Despite having been decisively rejected by the people and  Congress, the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is back in the House of Representatives, once again up for a vote with supporters hoping that the people are no longer paying attention.

Now is the time to take action to let them know you don’t want the government and big businesses accessing and sharing your email and personal data without any kind of warrant or due process of law.

CISPA (HR624)  would massively reduce the privacy and security of your online communications and personal data. It would give government agencies and many private companies access to your personal communications and financial information and would allow government security agencies like the National Security Agency unprecedented power to access your data including medical records, private emails and financial information – all without a warrant, oversight by any court or due process of law.  It is supported by government security agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and also by big online data companies like Google and Facebook which want to use your data for marketing with fewer restrictions.

This access to your records would require no misbehavior on your part, not even an accusation of terrorism or criminal activity and it would take place without your knowledge or permission or any opportunity to protect your information or your privacy interests. That information could then be passed on to private companies or other agencies or used against you with no real rules or restrictions on who could access it or what hands it would end up in.

The Republican Liberty Caucus joins with other concerned groups like the Liberty Coalition and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU in opposition to CISPA in any form or under any name. We stopped CISPA, SOPA and PIPA last Congress and now we have to fight that battle again.

We urge you to email your representative in Congress and tell them to oppose CISPA and keep government agencies out of our private online data and communications and to stand up and overturn CISPA if it is introduced by executive order.  You need to take information now.  The vote is scheduled for Thursday April 18th.

You can start with an email to your representatives using the form below. Customize the text to express your personal outrage.

WASHINGTON, DC – The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) National Committee has voted unanimously to endorse Mark Willis of Maine for Chairman of the Republican Party.

“We’re proud that one of our RLC members has stepped forward to challenge the inept management of the national GOP under the reign of Reince Priebus. But this endorsement is not just because he is one of our own, it is because he is eminently qualified to lead the resurgence of the national Republican Party,” said RLC National Chair Dave Nalle.

Willis is the Republican National Committeeman from Maine and a member of the Maine Republican Liberty Caucus. He is one of the elected delegates from Maine who were unseated by the RNC Credentials Committee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa under the watch of Priebus. He said he saw how the heavy-handed tactics of the national party organization impacted the morale of grassroots which helped lead to the defeat of Priebus’ hand-picked presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“In the case of Maine, we came home heroes due to the fact that we never gave in as a delegation and even though half our duly-elected delegation was unseated, we refused to take the deals that were offered. We stood up for what is right and never wavered,” Willis said.

Willis said delegates from throughout the country were “outraged” at the fast gavel tactics endorsed by Priebus that enacted rule changes which take control of the 2016 presidential nomination process away from the state parties and the grassroots and put it under top-down control by party insiders.

Rule 12 gives unprecedented power to the RNC to change party rules without input or approval of state parties and Rule 16 removes the rights of states to choose their own delegates, forcing all state parties to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the Republican National Convention based on presidential preference polls.

Willis said his first act as national GOP Chair would be to repeal the rules adopted at the 2012 Republican National Convention and “apologize to the GOP grassroots for being overzealous and promise that such behavior will never happen again.”

Willis said the GOP can regain regain the confidence of the voters if its top management listens to the grassroots.

“If we are truly the party of liberty, equality and favoritism for none, then let’s start acting like it by embracing the grassroots once and for all! Welcome them, don’t push them away, discourage them and then expect their vote in November,” Willis said.

Nalle said the national Republican Liberty Caucus had been one of the first GOP organizations to condemn the rules changes and Willis shows courage by taking a stand for the grassroots members of the party.

“No one came forward to challenge these rules until state committees started passing resolutions from the grassroots. Mark Willis is demonstrating leadership by stating upfront that hard working local party members should have a strong voice in guiding the party instead of a handful of Establishment elitists trying to shove decisions from the top down,” Nalle said.

Willis holds a Bachelors Degree in International Relations and a Doctor of Law degree from George Mason University. He also has a Masters in Information Technology from Bowie State University. He was a U.S. Army counterintelligence agent in Haiti and Bosnia and was a senior software engineer at the U.S. Army Security and Intelligence Command (INSCOM) and was INSCOM liaison to the National Security Agency. He is currently Applications Security Manager for a Fortune 100 corporation and runs a family Icelandic sheep farm in a small town in eastern Maine, where he is also serves on the local Board of Education.

On Thrusday an amendment authored by Senators Mike Lee (RLC-UT) and Daine Feinstein (D-CA) which alters the NDAA to protect citizens from arrest without a warrant and guarantees the right to a trial was passed 67-29 by the Senate. This came after an impassioned speech in support by Sen. Rand Paul (RLC-KY) on Wednesday in which he said:

“If you don’t have a right to trial by jury, you do not have due process. You do not have a Constitution. What are you fighting against and for if you throw the Constitution out? When zealots of the government arrest suspects or radicals without warrants, hold them without trial, deny them access to counsel or admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity.”

