FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2011
CONTACT: Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

Grassroots Republican Caucus Calls for Government Shut Down
Americans Are Tired of Paying for Irresponsible Leadership

WASHINGTON, DC — Speaking for thousands of grassroots activists nationwide, Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, advised lawmakers not to compromise on the budget or to expect to be held accountable.

“Republicans who were elected to significantly cut the size of government should listen to the will of the people — or expect to be held accountable in the next election,” said Nalle.  “The proposed cuts are too little and too late and further compromise with Democrat politicians who are not serious about downsizing government will betray the results of last November’s elections.  If standing up for fiscal responsibility means the government must be shut down, then it is on the heads of the big spenders and let them pay the political price for it.  Shut it down!”

Nalle’s statement came in response to the revelation that Republican House Speaker John Boehner is trying to make a back-room deal with moderate Democrats to pass a budget with only $33 billion in cuts for the fiscal year.  Chairman Nalle’s outrage was echoed by grassroots leaders of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who conferred to discuss a response to the failure of party leaders and determined to remind their representatives that the Republican grassroots elected them to end the era of out of control spending and dramatically downsize government.

Florida RLC Chairman Matt Nye observed that “spending at every level of government is out of control, but nothing compares to the fiscal insanity we are witnessing in Washington, D.C. This new batch of Republicans was elected to get America’s financial house in order, but to date they have failed utterly and completely. It is hard to understand how such a simple fact of reality – that you cannot consume more than you produce – is so hard for our elected officials to understand and act on when regular Americans do it every day in their own households.”

At-Large RLC Board member William Westmiller of California asked, “Why shouldn’t Republicans support the shutdown all non-essential government services?  If the Democrats refuse to cut those marginal services, GOP leaders should be promoting creative solutions like privatization. For example, if the government can’t afford to run national parks, they should be sold to the highest bidder and the receipts applied to reduce the national debt.”

David Williams, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina, said, “Last year North Carolina voters made it clear that they want sweeping budget cuts and a government that lives within its means. The new Republican majority Congressional delegation, the state’s first in over 100 years, will earn the respect and continued support of North Carolina voters if they follow through on their pledge to restore fiscal discipline without tax increases.”

And Michael S. Murphy, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, observed that, “The message sent by the American voter was not heard clearly enough by the Republican Congressional leadership. With the exception of a few Liberty Republicans that emerged from the Tea Party Movement, the Republican establishment has proven yet again that they can’t be trusted with responsible budgetary governance. The only way to halt runaway deficit spending is to shut down the government to save our Republic from the irreversible financial abyss it’s about to dive into.”

Concluded Dave Nalle, “Today the National Republican Congressional Committee sent me a fundraising email signed by Speaker Boehner. Why would grassroots GOP donors take a donation request seriously from the ‘leader’ who is about to compromise with the Democrats on a totally unacceptable budget? The House GOP Leadership is making a mockery of the peoples’ call to cut spending.”

“Shut the government down. Come home to your districts for a week or two and hold some town hall meetings.  Give us a chance to remind you face to face why we’re so fed up with the way you’re spending our money and ignoring the debt problem,” said Nalle

–30–

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party.   You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.RLC.org.

“In 2005, I wasn’t involved in politics in any substantive way. I had never really thought about running for office. I began looking for organizations that shared the beliefs I had — and that’s when I came across the Republican Liberty Caucus. And, really, it’s what’s started my move toward running for office.” – Justin Amash

Congressman Justin Amash, 30 year old freshman RLC member from Michigan, is undoubtedly a rising conservative star with an extremely bright future. I was already impressed after spending some time with him at this year’s Republican Liberty Caucus national convention, but the longer I follow him, the more I find to like. Rarely am I this taken with a person’s integrity; and next to never is the said individual a politician, let alone a Congressman. But Amash is a glaring exception to that general rule, and I couldn’t be more excited about the precedents he’s setting. When I say that Amash is a model for the next generation, I mean it on many levels.

