After much wrangling over two different versions of the bill and various amendments to the language in committee, it looks like a reasonably effective version of the TSA anti-groping bill is poised to pass the Texas legislature and move on for the Governor’s signature on Wednesday. The most significant change is a downgrading of the level of proof required for a legitimate search from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” but the basic objective of the bill – to hold TSA employees accountable for their actions – remains intact.

At this point it would still be helpful to make more calls and send more emails to Texas House members. Their have the final say on the bill in a concluding floor vote sometime Wednesday. You can use this handy tool to send an email, or call your representative directly by looking them up on the House website. If you don’t live in Texas just pick one and call to let them know they’re doing this for all of us.

Our friends at StopAustinScanners.org offer a full report on the steps the bill has gone through and its current status:

This evening, Texas Senate Bill 29 (SB 29), which proposes state prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the intrusive touching–(a euphemism for TSA groping)–of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation and defines criminal penalties for such offenses, was moved out of the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee without amendment by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 not present, with no abstentions.  This puts SB 29 on track for final passage on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday, June 29th.

Both SB 29 and House Bill 41 (HB 41) were passed in their respective chambers yesterday, although HB 41 was subject to multiple amendments that alarmed true proponents of the legislation.  Upon passage in the House, Robert Kepple, Executive Director, of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, recommended abandoning HB 41 for the judicial problems the amendments introduced.

The principal concerns introduced by the amendments to HB 41 were:

1) lowering the standard by which a pat-down might be permitted from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion”,

2) providing a defense if the “actor” (TSA agent) was performing the search pursuant to an explicit grant of federal statutory authority, which is the case for all TSA agents and renders the legislation effectively meaningless,

and,

3) effectively giving the U.S. Supreme Court ultimate authority in defining the propriety of a search.

Mr. Kepple had testified earlier in the day before the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee in favor of amending a substituted version of SB 29 to eliminate vagueness and firmly structure the legislation as a matter of Texas state law, and make it enforceable to the maximum extent that is “consistent with federal constitutional requirements”.  This was proposed to correct bad language that was snuck into a version of SB 29 substituted in committee by Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa.

The amendments suggested by Mr. Kepple were later adopted in the Senate version, and are believed to legally restrict TSA agents from offensive touching in the same manner that FBI agents and federal Marshalls are now restricted.  It is believed this modification will provide the public a greater measure of protection, and the State of Texas greater standing in future judicial proceedings.

The language that provided the TSA wider lattitude when defending itself from criminal penalties when performing unlawful searches by lowering the standard from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” is included in SB 29.  Another perceived shortcoming introduced into the bill by amendment allowed grounds for a TSA search to be an “unknown, prohibited or unlawful object”.

While the bill’s proponents strongly objected to this language, wanting the phrase “unknown object” to be stricken, there was general consensus that it would better serve the public good to have slightly flawed statutory law that could be amended as the flaws became more widely known than to have no law at all.

We think the public can now reasonably expect the TSA to use the “unknown object” defense in its vigorous quest to discover all those diaper bombs carried by infants and cancer victims in their last days of life.

The passage of SB 29 in the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee effectively sidelines HB 41, its companion bill, from further consideration, which StopAustinScanners considers to be a major victory.

If you’re a real political action junkie you can watch the final vote live online tomorrow at the Texas House website.

New Hampshire Democrat Governor John Lynch announced that he will let a $10.2 billion, Republican-crafted budget for the state become law without his signature.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire sent out a press release congratulating House Speaker William O’Brien and House Republicans for passing a responsible budget that completely reverses the course of previous legislatures and historically cuts spending in New Hampshire by 11.7 percent, setting state government on a new course to fiscal sanity.

The RLC endorsed over 80 of the current elected House members. That coalition, no doubt, has given the Republican House the backbone needed to tackle the budget, Right to Work, and a favorable business climate.

“There is no doubt that this budget is historically positive for the people of New Hampshire,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “Speaker O’Brien and the House members we elected in November [did] exactly what they promised voters they would do by cutting taxes and spending without any budget gimmickry.”

The balanced $10.2 billion New Hampshire budget for Fiscal Years 2012-2013 relied heavily on House leadership’s position that budget writers could not exceed revenue projections. The Senate was only able to shift revenue projections by 0.4 percent from the House projections in January. At the same time, House leadership was also able to convince Senators not to raise new taxes, fees or add additional downshifting to the counties, cities or towns of the state. In fact, the House was even able to secure additional tax cuts to increase business traffic from out-of-state shoppers.

