the lies and hype and pick the candidate running on ideas and principles.” said Republican Liberty Caucus National Chairman Dave Nalle of Austin.  “David Dewhurst has decided to test Goebbels’ theory that if your lies are big and blatant and backed by a lot of money, people can be bullied into submission. We say not in today’s Republican Party and not when those people are Texans!”

Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus from all over Texas have been campaigning for Ted Cruz, joining thousands of other grassroots activists who hope that their dedication and hard work can outweigh millions from the party elite and their special interest PAC allies.  The fight may be bigger in Texas, but this is the same fight which is going on nationwide as Liberty Republicans and the party grassroots work together to end the culture of perpetual incumbency and return the party to its fundamental principles of limited government and protecting personal liberty.

RLC of Texas board Director Jeffrey A. Larson reminds us of one of Dewhurst’s moments of failed leadership, pointing out that  “David Dewhurst used a parliamentary trick to first kill the TSA bill and then ‘pass’ a version that would automatically fail in the Texas House. He did that just so he could kowtow to Washington while at the same time telling Texans that he stood up to the TSA. That isn’t the kind of person we need representing us in Washington.”

DFW area RLC Coordinator Tracy Raymond Daniels observed “When you can’t run on your record, sometimes it’s easier to just sell the message that the other guy is unfit. That is what David Dewhurst has resorted to. It’s the final battle cry of a timid career politician who knows his time is up.”   San Antonio area Coordinator Hector X. Medina echoed him, saying “David Dewhurst is so desperate that he is spending unprecedented millions to promote transparently  false negative attacks that have become so outlandish they no longer even make much sense.  They’ve turned into desperate and meaningless ranting.”

Defeating David Dewhurst in this election is just the beginning.  It should send a message to party leaders in Texas and around the country that the “go along to get along” political opportunism which has dominated the party has got to end.  If the GOP has a future it has to be a future built on principle and and it will be a party where the leadership listens to the rank and file and speaks up for the values which all Republicans hold in common – reducing the power of government bureaucracies and unaccountable special interests and looking out for the interests of small businesses, entrepreneurs and the taxpayers.

As for Dirty David Dewhurst, now he has shown us his lack of character we hope that this election is the beginning of the end of his political career and we look forward to a strong challenge from within the party to end his reign and Lt. Governor in 2014.

***

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a grassroots membership organization with chapters in almost every state which promotes the traditional Republican Party valies of limited government and individual liberty.

For more information see our website at http://www.rlc.org


 

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

President Obama has stirred up a lot of controversy recently, after deciding to give “amnesty” to young illegal immigrants. So I’m going to give some food for thought. This issue has been one which pits the various factions within the Republican Party against each other. You have the liberty wing of the GOP–like myself–who want the market to be the primary force deciding immigration. You have the protectionist wing–old former Democrats who came to the party during the Reagan years but didn’t leave all of their big-government policies (and occasional bigotry) behind, and you have the establishment-types who are probably just trying to find the political winds and go with what’s popular. Also to consider, the large number of Hispanic Republicans at the convention, who are sick and tired of the games by those who seemingly want to choke Latin American immigration off completely.

At the Republican Party of Texas’ state convention in Ft. Worth a couple weeks ago, this ideological battle was clear and present. I was attending as an alternate for Brazos County and RLC Chair Dave Nalle was a delegate for Travis County. I won’t be going to Tampa but I’m proud to say that going to the convention allowed me to do two things I really wanted to do. Send some authentic small-government Republicans (including some Ron Paul supporters) to Tampa, and get some really dumb things removed from the state party platform during the drafting process. The end result was shocking to me at first but also gave me hope that the Republican Party is moving in the right direction. The liberty wing and the establishment united on one of the biggest hot-button issues: immigration.

