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.

Patriots protest! Silence is shameful. Citizens! The country is in crisis and the Congress is culpable. Ramp up the Rhetoric!

The recent shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of District Court Judge John Roll in Arizona likely had nothing to do with political rhetoric. It was, as is so often is the case, the culmination of the long downward descent of a disturbed young man. Why then are so many politicians saying that we need to be careful of what we say?

The reason is because what we are saying is true. When you pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands you might as well be talking about the lost city of Atlantis. Both have long since ceased to exist. The United States stopped operating as a constitutional republic decades ago. The Federal Government believes the States and citizens must bow unconditionally to its will. It would take a major political and economic upheaval to restore America to its former form of government.

The recent reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives was nothing more than window dressing as the newly elected liberty minded Republicans will soon discover. They are not a majority and will have to take a back seat to the will of the majority in the Congress still controlled by power brokers and the legislators who are willing to grow rich at the expense of the American People. Most members of Congress, Democrat and Republican are in continual violation of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Their individual morals go downhill from there. They should be punished for this at the ballot box, and brought to trial by jury.

There is a self-righteous elite in this country and across the globe who think that we are incompetent.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to own basic weapons for our own defense, because they fear that those arms may someday be used against them.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to decide how our children should be educated because they are afraid that what we would teach them would contradict their worldview.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to spend the money that we earn wisely and want to take it from us so that they can spend it on what they think is important. Not only that but they have stolen and mismanaged our money to the point where the country is facing a financial collapse that is just barely being reported in the news, but is nevertheless imminent and very real.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to vote and have therefore corrupted the political process by ensuring that every major candidate is vetted and selected by them, and anointed by their media outlets, so that ultimately it really doesn’t matter whom we vote for.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to manage our own affairs and have instituted ream upon ream of standards, regulations, licensing requirements, and of course fees, to ensure that we never have to make an independent decision.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to know the difference between right and wrong and by the use of propaganda under the guise of tolerance and diversity attempt to impose their own lax moral standards upon us admonishing us to call our enemies our friends, and to call what is good, evil and what is evil, good.

Now they believe that you are not responsible enough to speak your mind. “Be careful of what you say, someone might be offended, someone might feel threatened!” “Tone down the rhetoric, after all, things are not really as bad as you make them out to be.” “Let’s all try to work together.”

This, my friends, it the BIG lie. Things are in fact worse than we make then out to be. The time for cooperation is past. Now is the time for resistance, for state nullification, for political upheaval, for throwing the bums out, for restoring liberty, not to the country, but to our state, and to our own county.

A few days ago, John Boehner, the weak-willed, cry-baby, Republican Speaker of the House was unable to name a single federal program that he thought should be cut. Would it be too much for the audible cry of “IDIOT” to be heard resounding from sea to shining sea? I think not. We must not allow ourselves to be muzzled now, for if we do we will find ourselves in short order, disarmed, disenfranchised, and in chains. Do not be quiet Americans, and do not rest. Shout out all the louder for the civil and economic rights, for smaller government, for lower taxes, and for Liberty.

Louis William Rose is a political philosopher and parliamentarian for the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida. You can email him at louisrose [at] yahoo.com.

Following the predetermined process is more important than producing an equitable outcome. This principle holds true whether applied to athletics, governmental affairs, or the legal system. As is often is the case, happenings in the world of sports can provide key insights into much broader truths.

On its face, it seems illogical when one stops to consider that an 11-5 New Orleans Saints squad would be forced to travel over 2,000 miles to play a Seattle Seahawks team with a losing record. The typical NFL fan might reason that the Saints are the defending Super Bowl champions and won a stunning four more games than their opponent in the NFL’s wild card round. How unfair! This might appear to make even less sense when one stops to consider that a 10-6 Tampa Bay Buccaneer team sitting at home during this postseason, while the 7-9 Seattle franchise is hosting a home playoff game. Due to the NFL’s rules governing the seeding of playoff teams, the Seahawks are slated to have home field advantage in the first round of the playoffs thanks to their status as division champs. For better or worse, this was the agreement all sides agreed to years ago when the playoff process was outlined.