In general and education trust fund spending, the House was able to secure a $4.42 billion budget, a 12.8 percent decline from the previous cycle. The budget cut is the largest in modern history—maybe longer.

“As an organization that understands the principles that lead to the most prosperity for the most people involve less government spending, lower taxes and fewer bureaucrats enforcing senseless regulations, we are looking at this budget as the first gleam of light from a new dawn of common sense governing,” Hemingway said. “I expect the voters of New Hampshire to respond quite favorably to the principled stand taken by House Republicans, and against the scare tactics and deception of those who would prefer politics as usual.”

Not only did this budget historically reduce appropriations by about $1 billion in all funds and $467 million in general funds, it also eliminated 1,500 unneeded government positions (most of them unfilled, anyway), and it reduced some of the more onerous taxes and fees instituted by the Democrats when they were in power, such as the surcharge on auto registrations. The budget also included comprehensive reforms to the State Retirement system—the first step toward eliminating an unrealistic system that taxpayers can no longer afford.

At the same time, the House compromise budget fully funds education by sending $4 million more than the governor’s budget and 9.5 percent more than the current budget to the local cities and towns. As recognition that restorative change takes time, the budget also funds Health and Human Services programs for the developmentally disabled, children in need of services, children with special needs, domestic violence programs and adoption subsidies, while also prohibiting the use of taxpayers’ money for abortions.

The lead-up to the 2008 presidential election included debates sponsored by YouTube and Facebook — and now it appears 2012 will have at least one debate conducted via Twitter.

A GOP debate that organizers are calling the “First Presidential Townhall on Twitter” has been slated for July 20.

The virtual event—organized by the Andrew Hemingway of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and sponsored by TheTeaParty.net—is scheduled to take place between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET.

So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Georgia businessman Herman Cain have been announced as participants. But organizers say others are slated to announce their involvement later.

Learn more about the event here.

For Immediate Release: June 28, 2011

Contact: Dave Nalle, 512-656-8011

The Republican Party has been handed many opportunities by the need to redraw congressional districts on the basis of the 2010 census. Some strong Republican states like Texas have grown substantially, offering the opportunity for several new seats for Republicans in Congress. Other states lost population, leaving Republican lawmakers with difficult decisions and scrambling to hold onto gains made in the 2008 election.

This situation has the potential to reverse some of the gains made by grassroots candidates supported by groups like the tea parties and the Republican Liberty Caucus who brought many new Republicans into the House of Representatives last fall, some of them in states which are losing seats in redistricting and are controlled by very small Republican majorities in their state legislatures.

Early indications are that in states where Republicans face redistricting losses the priorities of the establishment lawmakers in those states and the interests of the people of the states who brought the party gains in the last election are drastically out of sync and as they redistrict, party leaders seem poised to do a lot of harm to their relationship with the grassroots activists who are becoming increasingly necessary if they want to keep winning elections.

Early indications are that the inclination of state party leaders is to solve tough redistricting challenges by sacrificing newly elected candidates favored by the grassroots in order to strengthen the positions of establishment incumbents who are not nearly as popular with grassroots voters. The superficial benefits of this strategy for the party elite may quickly be outweighed by the backlash from activists who are not pleased with the way the Republican Party is run and just need a little nudge like this to start challenging large numbers of Republican incumbents in party primaries.

The first stand-out example of this problem appears to be over redistricting in Michigan and the fate of its recently elected third district representative, Justin Amash. Amash won a strong victory in a mixed district. Since his election he has been one of the most followed freshman congressmen and one of the most politically consistent in his adherence to the fiscal conservatism and constitutional principles which characterized the anti-establishment uprising on the right in 2010. Amash has not exactly been a clone of Ron Paul, but he exhibits the same adherence to principle over party and this makes the party leadership kind of nervous.

In his short term in office Amash has won even more support from his constituents by making himself unusually accessible, sponsoring innovative legislation including a new constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and even posting explanations of every vote he makes to his Facebook page. Amash has been singled out as one of the best new congressmen by conservative groups and even received praise from the libertarian press. He’s also angered Democrats in his district who have launched several recall petitions against him, another sign he is doing what his radical supporters want. He is in many ways the model of the kind of new political leader which the reawakened base of the political right wants to see in Washington.