During a minority report, delegates had the chance to voice opinions on the party platform before the final draft was taken to the floor–where delegates from all over the state would vote on it. Dave and I attended this session. It was small, as most of the people had left for dinner or their hotel rooms. It was around 8 PM. What I saw in the platform was an immigration plank that was very market friendly, attempting to make it easier for immigrants with the skills we need to get work visas. Work visas that may eventually lead to those immigrants becoming proud Americans. Well, the protectionists were having none of it, and they tried to get it struck down, using some of the most bogus arguments.

I testified in favor of it. Gave a brief bio of myself as the son of an immigrant and congratulated them on taking a market based approach. Immediately I was followed by some angry man who came off as a lunatic, claiming we’d become an overpopulated, poverty-stricken place like Mexico City. I wanted terribly to rebut him and put his “arguments” to shame, but we only got to speak once. Fortunately, a fellow Aggie was there to do a much better job than I did. His name was Jerry Patterson, and he will be running for Lt. Governor of Texas in 2014. Since I see no candidate emerging with better positions than him, he’s definitely getting my vote. The committee decided to keep the plank. Later, when the plank was being brought up before the at-large caucus, the protectionists lined up to testify against it, again calling the work visas “amnesty”. The establishment and the liberty wing loudly shouted “ay” as Chairman Munisteri issued a motion to move on to the next issue. The plank passed.

Now, had I been given the opportunity to speak again on the issue, and in more detail, I would have said something along the following lines. I would have made the case for a market-based immigration policy. I would have explained to the clearly uninformed voter that our current immigration system of quotas and a ridiculously unnecessary level of federal bureaucracy is a remnant of the so-called progressive era. Progressivism is the very thing we Constitutionalists are [supposedly] trying to combat within the Republican Party.

So here’s some food for thought on why the current system is unacceptable, and why the market can solve this issue better than a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington. I’ll follow it up with my plan for an immigration overhaul: a simple, fair, merit-based system that would save the taxpayer billions of dollars and grow this economy exponentially.

First, lets talk illegals. There’s this notion that all of the 12 million illegals in American were merely border-hopping people with no respect for our laws. This is far from the truth.

A lot of the “illegals” are only so because of useless bureaucracy that originated not with the founding fathers but with progressives like Woodrow Wilson–a notorious bigot. To understand how things were prior to the progressive era, think prior to the 20th century. And just before the turn of the century there was a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship that gives you a general idea about immigration policy before the federal government became the center of our lives it is today.

If you revisit the rationale behind the 1898 Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim Ark, you find a realistic solution to the “anchor baby” problem, and you also put a bunch of the ridiculous birther propaganda about Senator Marco Rubio in the trash heap of conspiracy nonsense where it belongs.

The case ruled that a child born on American soil to immigrant parents who were “engaged in the procurement of non-diplomatic business” (i.e. worked in the private sector) and had established a domicile (homestead law, which varies from state to state) was a natural born citizen. Back then it was pretty much “work hard and obey the laws and you can stay”.

This is the approach we need to take as Republicans. It destroys the liberal media’s ability to smear us as racists. It exposes the Democrats for the hypocrites they are on the issue. But most important of all, it would create something that President Obama hasn’t. Tens of millions of new jobs!

Due to the bureaucracy it takes too damn long to become a citizen. My father immigrated to this country from Lebanon in the mid 1970s. He did not become a citizen until 1999. Some of this delay was due to the fact he was always working but in today’s America 20 years is probably the average length it takes from immigration to citizenship. That, to me, is just plain stupid! The bureaucracy also makes it too hard to get a green card. Take the case of a German man named Gunter. He is a restaurant owner in New Braunfels, TX. I met him last year at a Students for Liberty regional conference. He still has to leave the restaurant and return to Germany every few years and reapply for a visa because they have made it too difficult for him to get a green card. This man is a small-business owner, who obviously wishes to do business in a freer country than his own, and is being given the runaround by a bunch of gubment employees who I’m willing to bet have never created a real job in their lifetimes.

Gunter is just one example of many. We have all these high skill international students in our colleges. They outperform their American peers in science and engineering programs subsidized with our tax dollars, and what do we do? We make naturalization so difficult that they go back to their home countries and use the skills we taught them against us in the global market? How is that intelligent? They should be playing for team America. We are a country where the best in the world left their homelands to escape poverty and tyranny, and to embrace the free-enterprise system that has created more wealth and human advancement in a couple centuries than any other in the entire history of the world before in.

