The House of Representatives is likely to vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling on Tuesday of this week, right after the Memorial Day break. Republican leaders plan to oppose this increase, but they need all the support they can get and as many votes as possible on board for fiscal responsibility.

You can help send a message on this vitally important issue by reminding your representative that the voters are looking towards 2012 and fiscal responsibility and keeping our national debt under control are your top priorities.

The idea that we would consider increasing our national debt beyond the current $14.3 trillion is irresponsible and downright frightening. We need to learn to control spending and we need to start now. No more blank checks for bureaucrats and pork projects. Let’s draw a line in the sand and tell them we’ve had enough.

Right now we owe $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. That’s completely unsustainable. Let’s end the War on Drugs and end the War on Terror and make some serious cuts in discretionary spending. The first step to doing that is just to stop the spending. Then Sen. Rand Paul (RLC-KY) and Sen. Pat Toomey (RLC-PA) have both offered superior plans for balancing the budget and we should move forward with their ideas.

For details on this issue see our previous statement on the issue and our board resolution opposing a debt ceiling increase. The bill which will be voted on is HR1954.

We urge you to write or call your Representative (Democrat or Republican) on Tuesday morning and demand that they vote against raising the debt ceiling. You can use the convenient form below to find out how best to contact them.

Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLC to become part of our network of member-activists. To make a recurring monthly donation try this link: Enter the maximum amount to pay each month: $ USD Sign up for

I hope you can take time to call and email your Representatives on Tuesday morning. Tell them to hold out and resist raising the debt ceiling and look for ways to cut spending and pay down the debt instead. We can’t afford to wait for decades or even years to get this situation under control.

Just click on this link to find contact information for your representatives.

CONCORD, N.H.―Republican members of the New Hampshire House and Senate must find the courage to pass legislation to repeal the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and make New Hampshire the 23^rd Right to Work state in the country, said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire.

“Both of these bills—the repeal of RGGI and the Right to Work bill—will promote jobs and economic opportunity in the State of New Hampshire, which is exactly what the people of New Hampshire elected Republicans to do,” Hemingway said. “Republican lawmakers have to stop worrying about the loud Democratic minority that is obviously against these efforts. After all, the Democrats’ spend-then-tax, big-government agenda is why the people threw Democrats out of office.

“The people who elected Republicans should not have to come to Concord to defend the clear message they sent in November to get government out of the way so the private sector can create jobs and economic opportunity,” Hemingway continued. “These voters should have the confidence that the Republicans they elected will have enough courage to see through the smokescreen created by the Democratic machine. They should have the confidence that Republicans will pass needed job-attracting legislation like Right to Work and free up more private capital for job creation by eliminating unneeded tax schemes like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie just announced this week that he would remove New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, calling the program “a failure” that “is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future.” He said the initiative was simply a tax scheme designed to “tax electricity, tax our citizens and tax our businesses.”

“If Democratic New Jersey can identify the failure, false hope and negative affect on businesses and job creation of the RGGI scheme, then it is incumbent on the New Hampshire Republican supermajority to answer the call of voters and eliminate this economically crippling initiative,” Hemingway said.

South Carolina’s U.S. Senator Jim DeMint recently commissioned a study that shows Right to Work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth than forced unionization states like New Hampshire. The Senator pointed out how unions are taking people’s hard-earned money as they are “struggling … to put food on the table” just to keep “counterproductive work rules” in place.

“No one should be forced to give up a part of their paychecks to a private, third-party organization just go get and keep a job,” Hemingway said. “Unions should not fear Right to Work so long as they have no problem being accountable to workers who voluntarily join their organizations. If workers believe unions provide a benefit to them on the job, then they will join even with Right to Work legislation in place. Giving workers that choice will ensure companies can prosper, which will in turn allow them to hire more workers. That’s just what New Hampshire needs right now.”

We’re in danger when the conservative instinct to defend law and order …  defies law and order.