For starters, Amash is a pioneer when it comes to social media – which fits well with the fact that he’s only 30. At facebook.com/repjustinamash, he posts every single vote he takes with an explanation of his rationale, and links to the roll call. I’m not aware of any other politician doing this, especially so religiously. It demonstrates Amash’s dedication to transparency; another aspect of his character that I find impressive.

Additionally, it’s quite rare for politicians to be accessible the way Amash is. While it’s impossible for him to answer every single question posted on his Facebook page, I’ve noticed that he almost always responds to constituents – and on occasion, others as well. When an issue is so contentious as to merit commentary from large numbers of people, he’ll often post clarifications to his positions, and reiterate his well thought out logic.

What all of this really comes down to is the fact that Amash is highly process oriented. He takes the business of voting, and doing it within a constitutional context seriously; a model his colleagues should learn from. On his aforementioned Facebook page, Amash posted a note, explaining why he sometimes votes “present”:

“I will vote “present” on legislation in three circumstances:

(1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper (e.g., unconstitutional) means to achieve its ends. This situation often arises when legislation is drafted in such a way that the law does not apply equally to persons or entities that are doing the same thing;

(2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or

(3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn’t happened yet and I don’t anticipate happening.”

This speaks to Amash’s unconventional yet refreshing emphasis on procedure. He utilizes (admittedly rare) “present” votes not as a vehicle to avoid taking a position on controversial issues but to, in fact, do the exact opposite by calling attention to inherent problems with certain pieces of legislation. Amash is the most clear and direct Congressman I’m aware of – people simply aren’t used to his approach, since it’s historically been rare for a Representative to vote “present” for any reason other than to avoid the matter at hand. With Amash, that couldn’t be further from the case – and I hope that those who may have assumed that any of his votes are cop outs will reexamine their views on the matter, and engage with Rep. Amash before lashing out.

In fact, in that exact regard, Amash was recently attacked by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren while I was smiling over the fact that he was the only member of Congress speaking with sense over the partisan noise on the “Defund NPR” issue.

As Amash eloquently explained, again, via Facebook:

“H R 1076 does not actually save taxpayer dollars; it merely blocks CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) from exercising its discretion to send funding to NPR. The funds CPB does not send to NPR under the bill are returned to CPB to be spent subsidizing other private radio producers. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to require that any funds not sent to NPR be redirected to pay down the deficit, but the amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore, public broadcasting will not see any reduction in federal funding even if this bill becomes law.”

This kind of action speaks to Amash’s desire to reveal the truth about how Congress actually operates rather than playing up the largely irrelevant partisan talking points of the moment. Amash, like all serious conservatives, is against the federal funding of media on principle. However, unlike many of his fellow Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, he actually wants to address the issue at its root, rather than vote on a fleeting matter that’s getting a bit of attention because of a James O’Keefe gotcha stunt.

Ultimately, what I admire about Amash is that he’s confident enough in his principles to not worry about going against the grain. Why should he be concerned when he’s always able to articulately defend his positions? His style is civil, methodical, and logical to the point where he acts as a foil for the DC as usual crowd; revealing through his dedication to constitutional governance how absurd the status quo (to steal a Mike Church line) in Mordor-on-the-Potomac is.

I would love to see more Congressmen adopt his transparent, informed method of conducting government business. The amount of sense Amash makes amidst the circus that is Washington DC is sadly, what makes him “radical” – yet in reality, he’s anything but. He’s conservative in the most plainly interpreted sense. You always know what to expect from him, because he takes rare yet seemingly common sense positions, such as wanting to comprehend bills before voting on them – and is actually mindful of their constitutionality and cost. You can’t BE more conservative than that! His dedication to the letter of the law and to revealing how recklessly and deceptively our federal government operates should be commended. I can’t help but think that those who criticize Amash either haven’t been sufficiently exposed to the logic of his process – or completely have a handle on it yet oppose him anyway, because they benefit from politics as usual and the propaganda that sustains it.