So I propose a new immigration system for the United States. A capitalist system.

Step 1: We reopen Ellis Island and centers like it all across the country.

That way we can actually account for the people that come into the country for national security purposes. We must still be stringent on immigrants from countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or from Gaza/West Bank, to make sure they are legitimate people seeking freedom from theocrats and not theocrats themselves coming to this country to commit terrorism. And trust me, virtually everyone would choose going through one of those processing centers to using a coyote. At least every honest person would. So at the same time it makes it easier to figure out who the good guys are. These centers should be able to provide immigrants with some advice on where to live, work, and possibly offer English speaking courses for those who need it.

Step 2: Create a new system of regulating immigration status that is based in merit and behavior.

Everyone who comes into the United States gets a five-year trial period. They would get a work visa. At the end of this 5 years if they will be examined. If they work in the private sector, and do not commit any violent or financial crimes–and I emphasize this because nobody should be deported for something like a traffic violation–and demonstrate reasonable English speaking skills, they will be awarded permanent residency in the United States. If they are convicted of a serious violent or financial crime they should be immediately deported. If the English speaking does not meet the standard they will not receive a green card, but can reapply for a temporary work visa. No need to kick them out over that. This will probably not be an issue as most immigrants will be encouraged to learn the language because they want to stay in this great country.

As for welfare use. We need to crack down on sanctuary cities. Government welfare should be denied to anyone who is not a permanent US resident or US citizen. Personally I would like to see the federal welfare state abolished, but I’m a realist and understand that this is at least 20 years away from happening. Private charity, religious or secular, should not be a factor in whether or not one is granted permanent residency. If a church or private organization wants to help an individual, that is purely at their discretion. Its their money!

Step 3: Reform the naturalization process in a manner that expedites it.

After receiving their green card, they enter another five year trial period. If during this trial period they continue to meet the criteria set for them in the first, work hard and obey the law, then at the end of that 5 year period they will be moved to the front of the line and naturalized as citizens of the United States.

Step 4: What to do about the illegals already here? Well obviously it would be financially impossible to deport them all. So here’s where President Obama actually had a point for once. Focus on the criminals. As for the others, the proper solution is that they must take the new route established. They must go to the back of the line in the new processing centers, and begin the first five-year trial period. For those that were brought here as children by parents, they’re really victims of human trafficking if you think about it. Provided they have no criminal records and work hard I see no reason why they should be deported. But they should still go through the new system.

5 years to permanent residency and 10 years to citizenship, its not a bad deal. But nobody is just going to be handed it. That would be amnesty. And amnesty is not the solution.

Now, I’m gonna get some responses to this. So, I’m going to preempt some of the typical ones I get.

The left will call it ‘fascist’ for the English-language requirement. Anyone who is familiar with my views knows I’m as far from fascist as Kim Kardashian is from the Blessed Virgin Mary. English should have been made the official language a long time ago I don’t understand why it isn’t. Multikulti has failed miserably in Europe. I recommend reading Bruce Bawer’s books While Europe Slept and Surrender. I have no intention of chasing away foreign culture. I took two years of Spanish in high school and one year of Japanese in college and am currently teaching myself the latter and plan on doing the same with the former once I have the time. My father speaks Arabic and French. That’s what makes America great. Immigrants like my father bring the best of what the old country has to offer (usually in the form of cuisine or music), but unlike the lawless Islamic enclaves in European cities Bawer documents, they don’t bring the authoritarian ideologies with them, that’s why they left!

It makes it easier on immigrants when they are able to communicate with natural born citizens rather than having to search for people from their own country. The language barrier tends to break down over generations as their children learn English but it seems more efficient to me if it is expedited. There will always be Korea Towns and Little Italys. But segregation was repealed and tossed into the ash heap of history half a century ago, yet America today still has a defacto segregation. We don’t need to be living in white neighborhoods or black neighborhoods or Hispanic neighborhoods we need to be living in American neighborhoods.