Conservatives often talk about the Constitution and the importance of defending our founding charter. After all, without a strong rule of law, we could never have the kind of society worthy of conservative standards to begin with. One of the reasons many cite for voting Republican in a presidential race, even if they dislike the candidate, is that they believe at the very least, the Republican will nominate palatable Supreme Court Justices who interpret the Constitution conservatively, in effect defending the aforementioned centrally important rule of law. At times however, it seems that some people are confused about the context of the ‘conservative’ label. A conservative (IE: originalist) reading of the Constitution is not the same as a conservative (IE: political) interpretation.

The latter is judicial activism. It in no way differs from the “discovery” of rights that created the precedents necessary for Roe v. Wade to exist – and we all know one of the foremost conservative arguments against that case is based on the fact that it stands on rather shaky constitutional grounds; a defense rooted in a pro rule of law argument. But, it appears that for some (in particular the many pro-life Congressmen and Senators who favor the PATRIOT Act), it’s only convenient to use a constitutionally based argument when it suits your particular issue politically.

So what then, are orginialists who support the Constitution regardless of emotional arguments on issues deemed politically conservative, to make of last week’s PATRIOT Act renewal battle? Ultimately, despite the disappointment, it seems that Republicans with libertarian and constitutionally conservative values are at least making some progress.

Particularly positive is the fact that many freshmen who won on the tea party wave are taking seriously the fact that the PATRIOT Act does violate the Constitution. As Rand Paul, who filibustered the act, eloquently noted on the Senate floor, we cannot preserve the 4^th amendment without the 2^nd amendment, or the 1^st. In fact, we need the entire bill of rights; it cannot protect our freedoms unless it comes together as a whole.

In the Senate, with some shady maneuvering (what else is new?), Harry Reid bypassed Rand Paul’s attempts at a filibuster by tacking the vote to reauthorize the provisions onto the Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. While only four Republican Senators voted against the act, Heller, Paul and Lee (on the tea party side of the spectrum) and Murkowski (a moderate), we ought to keep in mind that one individual Senator has a great deal of power, and that three new Senators with tea party sympathies making a difference on this issue is a flicker of hope as we emerge from the darkness of the Bush era.

Later the same day, the House voted on the provisions, which were reauthorized with the support of 196 Republicans and 54 Democrats. Given Harry Reid’s suggestion that Rand Paul’s attempts to filibuster the PATRIOT Act indicate support of terrorism, I suppose the 122 members of his party who share Senator Paul’s position must also be in consort with our enemies. But Reid didn’t say that, did he? The Majority Leader’s insanity aside, it’s interesting to consider the House Republicans who voted against this renewal.

Out of the 31, 13 were freshman, which certainly indicates a step in the right direction. Particularly notable is the fact that two of the aforementioned freshmen are career military men – Allen West and Chris Gibson. While West, who openly ran as a tea party candidate, is considerably hawkish from a non-interventionist standpoint, he deserves credit for his statements against irrational nation building and these PATRIOT Act provisions. It clearly shows that, as someone with the experience, West is at least somewhat capable of distinguishing between needed powers and ‘it will keep us safe’ rhetoric; even if he supports a broader military presence than some of his more libertarian colleagues. Gibson is of interest because he has stated:

“Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have not reviewed in a meaningful way what our requirements are to protect our cherished way of life so that it reflects the realities of the 21st century, not the second half of the 20th century. There are still four combat brigades in Europe. I think they should be brought home. I don’t think we need forces in Okinawa. We have troops in over 100 different nations. We’re all over the world. I think we need to reassess that.”