Yet Amash’s popularity and success are apparently of little interest to party leaders in Michigan. When the state’s House Redistricting Committee met this week the redistricting map which they were given for approval by the state Senate would make it very difficult for Amash to win reelection while protecting and strengthening the districts of other more establishment-friendly legislators like Thaddeus McCotter, Bill Huizinga, Fred Upton and Dave Camp. It even helps solidify the districts of some Democrat incumbents like John Dingell.

The specific threat to Amash is that parts of his district had to be removed to strengthen the districts of more favored Republicans, replaced by areas which are more evenly balanced between the parties. This includes giving several towns and suburbs where he won very strong majorities in 2010 to the neighboring 2nd District held by Bill Huizinga and replacing them with parts of Calhoun county which have traditionally voted Democrat. They also moved the home of popular Democrat former representative Mark Schauer into Amash’s district, giving the Democrats a ready made challenger for the young radical.

The reasoning behind this may be that the libertarian-leaning Amash has the ability to win more independent and crossover votes than an establishment Republican, but it also means that Amash faces a much closer election, has to spend more time fundraising and campaigning, and will therefore be less effective in Congress this year if he wants to remain there after next November. Party leaders are not engineering a guaranteed loss for Amash, but they are dumping as many of their problems as they can in his district while smoothing the way for their cronies, leaving Amash to deal with their mess.

Any redistricting effort is always a series of trade-offs, and with Michigan losing one of their congressional seats the division of the remaining voter base to keep Republicans in power has to be tricky. One Democrat will clearly be out of office, but the other outcome is that the mix of Republicans may be different and Amash could very well no longer be part of the Michigan delegation. I doubt that they actively want Amash to lose, but they are putting most of the pressure and most of the risk of the election on Amash, almost offering him as a sacrificial lamb to the Democrats so that if the Democrats have a surge in 2012 and Republicans have to lose one district it will be Amash who gets voted out, not someone less principled and better connected.

Of course, if I had to pick one Republican to win against these odds with little support from his state party establishment, it would be Justin Amash. His appeal transcends the limits of the Republican Party and goes directly to disaffected and independent voters who understand that a representative with his firm principles and dedication to serving the public is worth a lot more than the R or D after their name.

No matter the outcome, this little example of how party insiders use redistricting to protect their own at the expense of those whose main allies are the grassroots voters, is a warning which every candidate and political activist ought to keep in mind when deciding where to put their support in 2012. Amash and others like him still need and deserve our support while party leaders continue to earn our disregard and disapproval by their self-serving actions. Justin Amash serves his constituents and the interests of the American people. Those who are working against him within his own party are only serving their own interests.

This article appeared previously in Blogcritics Magazine.

There are a host of upcoming Republican Liberty Caucus events that we want you to be a part of!

………………JUNE
______________________

• San Jose Area RLC Monthly Meeting
June 20, San Jose
RSVP/learn more.

• Utah RLC Convention
June 21, Draper
RSVP/learn more.

• Los Angeles RLC Chartering Meeting
June 22, Los Angeles
RSVP/learn more.

• Virginia RLC at TV Filming Tutorial
June 22, Fairfax
RSVP/learn more.

• Minnesota RLC Meeting
June 22, S. Saint Paul
RSVP/learn more.

………………JULY
______________________

• Arizona RLC Meeting
July 9, Tucson
Contact us for details.

• Los Angeles RLC Meeting
July 13, Los Angeles
RSVP/learn more .

• Central Texas RLC Meeting
July 15, Austin
RSVP/learn more.

• Lake County (Indiana) RLC Meeting
July 16, Schererville
RSVP/learn more

• Arizona RLC Social
July 19, Tucson
RSVP/learn more.

………………AUGUST
______________________

• Heartland Liberty Conference
(Sponsored by the Nebraska RLC)
August 6, Omaha
RSVP/learn more.

• Central Texas RLC Meeting
August 12, Austin
RSVP/learn more.

• Gary Johnson at the National Press Club
Topic: Social Issues and the Republican Party
August 19, Washington, DC
RSVP/learn more.

• Calvin Coolidge Clambake with Gov. Gary Johnson
(Sponsored by the Maine RLC)
August 26, Portland
RSVP/learn more

Republican Party of Bloomfield Hosts Rep. Justin Amash
(Sponsored by the Michigan RLC)
August 29, Metro Detroit
RSVP/learn more.