For those of us who truly want to limit government and are tired of the endless bipartisan pandering that gets us nowhere, the independent-minded Justin Amash is our man. Join me in encouraging others to familiarize themselves with how he’s revolutionizing government. After all, those who irk the traditional talking heads on both sides of the aisle must be doing something right.

RLC Board member Corie Whalen and Congressman Justin Amash.

WHEREAS Libya poses no imminent and clear threat to the United States; and

WHEREAS the Congress of the United States has not declared war against Libya, or in any other way authorized the use of military force against Libya; and

WHEREAS the President has exceeded his authority under the Constitution of the United States, which reserves to Congress the sole power to declare war;

We, the National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus, hereby RESOLVE;

THAT the President has violated the War Powers Act, which requires him to notify the Congress of the United States of the imminent use of military force, so as to receive the assent of Congress to the use of military force in a timely manner;

THAT we declare our solidarity with those members of the Congress and citizens of the United States who have sought to avert U.S. involvement in a war in the Libya;

THAT we do not believe the U.S. should be involved in Libya militarily;

AND we call on all those who believe in the Constitution and respect the rule of law to demand an end to U.S. military intervention in Libya.

(Adopted unanimously by the RLC National Committee, March 22, 2011.)

See also: RLC Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya; March 24, 2011

This is a very brief rebuttal to LewRockwell.com/Campaign for Liberty author Anthony Gregory’s blog post entitled “Republicans as Bad as Ever.” Gregory opines:

“On war, the most important issue. In the tenth year of a ridiculous, illegal, and completely counterproductive war of aggression, Justin Amash, a Michigan freshman Congressman with some libertarian leanings whom I was told to keep an eye on, joined the 97% of his party in the House voting against a completely reasonable and moderate plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

As an aside, this alone would have saved $100 billion a year. Another epic fail from the Tea Party.”

Congressman Amash, the second-youngest member of Congress and a keynote speaker at the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention, defended his vote as follows:

Here’s the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that. Instead, it cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-NY-08) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal. His word cannot be the final analysis for a new Rep., and it wouldn’t have been if I didn’t have 600 other amendments to review. I voted no. “Present” is for genuine procedural concerns.

Mr. Gregory made the same mistake that his LewRockwell.com colleague Laurence Vance made when Vance criticized the Republican Liberty Caucus in January. Mr. Gregory doesn’t understand how Congress works in the same way that Mr. Vance had little knowledge about the goals of the RLC. (Since then, Mr. Vance has learned more about us and even featured my article about Paul Ryan at his blog.)

A simple suggestion to those in the liberty movement: Please understand the topic you’re writing about before sharing your opinion. This will make you much more effective when trying to convince audiences of an opinion.

And, another suggestion: It’s more important to focus on the more than 400 members of Congress who do not share *any* libertarian principles than the 30 or so members who are actively working to preserve our country.

The politicians endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus are working to save our nation.

Let’s spend less time scrutinizing their votes and more time trying to either persuade or boot out the 400 politicians in Washington (and countless Administration bureaucrats) who have little concept of individual liberty or limited government.

At the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention in Arlington, Virginia, elected officials from across the country made the case for political participation among students and activists in the liberty movement.

Congressman Justin Amash, in his short speech to delegates, spoke positively about the Republican Liberty Caucus, saying …

“In 2005, I wasn’t involved in politics in any substantive way. I had never really thought about running for office. I began looking for organizations that shared the beliefs I had — and that’s when I came across the Republican Liberty Caucus. And, really, it’s what’s started my move toward running for office.”

Listen to more of our elected liberty Republicans below. Please join or get involved (or both) in the Republican Liberty Caucus today.

