Campaign for Liberty activists have succeeded in securing five of our eight Congressmen -- including two Democrats -- as co-sponsors on HR 1207, Audit the Fed. Excellent, effective work!
FitzSimmons, Stebbins, Imbertson: Why we're staying with the Minnesota GOP By David FitzSimmons, Marianne Stebbins and Mitch Imbertson Updated: 06/25/2009 06:46:39 PM CDT
In his Opinion piece "Why I am leaving the Minnesota GOP," Lt. Col. Joe Reypa paints a pretty damning picture of the Republican Party of Minnesota. As Republican grass-roots activists, we have witnessed and experienced what Joe described as "tyrannical domination over the grass-roots" of the party.
We agree with Joe when he says "it is time to stop enabling bad behavior from that party." Joe is a friend who has been a principled champion of freedom and liberty for many years; he remains a friend. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that "the Minnesota GOP is no longer capable of being saved."
This is why we are not leaving the Minnesota GOP. Not only can the Minnesota GOP be saved, it must be saved.
While the Republican Party has drifted away from the fundamental principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution - the primacy of individual sovereignty, the sanctity of private property and preservation of the rule of law - the Minnesota DFL has coalesced around the national Democratic Party values: the collective good over individual pursuit of happiness, the property needs of the state over the property rights of the individual, and government power restrained only by the grace of the majority, irrespective of the rule of law. History warns us that a nation so divided cannot long endure.
And this is why we choose to remain in the Minnesota GOP: Despite past leadership flaws, the Minnesota GOP remains the last best hope for resurrecting republican, constitutional government. It is the last best hope for individuals who want to make their own decisions about health care, their children's education, where they live, what they eat and how they worship. The Minnesota GOP is the last best hope for preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the last best hope for a productive society capable of creating the wealth that makes compassion possible.
The groups we represent - the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Campaign for Liberty, and Minnesotans for Limited Government, and many other like-minded liberty-oriented organizations - are evidence that hope is not dead.
To Joe's point, many of our groups have sprung up and grown strong because the Minnesota GOP abdicated its role as protector of republican principle - endorsing capital "R" Republicans regardless of their allegiance to small "r" republican principle. But for whatever reason our groups came into being, they exist, and they are making a difference.
When the campaign for GOP officers began, the emphasis was on "Platform Conservatism," the notion that the "best conservative," the "best Republican," was the one who could put the most check marks next to the 171 planks of a 5,100-word party platform. Over the course of the campaign, the debate changed.
Republicans started talking about "Principled Conservatism" as an alternative to the litmus test of platform politics. The grass-roots felt empowered; a candidate for chair was drafted by the party's grass-roots. With no "old guard" support whatsoever, he nearly pulled off the upset.
A Web site and Facebook group, "Grassroots for an Open Republican Party," described a Republican Party that doesn't just win elections, but one that earns respect as a party of integrity and principle. Both the newly elected chair and deputy chair of the Minnesota GOP signed on as supporters.
Campaign for Liberty supporters of Ron Paul (who as Joe notes were systematically shut out of the 2008 GOP State Convention) remain engaged in the Republican Party, actively supporting liberty-oriented candidates and conservative/libertarian principles.
The Republican Liberty Caucus, "the conscience of the Republican Party," exists to promote individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party.
Minnesotans for Limited Government is educating the party and public on the principles of limited government and supporting liberty-minded candidates.
There is an old adage that describes change as frightening when done to us, but exhilarating when done by us. This is an exhilarating time to be a Republican.
The frightening change taking place in the country, the abandonment of republican government and fundamental constitutional principles, is a wake-up call. Now is our "Time to Choose." It is our time to stop an ever-intrusive government from doing change to us. It is our time to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. It is our time to put American principles to the test. It is our time to reform, re-energize and resurrect the last best hope of American constitutional government - the Republican Party.
That is why we are emphatically not leaving the Minnesota GOP.
David FitzSimmons of Cokato is chairman of the Minnesota Republican Liberty Caucus: rlcmn.org/; Marianne Stebbins of Excelsior is coordinator of the Minnesota Campaign for Liberty: www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/MN; and Mitch Imbertson of Maplewood is Communications Committee Chair of Minnesotans for Limited Government: www.mnlg.org.
[Corey Sax has his own response up at his blog. If you have a response or submit a LTE to the PiPress, include a link or copy/paste in the comments section here.]
Possible GOP Gubernatorial contender says the GOP in Minnesota is changing...Due to none other than the Ron Paul campaign.
Anderson sees a change in the GOP base that has its roots in the 2006 Ron Paul presidential campaign, and that will influence the endorsement process. "It is a true libertarian Republican movement, and they're changing the party," she said in an interview. "There's less discussion about social issues and more discussion about the Constitution."