Without any context, it would appear absurd that a team with a losing record would make the playoffs simply because it won its respective division. The casual observer would find this at least marginally unjust. They might even propose the NFL should just move the Buccaneers or Giants, teams with a winning record who did not qualify for the playoffs due to the NFL’s previously agreed upon rules, into the spot reserved for the Seahawks. A Bucs or Giants fans would surely agree: we had the better record, who cares about divisions? ‘Sure, those rules have been long established, but they don’t fit the current realities; we are more deserving, just put us in there instead’ might be a refrain offered by the fans whose teams did not qualify for the playoffs despite finishing with more victories than Seattle. Similar parallels to this have rise in the world of NCAA football even since the installing of the BCS system, notably Connecticut’s appearance in the BCS Fiesta Bowl on New Year’s Day.

But the NFL cannot simply change the rules midstream. It has adopted clear, concise policies about how the playoff system works. Straying from those would create a precedent which disorder would stem from. Division winners in the wild card round get the home game, even if they have half as many wins as their opponents. This framework, having been agreed upon at a previous date, cannot be thrown out the window on a whim. Even if it appears more “fair” or popular in the short term to allow a team with more wins to leap frog one with fewer wins, this would cause massive uncertainty during future seasons. If this arrangement could be aborted on a whim, what else might the league do for convenience’s sake? This mirrors the way in which the rule of law regulates matters in our system, letting individuals act with the knowledge of what is and is not foul of the law.

As 20th century economist F. A. Hayek stated, “The only public good with which the judge can be concerned is the observance of those rules that the individual could reasonably count on.” Judges need to “apply the rules even if in the particular instance the known consequences will appear to him wholly undesirable.” This concept is known as the rule of law. It is one of the few things separating first from third world countries, preventing governments from substituting arbitrary personal feelings for the blind application of justice. Without this, contracts and private property become a farce, and the country’s resources can never develop as efficiently as possible.

This line of thinking has major implications when it comes to how a country conducts itself in the governmental sense. A country with a written constitution that contains clear, delineated powers cannot simply usurp these because they find it will produce desirable result A, B, or C in the near term. If anything deemed in the general welfare is able to done by a government, then it has no speed bumps to its actual powers. That sort of society becomes governed by statutory, not constitutional, law; everything is fair game that the legislature or executive in that nation labels as such. Aside from mere formalities relating to its proceedings, a constitution is meaningless if a government possesses the power to stretch its language beyond recognition.

A Senator or House member who feels their election requires them to do all they think is “best for their constituents” has no restraint on his capacity to do tremendous harm. When dealing with things as complex as our modern economy, long term harm is generally all that can come from this mind set in government. The same is true with our Federal Reserve system, which assumes that a few Fed Board members and governors can have free reign to force economic contractions or expansions while never having been granted that power under the U. S. Constitution. If a contract as publicized as that country’s constitution ceases to become anything but a toothless historical document, then how are any contracts safe in the long term? The concise rule of law becomes endangered when a society views agreements that have been signed off on as too much of straitjacket to one party or special interest.

Just look how it turned out for the NFL. By sticking to their past agreements, they not only kept the chaos at bay which would have emerged if fans of other teams begin clamoring about this or that injustice, but they ended up producing one amazing game in the process. The unthinkable happened, as the Seahawk team that seemingly “did not belong” ended up pulling off the upset. Sometimes being committed to the process over fleeting, quickly disappearing gains can produce much more of an upside than we might have that. We need to be mindful of that once again as a nation as well.

The RLC Convention lineup continues to attract prominent pro-liberty voices. We hope you’ll join us for all or part of the day on Saturday, February 12 at the Hilton Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Please register before the prices rise on February 1.

Congressman Justin Amash is the U.S. Representative-elect in Michigan’s 3rd congressional district, which encompasses the Grand Rapids area. After earning his law degree in 2006, Mr. Amash joined the Republican Liberty Caucus and developed a local chapter of the RLC in Kent County. He ran for State Representative in 2008 and won. After announcing his bid Congress in 2010, he was endorsed by FreedomWorks, the RLC, and local Tea Party groups. He won the primary and then the general election. He resides with his wife and family in Kentwood, Michigan.

Governor Gary E. Johnson is an outspoken advocate for efficient government, lower taxes, winning the war on drug abuse, protection of civil liberties, revitalization of the economy and promoting entrepreneurship and privatization. In 1976, he started his own company, Big J Enterprises, which grew into a multi-million dollar corporation that employed over 1000 people in New Mexico. He sold the company in 1999.

In 1994, Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico despite having little experience in politics. He was reelected in 1998. As Governor, he eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half, privatized half of the state prisons, and shifted state Medicaid to managed care. While in office, Governor Johnson vetoed 750 bills and struck thousands of line items from legislation. During his term, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history. Johnson is an avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist who climbed Mount Everest in 2003. He has two grown children.