Encouraging English speaking skills (notice I didn’t even say reading/writing, as most Americans struggle with grammar) as a manner to expedite the path to ones citizenship merely tests their mettle as to how badly they want to be a part of America as a whole and not just as a “minority”. It opens more doors to them in terms of career advancement, which of course leads to more money. And its not going to be an arduous task, as many of them will likely be learning it already as ESL students or employees working alongside Americans if they didn’t know some coming in.

Then of course the protectionists claim things like “overpopulation” and “they’re gonna take the jobs Americans need”. No, they won’t. In fact, we actually have people leaving the US because there aren’t jobs for them. There is NOT an overpopulation problem in the country. For those of you who think there is I have merely one thing to say to you: Have you ever been to Nebraska?

Okay, maybe I have more than one thing to say. There is no overpopulation problem, only a population density problem. In fact, if the entire population of the world, which is approaching 7 billion people was spread out into one area with the population density of New York City it would fill an area about the size of Texas. If it was as dense as Houston, it wouldn’t even fill the continental United States.

Overpopulation only becomes a problem with the presence of a welfare state. And it is the welfare state that needs to be reigned in. By requiring immigrants to work (or use private charity) and cutting them off from welfare programs, they are not a drag on the taxpayer; they become taxpayers. The welfare behemoth is going to take years to reign in and if we don’t start now we will suffer a Greece-like debt crisis before decade’s end. But as it relates to immigrants its not nearly as difficult an issue as it is relating to citizens.

Hard working people sustain themselves and should not be barred from becoming citizens provided they obey the laws. They should be welcomed with open arms. They will create jobs, create tax revenue, grow the economy and shrink the budget deficit. Its the criminals and the moochers that are the problem and they should be sent home. We have too many Americans that fall into those categories.

If these immigrants “take your job” its because you didn’t work hard enough to defeat them. Sorry bro, but that’s how capitalism works, the best win.

So lets recap.

5 years to a green card, 10 years to citizenship. And all I’m asking is that they work hard and stay out of trouble? This is the immigration policy that will allow the GOP to seize control of the issue from the Democrats permanently. It gives us two things: the reduction of federal bureaucracy conservatives want, and the opportunity to join the free-enterprise system that immigrants want.

Hey Mitt, think about it!

———————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi obtained a B.S. in Economics from Texas A&M University in 2012. He is a national board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

May 29, 2012 (Arlington, VA) – The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia announced its endorsement of three Republican candidates for U.S. House of Representatives this past weekend at its annual state convention. They are Floyd Bayne, running in the 7th Congressional District, Ken Vaughn, running in the 11th Congressional District, and Karen Kwiatkowski, running in the 6thCongressional District.

All three candidates patiently pursued the RLC-VA’s endorsement patiently and persistently, demonstrating ample commitment to limited government, liberty and federalism.

Floyd Bayne is a teacher from Chesterfield County, holding a B.A. in history from Mary Baldwin College. He is running because he has “become increasingly frustrated with the lack of common sense and adherence to our Constitution in Washington, D.C. I kept waiting and waiting for a candidate to come along whom I could trust and who shared my concerns for our country. I continued to be frustrated, so I chose to act. I was not pleased with the continued actions of my own representative, which grew the federal leviathan and spent money recklessly. So, I am hoping to prove that one can serve as a citizen-legislator and not seek to become a career-politician.”, per his
website

View Floyd Bayne’s speech to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia state convention

Ken Vaughn is a traffic engineer from Herndon, Virginia, holding a B.S. in civil engineering from Tulane University, and a Master’s in civil engineering from Texas A&M. He is running because “After obtaining my master’s degree, I settled in the metro DC area to work in the private sector, raise a family, and eventually start my own business in northern Virginia. As a career engineer, I am, by definition, interested in how things work. I feel compelled to try to fix things that do not work. Washington is broken, and I would like to help fix it. I’m running for Congress because we have too many career politicians and too few public servants. Unlike such career politicians, I will serve for a limited time, will support, protect, and defend the Constitution, will use my private sector experience to fix the mess we are in, and will return home to live under the laws that Congress passes.”, per his
website