Although the offending provisions were ultimately renewed, it’s promising to see that at least some newly elected Republicans are shifting paradigms. Genuine conservatives concerned with long term law and order are putting fidelity to the Constitution before partisanship and the kind of elitism that leads elected officials to believe that it’s permissible for controversial powers to be given to government as long as they are controlling things. The problem with that view, of course, is ultimately that trustworthy people won’t always be the ones in positions of influence, government almost never shrinks, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On the other hand however, we have Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a negative example on this matter. She has branded herself as a tea party leader and constitutionalist – she’s even flirting with a presidential run. Despite these factors, Bachmann not only voted in favor of renewing the PATRIOT Act provisions in question, she passionately defended them on the House floor in her capacity as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Bachmann, however, struck a noticeably different tone when discussing the matter on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano last month. Pressing her about the inconsistency of her support of the PATRIOT Act and the Constitution, the Judge said to the Congresswoman:

“The PATRIOT Act lets federal agents write their own search warrants in violation of the 4^th amendment – why did you vote to reauthorize it? Isn’t the whole concept of the PATRIOT Act, that the government can bypass the Constitution in hard times, one that you, and I, and that people who are faithful to the Constitution would reject?”

Instead of disagreeing with the Judge’s premise, Bachmann replied by beating around the bush with rhetoric about bipartisanship and technicalities regarding recent votes as not reauthorizing the act fully (not acknowledging the fact that she’s always voted for the act in any form it has been presented).

Congresswoman Bachmann said:

“What we need to do is we need to make sure that American’s 4^th amendment right to be free and secure of unreasonable search and seizure by the federal government is protected, I don’t back down from that at all – or 1^st amendment protections as well. We need to make sure that those amendments are held strong in a bipartisan manner.”

It’s clear that Bachmann never had the concerns she claimed to on Freedom Watch when pressed to discuss the matter. On the House floor after the vote, she explained her support of the ‘lone wolf provision’, which clearly allows federal agents to go after suspects without warrants. If that’s not a 4^th amendment concern, then I don’t know what is. This all being the case, I’d simply request that Bachmann and her other ‘constitutionalist’ colleagues grace us with some intellectual honesty. Don’t pretend to be a defending our founding charter simply because it’s rhetorically – and electorally — pleasant to do so.

Truly upholding the Constitution requires taking the moral high ground and looking at the long-term picture. Sadly, most people seem to want instant gratification without considering the consequences. Not surprisingly, our representatives end up reflecting that fact; and then we wonder why our government is cumbersome, spends unsustainably, and is largely ineffective.

Ultimately, we need to remember that these issues are not limited to our time and a government we might trust to ‘protect us’ in the interim. Conservatives are falling into a dangerous trap if we allow ourselves to forget our nation’s history. Yes, times are different, but it doesn’t mean that we should abandon basic due process laws that have been valued in western jurisprudence for several centuries and enshrined in our Constitution. While I think Congresswoman Bachmann and many of her colleagues have the best of intentions, the fact remains that their conservative instinct to defend law and order is ultimately defying it.

As Senator Paul so eloquently put it:

“(The PATRIOT act allows) warrants that are written by FBI agents; no judge reviews them. This is specifically what James Otis was worried about when he spoke about general warrants that didn’t specify the person or the place, and were written by police officers…. We have checks and balances to try to prevent abuse ….. It will not always be angels in charge of government. You have rules because you want to prevent the day that may occur when you get someone who takes over your government through elected office or otherwise, who is intent on using the tools of government to pry into your affairs, to snoop on what you’re doing, or to punish you for your political and religious beliefs. That’s why we don’t ever want our laws to become so expansive.”

(For future reference, Young Americans For Liberty put together a timeline of the PATRIOT Act battle between Reid and Paul, spanning from February until the vote in May.)

CONCORD, N.H.―The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire urges New Hampshire Senators to follow the example of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who said this week that he would work to remove the Garden State from the 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

In his announcement, Gov. Christie called the initiative “a failure” that “is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future.” He said the initiative was simply a tax scheme designed to “tax electricity, tax our citizens and tax our businesses.”

“If Democratic New Jersey can identify the failure, false hope and negative affect on businesses and job creation of the RGGI scheme, then it is incumbent on the New Hampshire Republican supermajority to answer the call of voters and eliminate this economically crippling initiative,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “Not only does this program fail to deliver on its promise to reduce any meaningful emissions, it has also destroyed jobs by overtaxing the region’s largest producers. Ending this initiative will help fuel the region’s economic engine and give voters the jobs they asked for in November.