Congressman Justin Amash – Part 1

Congressman Justin Amash – Part 2

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 1 (Dan Halloran)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 2 (Jamie Callender)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 3 (Terri McCormick)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 4 (Mix)

Elected Liberty Republicans – Part 5 (Mix)

Governor Gary Johnson – Part 1

Governor Gary Johnson – Part 2

A few weeks ago I received an unexpected call from Senator Olympia Snowe’s outreach coordinator inviting me, as Maine RLC Chair, to a meeting with the Senator. Also invited were representatives from other conservative organizations including tea party activists, constitutional conservatives and libertarians. Guests includes representatives from the Maine Legislature and the Republican State Committee.

The meeting was on neutral ground in a hotel conference room in Augusta. Ten of us sat around a rectangular table with Senator Snowe and two aides at the head of the table. The common thread was that all the participants represented factions of the Republican Party that were either critical of Senator Snowe’s moderate track record, and in some cases outright hostile to the Senator. The meeting was clearly an effort to reach out to the “right wing” (although, as a libertarian, I reject that label) of the Republican Party.

Senator Snowe began the meeting by thanking us for attending and stating that she wanted to have an open and frank discussion of issues facing the country as well as hearing criticism of her own voting record in the U.S. Senate.

Wow! That was certainly a bold thing for her to do given the ideological demographic of the room. What followed was a very civil yet frank discussion of the big issues facing the country. Olympia Snowe is one of the most seasoned and skillful politicians in the country. Her skills shone as she defended her record. She spoke extensively about some of the truly beneficial work she has done for the State of Maine: saving the Domtar paper mill in eastern Maine, saving the Kittery naval shipyard and consistently working to bring Federal funds to the state. There is no doubt that a good deal of her political success can be attributed to her excellent constituent service work.

Senator Snowe ably defended her voting record on health care. Some in the room thought that her support in committee for Obamacare was a decisive vote. In fact it wasn’t, and she made that clear. She explained that she had voted for the bill in committee in exchange for a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the legislation would be open to Republican amendments when it reached the Senate floor. Reid broke his promise, she said. Snowe insisted that she is not only opposed to Obamacare now, but that she supports full repeal of the law. A recent vote of hers has actually borne that promise out.

At one point in the meeting when Snowe was accused of “voting against Republicans” we saw her become somewhat emotional. She recounted the time when her husband John “Jock” McKernan was the Governor of Maine. He was in the midst of a government shutdown resulting from a standoff with the legislature over workers’ compensation reform in the late 80′s. Then-Congresswoman Olympia Snowe was on the phone with her husband and she could overhear shouts and insults from protesting State employees who had been admitted to the state house by then-Speaker John Martin. Snowe commented that she and Jock felt that they were not supported by many Republicans at the time.

Olympia Snowe also defended her vote for TARP (the 2008 financial bailout bill) arguing that the country was at the edge of an abyss. She went on to announce that she would be sponsoring a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget as well as a higher threshold (3/5 vote) to raise taxes. The balanced budget amendment sat well with the invitees in the room.

What fell flat, in my opinion, were some of her answers to questions that should have been predicted from that crowd. Snowe seemed puzzled by a suggestion that the recent food safety bill was unconstitutional because it affected farmers who don’t sell their produce across state lines. Snowe even boasted that she was able to include a provision that farmers with revenues of less than $500,000 would be excluded. What about the potato farmer who brings in $500,001, but doesn’t ship one French fry outside of Maine?

Some in the room questioned the Senator’s membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and even asked if she supported George H. W. Bush’s reference to a “New World Order”. At that point we were getting into some really esoteric conspiracy theory territory. Nevertheless one would expect the Senator to at least understand the context of the comments and be able to respond appropriately. It really seemed to me that she was flummoxed (although she might have been just carefully considering the question). In fact I found myself in the awkward position of having to explain the issue. I also made clear my view that while there is a real threat to our constitution from those who would undermine US sovereignty with globalism, that wasn’t what Bush 41 was referring to in 1991. I would think that someone on her staff would have briefed her about this stuff before going into a meeting that included devotees of the John Birch society.