View Ken Vaughn’s speech to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia state convention

Karen Kwiatkowski is a farmer and rancher from Mount Jackson, holding several degrees, including an M.A. from Harvard in government, an M.S. in science management from the University of Alaska, and a Ph.D. in world politics from Catholic University of America. She’s running to “reduce, redirect and rein-in the federal government.”, per her
website

View Karen Kwiatkowski’s speech to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia state convention

RLC-Virginia Chairman Robert Kenyon said “We’re very glad to have several candidates in Virginia this year who are solid liberty Republicans. For too long, we’ve been stuck with the same old establishment politicians. This year we have a chance to build on what we accomplished in 2010 by electing even more liberty Republicans. The State Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia is proud to join the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus in supporting these three warriors for liberty.”

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

The boisterous Maine Republican Convention finally adjourned late Sunday night with a clean sweep for Liberty Republicans.

The Ron Paul slate won 20 of the 24 national convention delegates and all of the alternates, plus new pro-liberty RNC representatives who also sit as delegates to the national convention, leaving sitting Maine GOP Chairman Webster as the only sure Romney delegate and Maine Governor Paul LePage as an additional delegate who may vote with the liberty faction. Of course, The Establishment raised enough procedural issues to create potential roadblocks and is threatening to challenge the entire delegation.

At one point, the Executive Committee of the current Maine State Committee was seen in a break room around a table on a conference call trying to get the RNC to declare the Maine convention invalid. On Saturday, as the trend was evident, Romney’s top lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg was flown into Augusta Municipal Airport by private plane to advise The Establishment on the convention floor. The Portland Press Herald caught a photo of him in action trying to influence proceedings at the convention.

Youth was brought into the party with the election of young Paul supporters as National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. The National Committeewoman-elect Ashley Ryan will become the youngest member of the RNC and she has expressed interest in Republican Liberty Caucus.

Liberty Republicans, including at least eight RLC members, swept State Committee seats and, unless challenged by The Establishment lawyers, look to have a majority or better for control. The State Chair Charles Webster, who declared war on libertarians, is up for election in December.

Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage has been friendly to libertarians and was supported as a delegate on the liberty slate. He was endorsed by Maine Republican Liberty Caucus in the seven-way primary before his election.

The old guard Establishment remains the Legislative leadership, many of whom led the procedural challenges which caused the convention to run late. Several expressed open hostility to the Paul movement, libertarians and two to the RLC specifically. State Rep. Aaron Libby, who is friendly to RLC, did endorse Paul last February but is the only GOP legislator to be public.

The Maine RLC booth was extremely successful in terms of both new memberships and revenues from sales of my book and the wing-nut teeshirts, which were worn all over the convention floor by the young Paul enthusiaists.

The only drawback was an incomplete Maine RLC State Convention. We were able to convene with a quorum long enough to elect officers. Ken Lindell was reelected Chair, Vic Berardelli was re-elected vice chair, Tim McClure is secretary, Jeffrey Ellis is treasurer. Board members are David Brooks, Ken Anderson and Michelle Anderson. We were about to get into endorsement review when our “courier” said they cut short candidate speeches and were about to conduct voting business on the main convention floor. With the Romney challenges and the late hour, we were unable to muster a quorum to reconvene and will have to conclude our RLC business at a later date.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 4, 2012
CONTACT: Chairman Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses 3 More Great
Congressional Candidates in Texas GOP Primary

These Candidates Are Dedicated to Returning the Republican Party to the Principles of Limited Government and Individual Liberty

AUSTIN, TX  – The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus is pleased to endorse three more exceptional candidates in the Texas Republican primary.  Eddie Traylor (CD10), Grant Stinchfield (CD24) and Steve Stockman (CD36) stand out among a field of excellent candidates in Texas this year and were chosen for early endorsement because of their dedication to constitutionally limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise.  They are more great assets to add to a growing slate of extraordinary Liberty Republican candidates in Texas this year.