As a result of aggressive efforts by grassroots groups in Texas, Governor Rick Perry has offered to put Rep. David Simpson’s TSA anti-groping bill on the agenda for the upcoming legislative special session which starts this coming week if certain conditions are met. Although threats from the Justice Department and the TSA temporarily stymied bill sponsors in the state Senate after it passed the House with an overwhelming majority, they are now ready to put it through both houses in the special session where rules require only a simple majority of both houses for passage. Governor Perry has promised to put the bill on the agenda if there is a guaranteed majority supporting it in both houses and to sign the bill if it passes. A good summary of the situation can be found in the Washington Times.

Simpson’s HB 1937 (now SB29 and HB41) would make it a felony for TSA agents operating in Texas to engage in certain forms of intimate touching during the course of an “enhanced pat down” of an airlin

You are cordially invited to join us at our next event. The details follow. An RSVP is appreciated and may be made by email or via our Facebook event. Also, you are welcome to share this invitation with others and we’re grateful for any help to promote it.

I hope you can join us.

On behalf of the Board,
Norann Dillon
Chair, RLCMN
___________________

Wednesday, June 22 · 6:30pm – 9:00pm
Lorraine Park
756 3rd Ave South
South Saint Paul, Minnesota

Join us at the picnic shelter for food, fellowship and a lively conversation on the National Popular Vote initiative. Former Rep. Laura Brod and Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen (25A) will be our guest speakers.

RLCMN will provide pork chops, soft drinks and dessert. Guests are invited to bring a side dish to share.

$5 members and Legislators
$10 non-members and guests, children free
(family limit of $20)

Facebook link

Please note: There will be a softball tournament on the same evening as this event. Parking may be tight.

When I and many other self-described liberty Republicans heard that there would be two candidates bearing the liberty standard in 2012 we didn’t know what to think. Would there be a civil war to divide the liberty movement which even still is only in its infancy, or would two candidates bring the liberty message legitimacy?

Early indications were not good. Powerful advocates of Ron Paul, most notably Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, started running hit pieces on Gary Johnson as soon as he announced his candidacy. Authors at The American Spectator and The American Conservative wrote slightly less vicious pieces along the same lines. On the other side institutional libertarians at such places as Reason, the CATO Institute and the Republican Liberty Caucus appeared to be rallying around Johnson, blowing off Paul as either less libertarian or as less electable. (Editor’s Note: The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidate.) The battle lines were drawn: The R3volution vs the “libertarian power elite” (as the late Murray Rothbard called them).

For all of the antagonism, there was little animosity between the actual candidates themselves. As Ron Paul was mulling over an entrance into the race he was asked whether he would endorse Johnson if he decided not to run. His answer was simple: “I can’t imagine endorsing anyone else.” Likewise, when Gary Johnson is asked why someone should vote for him over Ron Paul, as he was on Stossel’s program recently, his canned answer was “I would never make that case.”

Luckily for our cause of liberty, a de facto truce seems to have developed between the two camps. This is a fortunate development indeed, considering the degree to which the liberty movement has succumbed to infighting and self-destruction in the past. Ron Paul enthusiasts can identify with being locked out of a debate, as Gary Johnson was in New Hampshire. And Gary Johnson followers, who were mostly Ron Paul followers less than three years ago, have given up converting any who still identify more with Paul’s brand of libertarianism. Presumably they have come to realize that his candidacy is only useful to the degree to which he attracts new voters to the cause, and dividing the fledgling movement serves no constructive purpose.

And as the race has developed and the message and rhetoric from each candidate has further evolved, it seems that the two standard bearers for liberty have tailored their message to vastly different constituencies. Beginning in March, at The Family Leader Presidential Lecture Series, Ron Paul began targeting his stump speech towards religious groups and family values voters. He makes a fantastic case for liberty based on the experience of the Israelites in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 (which he aptly points out is closely related to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). The 75 year old has also lead a personal life that is very much in line with the values of social conservatives. He has only had one wife, he has five children, many grandchildren, and even a few great-grandchildren. It‘s clear to anyone who hears him speak that his faith plays a significant role in his life.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson has not lead such a Christian conservative life. Divorced, he has two children and, while raised Lutheran, does not attend church (although he believes in God and will even “admit to praying once and a while”). To the Christian conservative base to which Ron Paul has tailored his message, this would be a huge negative. But not to the pragmatic liberals who are itching for a candidate who understands economics but are wary of the caricature Bible-thumping snake oil salesmen which have sadly become associated with “Republican.” Being a two term governor of a blue state in which he remains popular, Johnson also brings credibility to the notion that a liberty oriented candidate could actually govern if elected. As an entrepreneur who grew a one man handy-man business into one of the largest construction firms in his home state, he also has credibility with small-business types. In addition, Governor Johnson has been able to take arguably even more liberty oriented stances than Paul on such issues as abortion and immigration, stances that Paul simply could not take if he wished to maintain his appeal with Christian conservative voters even if he did agree with them himself (and there is no indication that he does).