“New Hampshire Sens. Jeb Bradley, Gary Lambert and other Republican lawmakers had discussed withdrawing from RGGI only if another state in the region did so first,” Hemingway continued. “Here we have one of the largest states involved in this failed scheme acknowledging how economically crippling it has been and expressing its intent to withdraw. If Republican Senators in New Hampshire truly want to promote jobs and economic opportunity like they said they would during the November election campaign, they will follow through on their promise and get New Hampshire out of this program.”

CONCORD, N.H.―The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire fully supports House Speaker William O’Brien’s decision to put off the Right to Work veto override vote to account for several members who were tending to job obligations and still wanted their votes counted.

“The Right to Work bill is a party platform vote that should have no problems passing the House, but several Republicans reported scheduling problems and couldn’t attend today,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “The House speaker has the Right to Work bill at his disposal and can bring it up for a vote at any time. It is completely within the speaker’s discretion to wait until the members who plan to support the Republican Party agenda to promote jobs and economic opportunity are able to come and vote.”

The Right to Work bill, which would restore the rights of individuals to decide whether to associate with a third-party organization when shopping for a job, would create a magnet for businesses that will further advance the New Hampshire Advantage. The closest states with a similar Right to Work law are Iowa and Virginia, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and its members have been following the Right to Work bill and consider it a high priority for job creation and protection of New Hampshire’s working families. The caucus will continue to support any effort by the speaker to pass this much-needed bill that the voters of New Hampshire supported when they sent Republicans to stimulate job creation in November.

In a development which may be the first constitutional crisis to come out of the growing state sovereignty movement, the federal Department of Justice has threatened to shut down air travel in Texas if the Texas legislature follows through with passage of a popular bill limiting the power of the Transportation Security Administration within the state.

HB 1937 is one of two bills authored by Rep. David Simpson (RLC-Tyler) designed to prevent the TSA from implementing unpopular security measures within the state of Texas. It would make it a felony for TSA agents to engage in certain forms of intimate touching during the course of an “enhanced pat down” of an airline passenger. If a complaint were made against TSA personnel they could be arrested and charged by local law enforcement.

“All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution,” commented Senator Simpson. “We aren‘t even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We‘re just saying you can‘t go straight to third base. You have to have a reason—you have to have probable cause—before groping someone‘s sexual organs.”

Simpson’s other bill (HB1938) addressed high-intensity scanners and stalled in the Texas House of Representatives, but the anti-groping bill passed the House unanimously, was approved unanimously by a Senate committee and was expected to pass with strong support in the Texas Senate Tuesday or Wednesday.

This is the point at which the federal government intervened. Reports began circulating on Tuesday of TSA bureaucrats descending on the state capitol to lobby legislators against the bill and then John E. Murphy, US Attorney for the Western District of Texas issued an official letter (PDF) on behalf of the Department of Justice to state legislators which threatened an injunction against the bill if it passed as well as stating that if an injunction were not granted the “TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

The Department of Justice makes the argument in the letter that “under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.”

This argument is weakened by the fact that it is not clear that the TSA has legitimate federal jurisdiction over airports which are operated by local or regional airport authorities or private companies. Several major airports in other parts of the country have been able to opt out of TSA services and employ private security instead, and Texas airports could certainly provide adequate security as they did before the TSA takeover.

Another powerful argument against the DOJ position is that the proposed legislation specifically protects the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, a protection which supporters argue the TSA regularly violates. If the TSA is behaving unconstitutionally can the federal government legitimately defend their actions?

In an unprecedented development on Tuesday as the bill was being debated, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst took to the floor of the Senate, organizing opposition to the bill and generating support mostly from Democrat lawmakers to pressure Senator Patrick to withdraw the bill.

In response to the federal threats and weakening support from intimidated lawmakers, Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston) withdrew the bill from consideration on Tuesday, though it is hoped that it will be put back on the docket for Wednesday.