“Voters in Texas are starting to realize that our nation cannot survive when both parties allow government to grow out of control at the cost of our liberties,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “These candidates represent the new direction of American politics and the best traditions of the Republican Party.  They have personal integrity, a dedication to the best interests of the people and a firm belief in responsible government.  They are exactly the kind of representatives we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Justin Amash (MI) and Rand Paul (KY) to put our government back on track”

Eddie Traylor has an distinguished military background and was selected by the grassroots process developed here in Texas by GOOOH.  Grant Stinchfield has a background in media and business and has a burning desire to bring a platform of real reform to Congress.  Former Congressman Steve Stockman is finally heeding the call to return to politics.  He has been on the RLC board of advisers for many years and now we have great hopes that he’ll return to DC to finish the work which was left undone when he held office back in the 1990s.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today.

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can move away from the big government status quo and towards putting the rights and interests of the people first.

The people of Texas are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of out of control government in Washington, DC. We are demanding better service and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting complacent and unresponsive office holders out until they get the message

###

These candidates were selected based on their answers to questions on our candidate survey and at the recommendation of the Texas chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Further endorsements in state and federal races in Texas are expected in the coming months.

More information on the Eddie Traylor campaign can be found at http://www.traylor.goooh.com
More information on the Grant Stinchfield campaign can be found at http://www.grantstinchfield.com/

More information on the Steve Stockman campaign can be found at http://www.friendsofstevestockman.com

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 15, 2012
CONTACT: National Chairman Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org
or Nebraska State RLC Chair Laura Ebke at 402-540-6510 or lauraebke@rlcne.org

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Patrick Flynn in U.S. Senate Race

Pat Flynn Can Play a Big Role in Restoring Popular and Constitutional Government for the People of Nebraska 

AUSTIN, TX/CRETE, NE – The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus, along with the State Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nebraska, is pleased to announce the endorsement of Pat Flynn in the Republican primary for Nebraska’s U.S. Senate race. Flynn is an outstanding candidate who represents the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated. “Voters in Nebraska are starting to realize that our nation cannot survive when both parties promote more government at the cost of our liberties,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. “Pat Flynn represents the new direction of American politics, with personal integrity, a dedication to the best interests of the people and a firm belief in constitutionally limited government. He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to put our government back on track.”

“Although all four of the major Republican candidates for the Senate claim to be solidly conservative, and that they will be true to the principles of our Constitution, Pat Flynn’s lack of political experience was appealing for our membership. The fact that he has never served in political office before makes us believe that, if elected, he will go to Washington with the can-do attitude of the successful business man he is, rather than playing political games,” said RLC Nebraska Chair, Laura Ebke. “We seem to get largely the same results every time we elect someone who has a long history of serving in political office, so maybe it’s time to start electing people who haven’t been tainted by the experience of having been elected. It’s not that the other candidates are bad—it’s merely that they’ve all been elected and re-elected to state level offices, and have served for at least 8 years—something which makes them inherently a part of the political culture which continues to spend our country into ever more debt,” added Ebke.

The Republican Liberty caucus endorsed over 2 dozen members of the U.S. House and Senate who were elected in 2010. Most notable, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, represent the non-career politician type of candidate that the RLC believes is important at this point in our history. “Pat Flynn would be a valuable addition to the Senate, and could be depended upon to remain faithful to the Constitution. Anyone who is willing to sell his business—as Pat has—in order to run for the Senate certainly must have the fortitude to stand strong on principle, and resist the temptations of the interest groups who try to have every senator’s ear,” said Ebke.

###

More information on the Pat Flynn campaign can be found at http://patflynnforsenate.org.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

Every two years the Texas Republican Party has a chance to redefine itself when delegates vote on a new version of its platform at its state convention. The system by which the contents of the platform comes together is a messy organic one which ought to represent a political snapshot of the party, but in recent years it has been hijacked by vocal special interests, producing a platform which is an embarrassment to the party and its members.