The genesis of this meeting was clearly a concern by Olympia Snowe’s political operation that she may be facing a primary challenge (we now know that she is) to her upcoming reelection effort in 2012. Snowe has long been seen as a thorn in the side of the “right wing” (again, as a libertarian I exclude myself from that label) of the party. It would be one thing if she were simply a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. That would certainly be okay with me and other libertarians. Her real problem lately has been on the fiscal conservative side of things. I refer specifically to the elephant in the room. The elephant that was never acknowledged at this meeting. That is the Obama stimulus bill. The gigantic budget-busting $800 billion attempt to stimulate the economy in early 2009. Senator Snowe was instrumental in the passage of that bill. The Tea Party movement was a direct reaction to the Stimulus bill, Obamacare just threw fuel on the fire.

Over her career, Olympia Snowe has certainly been a moderate, but a moderate with a libertarian angle. Every year the Republican Liberty Caucus ranks members of Congress on the Nolan chart-inspired Liberty Index. The Liberty Index ranks members of Congress on a pro-liberty voting index equally weighted between social issues and economic issues. Sen. Snowe has consistently scored above 50% on both axis. In fact, most recently she scores in the conservative quadrant with a better record on economic issues than social issues. That record has always earned Olympia Snowe support from me in her previous election campaigns. The question I struggle with now is whether her vote for stimulus was a deal breaker in the next campaign.

I wanted to keep RLC membership informed of this development. We should certainly make time to discuss it during our upcoming Maine RLC Leadership Conference — which is scheduled for April 23, 2011 in Augusta, Maine.

Ken Lindell
Chairman, Maine RLC

Congressman Jeff Flake has announced that he is running for U.S. Senate in Arizona for the seat currently held by retiring Senator Jon Kyl.

Flake said his priorities include balancing the federal budget, securing the border, and working on transportation and water policy issues. On the budget, Flake said everything needs to be on the table, including changes to Social Security.

Without even waiting to see who else might jump into the race for the open seat, the Club for Growth threw its muscle behind Flake, who for years has railed against excessive federal spending and the pet projects backed by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Flake is a fifth generation Arizonan. He is in his fifth term in Congress. He has consistently been rated in the top five in the Republican Liberty Caucus Liberty Index and has tied Congressman Ron Paul for the number of first place finishes in the Liberty Index. (Picture at right: Jeff Flake with longtime Arizona RLC activist Roy Miller.)

Flake could potentially face Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who is the instant favorite if she is able to make a speedy recovering from the assassination attempt made on her life in January.

This is it.  We have less than 8 hours to get the attention of Congress and demand that they stand up for the restoration of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Although the renewal of key provisions of the PATRIOT Act was defeated last week when it was brought up for an early vote, that happened primarily because House rules required that it pass by a two-thirds majority under those circumstances.  That narrow defeat of the renewal was only a temporary victory, because the bill remained eligible for passage under the regular rules and with a simple majority vote, and that vote is scheduled for this evening at 6:30.  It’s the only bill on the House docket and there will be only 1 hour for formal debate and no amendments.

This means that most of this day will be dedicated to giving you an opportunity to contact your Congressman and tell him that you like having privacy rights, don’t want the government monitoring your internet and phone conversations, and think that search warrants obtained through proper procedures are a good thing, not an inconvenience.

Three key sections of the PATRIOT Act are up for renewal.  They provide for roving wiretaps without true search warrants, government access to private business records, searches of private property without notice and covert access to electronic data without any due process or oversight.  Together they give the government unprecedented access to your private information without going through the Constitutionally mandated legal processes which are supposed to protect your privacy.

They were passed with a requirement that they be reviewed and renewed regularly because at the time the Congress realized that they were fundamental attacks on individual liberty and violations of our Constitutionally protected rights under the 4th Amendment.  The mood at the time was one of fear and anger and some people felt that the threat of terrorism justified such extreme measures.  Today you need to ask yourself whether this dreadful compromise of your rights on the basis of nothing but fear was justifiable.

Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) expressed his concerns about renewing these PATRIOT Act provisions when he voted against them last week, writing:

“Like many Republicans and Democrats concerned with protecting civil liberties, I have serious reservations about the USA PATRIOT Act provisions up for renewal.  The business records provision allows the government to order the production of ‘any tangible things’ — e-mails, phone logs, and even library records. Worse still, the company turning over the records to the government is forbidden from telling the records’ owner of the order. Likewise, the Act’s roving wiretap provision goes far beyond a similar provision in criminal law.  It may allow the government continuously to monitor pay phones or public computers, even when a suspect is not using the devices. The breadth of the provisions raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns in my mind, and I cannot support them as currently written.”

The Bill of Rights exists for a reason and it has become clear that there is no threat to this nation from terrorism or other sources which justifies giving up the protections of the 4th Amendment.  The only real target of this misguided legislation seems to be the citizens themselves, and that kind of government meddling and intrusion is unacceptable in a free society.

You only have hours to act.  Please call your member of Congress, or your whole state delegation, using the convenient information at ContactingtheCongress.org.  Tell them it’s been long enough and you want your rights back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With almost no warning and little opportunity for public input, the House and Senate are both preparing to vote this week on renewal of three key sections of the PATRIOT Act which are set to expire later this month.  Senator Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of much of the act, has pushed for an early vote on Tuesday, possibly to take advantage of public nervousness over the crisis in Egypt.

The Republican Liberty Caucus believes that the PATRIOT Act is a direct assault on the Constitution and individual liberty and urges all true Republicans and all Americans who believe in the principles on which this nation was founded to contact their Representatives and Senators and tell them that it is time for the PATRIOT Act to go and that we are done with sacrificing our liberties for the illusion of safety.

The three sections which are being considered for renewal are Sections 206, 215 and 6001. We believe that all of the elements of the PATRIOT Act should be reconsidered, but these three sections which are up for renewal are particularly dangerous violations our Constitutionally protected rights.

Section 206 allows roving wiretaps in which the FBI can tap into any phone, wireless or data transmission without a warrant or any due process. They don’t even have to identify their target. Recent evidence suggests that abuse of this power has been widespread in the last 5 years.

Section 215 lowers the standard of proof necessary to obtain private or professional records, eliminating the need to demonstrate their relevance to any specific case, essentially allowing “fishing expeditions” to gather data on pure speculation. It also authorizes the use of non-judicial National Security Letters in place of traditional warrants, with an attendant gag rule barring targets of these investigations from disclosing any abuse or harassment they were subjected to. The ACLU has filed a number of lawsuits in defense of victims of this rule and sections of it have already been ruled unconstitutional in court.

Section 6001 is the notorious “lone wolf” rule which allows government agents to obtain secret surveillance orders against any individual, even if they are not directly linked to any international terrorist group or foreign nation. The entire idea of secret warrants is contrary to the principle of due process of law and judicial oversight under the 4th Amendment.

All three of these provisions center on the covert surveillance of US citizens with little or no proof of their involvement in terrorism. There is an Orwellian quality to the powers granted by these provision. They put the entire population under observation, violating the privacy of millions in the hopes of catching a few terrorist associates who could have been caught by more traditional means, as has been the case with almost every terrorist arrest since 9/11.  We believe in protecting citizens from terrorism, but protecting their rights from overreaching government is just as important.

“The Bill of Rights exists for a reason,” said Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Dave Nalle, “and it has become clear that while there may be threats from terrorism, they are not great enough to justify the assault on our rights which is embodied in the PATRIOT Act. The language of these sections is so broad and so open to abuse that they could easily be used against even the most innocent among us for political or personal reasons. What is the value of safety if we no longer have the liberty to truly enjoy it?”

We urge Americans who believe in liberty and the Bill of Rights to call or email their members of Congress and tell them to say a clear “no” to any renewal of the PATRIOT Act. Remind them that in the 2010 elections we voted against the intrusive security state and that we will hold those who support any renewal of the PATRIOT Act accountable in 2012.

To contact your representatives, use the convenient form at ContactingtheCongress.org.