State Central Committee Vote on A Resolution Affirming GOP Adherence to the U.S. and the State Constitutions PDF Print E-mail Written by Craig Westover Thursday, 18 June 2009 13:00
I've been struggling with how to put a positive spin on defeat of the resolution Jim Rugg and I introduced at the GOP State Central Committee meeting on Saturday. The non-binding resolution would have affirmed adherence of the Republican Party of Minnesota to the United States and Minnesota constitutions. Certainly kudos go out to the Executive Committee for making the resolution an agenda item and to the Chair for his fairness in presiding over the debate, allowing the issue to be decided by the delegates. And despite the resolution first being truncated and then voted down, that it was given a fair hearing before SCC delegates is all to the good.
Beyond that, however, I worry for my party.
The progenitor of the modern Republican Party Barry Goldwater famously reminded the nation "that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," but the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Minnesota tepidly declared on Saturday that a public statement of adherence to constitutional government was somehow something the party should not do. Here's the gist of the resolution the SCC voted against (after, by an amendment, eliminating #3):
Now therefore be itresolved that it is the sense of the Republican Party of Minnesota -
1) Elected officials and candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Minnesota acknowledge that they will read, understand and support only legislation they believe conforms to the spirit and the text of the United States and Minnesota constitutions; and
2) Elected officials endorsed by the Republican Party of Minnesota are obligated to the party to explain and discuss their constitutional rationale for any legislation they propose or support; and
3) Constitutionality shall be the first criterion by which all current and proposed planks of the Standing Platform of the Republican Party of Minnesota shall be evaluated going forward.
Extreme stuff, there. So why was it voted down? The reasons are why I worry.
First, virtually everyone who spoke against the resolution, publically and privately, prefaced his or her remarks the same way: "I certainly support the spirit and intent of the resolution, but ...." Like the wannabe weightwatcher who will do anything to shed pounds except diet and exercise, Minnesota Republicans apparently will go to any extreme in defense of liberty that doesn't actually involve accountability. None of the opponents of the resolution offered amendments to change or alter the language to make it more acceptable, despite declarations about spirit and intent. SCC opposition was to the idea of the resolution itself, patriotic declarations notwithstanding. Declaring we support the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution except when it is a barrier to implementing our political agenda is no virtue, irrespective of any noble intent.
Perhaps of all the debate, this is what I find most distressing: The first opposing speaker objected to the resolution because it would, in her opinion, prohibit the party from pursuing Prolife policies. I will write off the literalness of her comment to simply inarticulate expression, but the opponent's main point was that Prolife policies were in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore the party cannot adhere to the Constitution. That is precisely the type of rhetoric that hampers the Prolife movement and the advance of the Republican Party. How can we Republicans expect to further a "Culture of Life" if the most ardent Prolife supporters believe our cause is unconstitutional?
A more thoughtful Prolife objection to the resolution was made along these lines:
The Constitution is silent, if you read the words, on the issue of abortion. The SCOTUS has read into it the "right of privacy" and constructed from that the "right" to an abortion, under certain conditions. Since the Constitution assigns to the SCOTUS the authority and duty to make these decisions, is Roe v. Wade constitutional, or not? Perhaps it is, or perhaps it runs afoul of the 5th, 10th, 13th or 14th amendments. What do we do when we read our "basic principles" as supporting two contradictory courses of action?
When principles appear contradictory, check your premises.Admittedly, it would be much easier to end abortion were it not for the Constitution and the Supreme Court. It would also be much easier for "the bad guys" to impose all the evils that we fear. Having an independent judiciary as the last line between freedom and tyranny is a pretty good thing. That said, courts can be wrong.
Lower court decisions are over overturned and affirmed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and despite the weight given to precedent, the Supreme Court will overturn its own rulings. Among the most notable examples is Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the long-held constitutional principle of "separate but equal" accommodations expressed in Plessey v. Ferguson, and it did so without waterboarding the text or the spirit of the Constitution.
The SCC resolution talked about adherence to the "spirit and text of the Constitution, not blind obedience to the parchment document or to Supreme Court decisions. No matter how pure or impure one is on the Prolife issue, Roe v. Wade is open to criticism as a poorly reasoned decision that ought to be revisited. But therein lies the rub.
If Republicans are going to be the party that advocates for individual liberty and limited government, the party that stands for the fundamental constitutional principles of the primacy of individual sovereignty, the sanctity of private property, and preservation of the Rule of Law, then our objections to Court rulings must be based on constitutional grounds and not simply because we do not like the consequences.
The objection, which was also made in the context of the 3rd resolution (Constitutionality shall be the first criterion by which all current and proposed planks of the Standing Platform of the Republican Party of Minnesota shall be evaluated going forward), the objection that party members are not constitutional experts who should pass judgment on grassroots developed planks simply begs the question. Observing the spirit and even the letter of the resolution does not demand every Republican become a constitutional expert; it does demand, however, that every Republican consider the Constitution when advocating for specific policy. This is especially true for Republican-endorsed candidates and office holders.