Defending the bill on the Senate floor, Senator Patrick declared “There was a time in the history of the state where we did not cower to rules and policies that invade the privacy of Texans. This was a ‘come and take it’ moment…The federal government came in and bullied the state of Texas today. They said ‘If you dare pass a bill that makes us change our policy, then we threaten to close down your airports.’”

Local citizens groups which have backed the bill are working hard to lo generate calls and emails to legislators and other officials in support of the bill, including Support Dignity, Stop Austin Scanners and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas. Similar legislation has been introduced in New Hampshire, Utah, Alaska, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The fate of the Texas bill will likely determine how this sort of legislation fares in other states. With public sentiment overwhelmingly against the TSA after numerous reports of inappropriate searches, federal authorities may be touching a match to a powder keg with their intimidation tactics.

We are encouraging RLC members in Texas and around the country to contact Texas legislators and other political leaders to raise awareness of this gross violation of individual and states rights. Contacting Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst and Senator Dan Patrick would probably be particularly useful, as would promoting this issue in the national media. Contact information can be found at Stop Austin Scanners.

Some portions of this article appeared in slightly different form on Blogcritics

At no time in our country’s history has political debate been as confined as we find it today. So many of us feel our views must fit within small, conventional, and often contradictory parameters.

“I oppose same-sex marriages and support prayer in school,” Generic Republican A might state, fully confident they are doing their good duty as a conservative. “I think we need heavy gun restrictions and that contraception should be taught over abstinence,” Generic Democrat B might chime in, visualizing their favorite NPR commentator vigorously nodding in approval. Underlying each of these previous statements is a view that federal policy is little more than an extension of one’s personal tastes, likes, and prejudices.

Lost in the current state of our discourse is any adherence to the Constitution; rarely, if ever, are what Congress and the president authorized to do even considered. Formerly strict limits on federal power have become collateral damage to arguments increasingly based on emotion.

Article 1, Section of 8 of the Constitution laid out Congress’ specific powers, and nowhere was banning drugs or dictating marriage law found. This might come to the chagrin of social conservatives. But nowhere is the authority to force the purchase of health insurance or dictate public school curriculum on homosexuality or contraception found, surely frustrating the pet causes of many social liberals.

These things are simply not within the realm of the federal government to determine. Under the 10th Amendment, which some have begun to invoke, such powers were left to the state legislatures. If these legislatures so chose, such decisions could be left in the hands of those even closer to the people. This federalism was intended to allow our states to, as Louis Brandeis said, function as laboratories of democracy.

Ending the federal drug war and allowing each state to try innovative approaches, where Oregon
might take a public health approach and Alabama a law enforcement one, is the constitutionally correct answer to the substance abuse problem. More states would adopt and follow suit with the ideas that proved most effective.

This would not, as some conservatives might suspect, be an endorsement of drug usage. Instead, such a policy would be an invoking of the federalism and state sovereignty embedded in America’s Constitution.

Liberals who claim opposition to federal welfare programs is equivalent to lack of empathy for the poor are off base as well. It is simply an acknowledgment of the confines placed on Congress by the Constitution.

It makes no sense to expect that 315 million residents will adhere to the same social morays and viewpoints. And this was never the intent of America. In their foresight, our Founders devised a system where states could take creative approaches, understanding that certain regions would differ in taste and philosophy. A few rights were guaranteed, and the remainder was left up to each sovereign state.

Moving the axis of power away from Washington will end much of the unnecessary divisiveness we see in 21st century America. Establishing the precedent that each hot button issue should be decided for every American by the same source of power is simply not practical. We should instead accept the Constitutional answer, letting the institutions closest to the people establish a more easily reached consensus.

UPDATE! It’s not over yet. We have a real chance at debate and consideration of the Paul Amendments if we can get GOP leaders on board by Thursday evening. Please call Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at (202) 224-2541 and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl at (202) 224-4521 right now. Or call them again if you have already!