The platform originates at the grassroots of the party where delegates in every county submit resolutions which go through a committee at their local senatorial district convention which assembles a draft slate of resolutions which are then voted on by the convention and passed on, along with the 49 similar bundles of resolutions, to another committee at the state level. This committee takes all those resolutions and boils them down to make a party platform which is voted on by the delegates at the state convention who usually don’t even have the time to read them.

This sounds like a great example of bottom-up grassroots politics, but there are a few problems with this sausage-factory process.

In fact, those “grassroots” resolutions mostly don’t really originate with common concerned citizens. Most of them are written by special interest groups which send them out in mass emailings to their constituents who then obediently submit them all over the state. So what they represent is not so much the interests of common Texans, but rather the interests of the most organized and motivated pressure groups with their volume cranked up to 11 by the internet. Quite often the groups which are most vocal are also the ones which are the most radical and farthest from the mainstream, while average party members are not as motivated or as organized in opposition.

Theoretically the committees on the district and state level are supposed to filter and edit the resolutions into something representative of the party, but they operate on the principle of not making any decisions which would offend anyone who can shout loudly enough to get attention. They are literally buried under paper and there is no one in a position to set limits or take a firm hand or just sit down and write a clear and coherent platform which represents the broad beliefs of the party. Instead they get frustrated and intimidated and just include the proposals of the most strident groups, producing a platform which is an amalgamation of the pet peeves of a bunch of fringe special interests.

This hasn’t always been the case. Through the 1970s many fewer resolutions were submitted and there was much less scrutiny of the process. The state-level committee was largely free to write a platform which it felt represented the best principles of the party based on their collective experience and good judgement. It was a less inclusive process, but it was more republican and more representative and produced a better result. Today’s platform is over 30 pages long with over 250 planks, but those old platforms were only a few pages long with 10 or 12 strong, general planks which everyone in the party could agree on.

It’s almost impossible to create a truly representative platform by including hundreds of specific positions. Only an approach based around general, shared principles can be truly representative. Mainstream party members are fed up with having the party represented by the ideas of its most extreme factions. It’s hard for candidates to run on a platform which includes many ideas which they don’t agree with and don’t want to be associated with, and it’s humiliating to be connected with a platform which is the target of jokes by late night comedians, attacks from partisan pundits and outraged editorials in the national and even international press.

A lot of the criticism focuses on the most obviously offensive things which consistently make their way into the platform, like the call to reinstitute the sodomy law which was struck down by the Supreme Court or the demand that creationism be taught in public schools. But there’s something in there to offend everyone, from banning suggestive TV ads for products like viagra, to taking away the parental rights of gay parents, to the most radical positions opposing immigration and free trade, to endorsements for various “New World Order” type conspiracy theories.

There has been an increase in organized opposition to the unappealing character of the platform. The Republican Liberty Caucus has put forward a slate of sensible resolutions on key issues which they hope will get enough support from the growing libertarian wing of the party to get included in place of some of the more offensive positions. Some grassroots Republicans are trying to introduce negative resolutions opposing some of the perennial rotten planks. Other groups are trying to convince the committees to scrap all the resolutions and just produce a short and simple platform based on core principles. The final option is to do what some other states have done when faced with this problem and introduce an alternative platform from the floor of the state convention, timing the move so that most of the delegates aren’t paying attention when it comes up for a vote.

The push for platform reform has never been stronger, but it will take a lot of effort and a lot of organization to overcome the stridency of fanatical single-issue activists. Texas Republicans deserve a platform which they can be proud of and which every Republican can stand by and support. The creation of a better platform is a real test of the maturity of the party. Can diversity be turned into strength, expressed as a platform of basic shared principles, or will the platform again represent the clamoring voices of extremism and factionalism which are tearing the party apart?

This article appeared in somewhat different form on Blogcritics.org

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.

Next Page »