If one were going to a Little League umpire, one would be expected to know the rules of baseball. If one were going to a Scout Master, one would be expected to know the Scout Law. Most of us have held jobs where we need at least a working knowledge of some sort of "Employee Handbook."
The U. S. Constitution is the rule book, the law of the land and the job description of every elected federal official. The Minnesota State Constitution serves the same for the state. It is not too much, in fact it's the bare minimum, to demand that elected officials have a working knowledge of those documents. As members of a political party endorsing people for elected office, we also have an obligation to acquire enough constitutional knowledge to endorse people for office who "will read, understand and support only legislation they believe conforms to the spirit and the text of the United States and Minnesota constitutions." That is not too much to ask.
Pragmatic Reasons I Supported the Resolution
I supported the resolution for two pragmatic reasons. It will help the Minnesota Republican Party differentiate itself and win elections; it provides a platform for fighting violations of the text and spirit of the Constitution like those that were itemized in the resolution document.
There are no more fundamental conservative principles than the principles of individual sovereignty, private property and the Rule of Law as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. There is no more stark differentiation between Republicans and Democrats than their degree of respect and honor for that Constitution.
The resolution declares for all Minnesotans those principles and that differentiation. It provides a "warranty" on all Republican-endorsed office holders and endorsed candidates. It warrants that if a Republican-endorsee disregards the Constitution, the Republican Party will protect the party brand and, on that one issue, stand by the Constitution, not the party label.
Passing the resolution would not mean the Republican Party cannot support amendments to the Constitution or oppose Roe v. Wade and other judicial precedent. Nor does it mean that in the Republican Party there is no room for debate on constitutional questions.
To the contrary, this resolution declares that the amendment process is the proper way to alter the Constitution; judicial activism is not. Elected officials take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. We citizens, we Republicans, have a duty to hold them to that oath.
Finally, the resolution does not bind any Republican to a specific constitutional position; however, it does bind Republicans to having a defendable constitutional position. It declares to a candid state and nation that the Minnesota Republican Party will "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States irrespective of party affiliation. That differentiation will help Republicans win elections. It gives the Republican Party a degree of integrity the Democrats cannot match.
The current GOP State Central Committee did not see it that way, but the seed was sown. As I have written before, the future political divide will not be between left and right, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans; the political battle shaping up is between those who believe in individual liberty and those who would use the power of government to impose their personal vision on others. The battle lines will be drawn between those who inform their policy with the principles of individual sovereignty, private property and Rule of Law and those who would seek to impose their own "beneficent" brand of tyranny.
The 2008 election tells us on which side the Democrats come down. Republicans? After Saturday, I'm really not sure.
I want to support the Minnesota GOP, but find it hard. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff suggest a take over of the party is the best, but I don't see what the Minnesota GOP has to offer. Perhaps i'm not looking hard enough...
Below is a letter I wrote after receiving a call to donate (today).
I was just called by someone to participate in the donation reimbursement program and I have trouble giving money to support Norm Coleman. He supported Bush's doubling of the deficit, an endless war killing innocent Americans based on lies, displacing countless Iraqis base on based lies, and killing countless Iraqi civilians based lies. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and this is a fact. I consider it an insult that this is done in my name as a conservative America; where's my apology?
If Norm Coleman cared one iota about the direction of this country or this state he would sign a pledge to the people of Minnesota to end this ridiculous war. He should apologize to the state and this country for supporting this war and enslaving us with debt. He should hand over the deed to his house(s) and his retirement account to a public trust and not get it back to the war is ended.
The fact is, the GOP has no believability and has destroyed the word conservative. I will continue making contributions to republicans candidates like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Adam Kokesh, and others who actually stand for liberty, personal freedom, and peace and not republicans like Coleman who stands for war, fear, and enslavement through debt.
Tags:
No comments yet.
U.S. Congress, with local office addresses and votes of interest
Senate
Vacant Vacant () Term ends in 2014
200 Northbank Center Northeast 3rd Street Suite 206B Grand Rapids, MN 55744 (218) 327-9333 (218) 327-8637
810 4th Avenue South Suite 203 Moorehead, MN 56560 (218) 477-3106 (218) 477-3109
2550 University Ave., West Suite 100N St. Paul, MN 55114 (651) 645-0323 (651) 645-3110
12 Civic Center Plaza Suite 2167 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 625-6800 (507) 625-9427
320 HSOB Washington, DC 20510-2303 DC Phone: 202-224-5641 DC Fax: 202-224-1152
Voted for 2008 bailout
Didn't vote on HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted for PN64-07-111: Confirmation of anti-rights Eric Holder for Attorney General [More info]
Didn't vote on HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for H.R. 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [More info]
Voted for HR 2346: 2009 $106B War Supplemental [More info]
Ms. Amy Klobuchar (D) Term ends in 2012
Olcott Plaza 820 9th Street North Suite 105 Virginia, MN 55792 (218) 741-9690 (218) 741-3692
121 4th Street South Moorhead, MN 56560 (218) 287-2219 (218) 287-2930
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