After the debate and amendments to the PATRIOT Act were shut down by a cloture vote in the Senate late Monday, today Senator Rand Paul (RLC-KY) carried out a heroic seven-hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate to buy time to fight back against the proposed four-year extension of the PATRIOT Act. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and other leaders in the House and Senate still don’t want to hear debate or consider amendments to the bill, but we now have another day to put pressure on the Senate and probably two more days to try to influence House members.

For a report on Senator Paul’s filibuster see the coverage in The Hill, which explains the details of the procedural process which the PATRIOT Act will now have to go through before it gets renewed. You should also visit Senator Paul’s website for a summary of what is in his proposed amendments to the PATRIOT Act. While it would be ideal to see the PATRIOT Act disposed of once and for all, the proposed amendments offer a compromise which would address some of the worst violations of civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act while not fully repealing it. The protections for gun owners privacy and other fourth amendment rights are particularly important.

We wouldn’t normally send out another email so quickly on an activism issue like this, but events are moving incredibly fast and there’s a real opportunity to have an influence. Many Senators and Representatives are on the fence. On Monday our calls and emails convinced several Senators to change their votes and there are reports that many House members are also wavering. In his weekly newsletter Representative Allen West wrote:

“Let me make myself clear, there is no one more focused on the security of the United States, but I also believe in preserving the liberty of our citizens. The record checks and roving wiretap provisions cause me concern, resulting from my research and query of local and federal law enforcement officers. Over the coming days, I will be reviewing documents to make a careful assessment so I can determine my support or opposition to this further extension to the PATRIOT Act.”

Like others he is aware of the public concern over the PATRIOT Act and he appears ready to be convinced to do the right thing and vote to restore our Fourth Amendment rights.

Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLC to become part of our network of member-activists. To make a recurring monthly donation try this link: Enter the maximum amount to pay each month: $ USD Sign up for

I hope you can take time to call and email your Senators and Representatives on Wednesday morning. Ask them to demand that the leadership allow debate to take place and amendments to be considered in both the Senate and House. Edmund Burke wrote that “All government – indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act – is founded on compromise and barter.” The proposed PATRIOT Act amendments are a reasonable compromise to offer to those Congressmen who are not ready to fully oppose renewal.

If you have time, please also email Sen. Paul or call his office at 202-224-4343 to express your support for his heroic efforts on this issue.

Just click on this link to find contact information for your representatives.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida invites you to join us at our monthly meeting,Tuesday, June 7th.

Come and listen to a special presentation on Corporate Welfare with Vice Chairman of the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County Joe Andrews, Ron Little Page of the Times Union, Commander Randy Scudder, Scott Shine of the Jacksonville Ledger, and Congressional Candidate Mike Yost,.
We will also be receiving reports of officers & committees, and voting on objectives for the next two years.

Date & Time: Tuesday, June 7, 2011

6:00PM – 7:00PM – Social Snacks & Drinks

7:00 – 8:15PM – Meeting
Location:
Fairfield Inn & Suites
4888 Lenoir Ave
Jacksonville, FL
(I-95/Butler & Phillips – near the Cracker Barrel Restaurant)

Congratulations to members of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Delaware and Massachusetts. Members in both states have come together over the last several months to meet, organize, approve Bylaws, elect officers, and formalize their state affiliates.

Delaware RLC members have elected Diane Hernandez of New Castle as Chair with Jason O’Neill and Joseph O’Leary serving in other officer positions. The Delaware RLC officers attended the RLC National Convention in Arlington, Virginia last February.

Massachusetts RLC members, who have their own website up at http://www.massrlc.com/index.php, have elected Kevin Martin Chairman and Kamal Jain as Treasurer. Shelly Ortelt and Keith Messina will serve as Vice-Chair and Secretary.

Massachusetts RLC members gathered in February for their first meeting.

Congratulations to the officers and members of these two new state affiliates. Members of the RLC in Colorado and South Carolina should get in touch with their state contacts soon because both states have members working to charter their affiliates.