The contrast between the two liberty candidates extends into core philosophy. Ron Paul is what a “rights-based” libertarian who advocates for liberty on the basis of the morality of personal property rights. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a “consequentialist” libertarian who would claim that everything government does should be looked at from a cost-benefit analysis. The fact that these two different perspectives arrive at the same policy conclusions should not be surprising: a geometric proof and an algebraic proof of a mathematical theorem should arrive at the same conclusion. Otherwise there is something wrong with that theorem.

Practical implications of this slight difference are significant even on issues which the two candidates largely agree. Ron Paul, for instance, would never admit to supporting “gay rights” because even though his policy would be very friendly toward gays, as a rights-based libertarian he does not believe that any group has specific rights and he is loathe to spin his rhetoric in a way that implies this is the case. This could confuse some voters who do not understand rights-based libertarianism. As a consequentialist libertarian, however, Gary Johnson is proud to say that he supports gay rights and voters who support gay rights but may not understand the issue deeply enough to take a second look at Ron Paul could be drawn towards Johnson’s campaign. Likewise, Paul’s message retains more credibility with social conservatives if he refrains from talking about “gay rights” as such.

In a similar fashion, when it comes to foreign policy Gary Johnson will not admit to being a non-interventionist. He even appears to be insulted by pundits who identify him as such. In order to stay philosophically consistent, as a consequentialist libertarian he has to view each potential conflict from a cost-benefit standpoint. Johnson will not even rule out intervening in conflicts for humanitarian purposes if he thought such an intervention would yield greater benefits than costs. That being said, he has decided virtually every conflict we are currently involved in fails the cost-benefit analysis test. He believes that much of our military spending, many of our strategic alliances, and scores of overseas military bases fail the test as well. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a strict non-interventionist. As a rights-based libertarian, he sees intervention in the affairs of other nations as inherently illegitimate. This distinction between the two candidates may lead hardcore anti-war voters to be naturally drawn to Paul while Gary Johnson is more open to receive the support of voters who are receptive to more moderate rhetoric when it comes to national security issues.

Rhetorical and philosophical differences between the two liberty candidates naturally lead to slightly different geographic constituencies as well. Whether or not the candidates have understood this and communicated it to each other, they seem to recognize it. Ron Paul has made a strong effort in Iowa, where religious conservatives who will understand his references to the Old Testament and the founding documents are likely to grasp his ideas and hopefully identify with them. Being a caucus state, Iowa is also a naturally favorable state for a politician with such fanatical followers as Paul. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has pinned all of his hopes on a strong finish in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state where thousands of liberty loving activists have moved as part of the Free State Project. With a broader, simpler message of the “religion of the pocketbook”, Johnson hopes to make a big impact on a state which is known more for its appreciation of distilled liberty than its appreciation of religion.

Looking onward to the next two primary states, it is my opinion that the same strategy of “divide and conquer” should be employed in a similar way. Nevada, much like New Hampshire, is a state which is famously liberty oriented and not known for its conviction to religion. In stark contrast, South Carolina is a famously religious state and member in good standing of the so-called “Bible Belt.” By defining themselves slightly differently, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should be able to appeal to these two states in a way that a single liberty candidate would be unable to do. It should also be noted that, as a Congressman from a southern state, Ron Paul may be able to make a close connection with voters in another southern state. Likewise, as the former governor of a western state, Gary Johnson may be able to make a connection with voters in another western state.

This is not to say that Gary Johnson should abandon Iowa and South Carolina, or that Ron Paul should completely give up on New Hampshire and Nevada: there are vast numbers of individuals in each of these states who do not fit the general character of the state who would identify better with the opposite candidate. With that clarification out of the way, it is in the interest of the liberty message that each of these candidates focuses their efforts in the state most likely to be receptive to their rhetoric in order to maximize the degree to which the message of liberty resonates.

Each candidate should recognize that it is unlikely that a liberty candidate will win the nomination this time around, but it is important that the message gets out and that a liberty loving base for future liberty candidates is built. We can only win the battle for the presidency once we win the battle of ideas.

Kyle R. Johnson is a masters student in chemical engineering at the University of Idaho. He is originally from Richland, Washington.

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.