Paul had also threatened to put a filibuster hold on the NDAA bill if an attempt was made to pass it with the provisions allowing unconstitutional detention of citizens without a trial included. Since the passage of an earlier version of the NDAA more than a year ago, grassroots groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus have been calling and emailing members of the House and Senate relentlessly expressing opposition to the detention provisions in the bill and it appears that for once our legislative leaders actually listened to the people. Sadly about half of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the amendment.

While the Lee-Feinstein amendment is not as comprehensive as Rand Paul’s version which has had trouble passing the Senate, it does address the most fundamental civil liberties concerns with the NDAA. The substandive part of the Amendment reads:

“(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

“(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.

“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.”

The final clause of (b)(1) has attracted some criticism, including from Representative Justin Amash (RLC-MI) who whote:

“The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.”

Prior to the amendment the NDAA permitted detentions solely on presidential authority, but Amash and others are concerned that Congress could use the option provided in the amendment to reverse the protection at will, or that courts could interpret the NDAA itself as such an authorization.  However, Senator Lee has issued an explanation of how the amendment works in context which makes very clear that no existing legislation including the NDAA itself would negate the protections in the amendment, hailing it as “a clear victory for civil libertarians and should be celebrated as a strong step forward in protecting due process rights for all Americans.”

However, a federal court did already grant an injunction against the detention provision in the NDAA and it is likely that if it were further tested in the courts it would be found unconstitutional. In addition, changes to the main text of the 2012 version of the NDAA which actually expand detention authority beyond earlier versions demanded that some response be made to protect civil liberties

While this is not a perfect victory, it remains a major win for civil libertarians who do not believe that the people should have to sacrifice their most sacred rights, nor should the nation abandon the rule of law, even in a times of crisis or war. If the Bill of Rights can be discarded just because we feel threatened, then we have already thrown away the very values for which we fight as a nation.

This has been a long campaign for liberty and many people have earned our thanks.  Republican Liberty Caucus members played leading roles on every front in 2012 – running for office, working on campaigns, donating unprecedented amounts of money to our federal PAC, helping to promote and fundraise for candidates and serving as delegates to state conventions and ultimately the national convention in Tampa where we were witnesses to the beginnings of the events which culminated in this week’s historic defeat for the Republican Party establishment.  You worked hard with little respect or reward for a cause whose victory sometimes seemed distant and in peril.

There are many who are claiming that this election was a massive defeat for the Republican Party, but after studying the results for two days I’m surprised to be able to report what looks like some major victories for the liberty movement within the party.  Yes, the party took it on Mitt Romney’s chiseled chin, but the party’s losses are not necessarily our losses and while I certainly would have liked to have done better, in comparison to the party as a whole our candidates and our issues fared remarkably well.

Perhaps the most significant victory is a sign of change to come  While the party lost seats in both houses of Congress, the balance of power shifted and liberty candidates gained seats while the party was losing them.  Our endorsees and other sympathetic candidates now control a larger number of seats in both houses of Congress than ever before.  We lost only one incumbent House member and gained at least two solid seats in the Senate while the party lost 3 and gained more seats in the House than the party as a whole lost, effectively doubling the significance of our wins.  The failure of the party leadership and the Romney campaign did suppress turnout and that flowed down to races at lower levels, costing some of our most promising candidates wins they might have had in better years.   Yet 2014 is just around the corner and I expect many of those same candidates to run again and in an off year election we can anticipate the same kind of strong results we had in 2010 and more.

Two RLC candidates won new seats for liberty in the Senate, Ted Cruz (TX) and past endorsee Jeff Flake (AZ).  Four new liberty candidates took seats in the House, including RLC endorsees Steve Stockman (TX-36), Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11), Thomas Massie (KY-4) and Ted Yoho (FL-3) who was overlooked for endorsement.  Many previously endorsed candidates won reelection in the House, including Justin Amash, Tom McClintock, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Mick Mulvaney and others.  Perhaps most significantly hundreds of our endorsees won or held onto seats in state government, giving us a very deep bench to run for higher office going into the 2014 election.  Many other great candidates ran strong campaigns and came awfully close to winning, but the weakness of the national campaign and lack of support from state and national party organizations were challenges they couldn’t overcome.  With more independent funding and resources we expect them to do much better in 2014.

We also saw victories on key issues in several states.  Marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington and decriminalized in Massachusetts, which is likely to lead to a very important showdown over state sovereignty as the Obama administration and the DEA crack down on those states attempt to form independent drug policy.  In addition, Washington, Maryland and Maine voted to legalize same-sex marriage, a clear challenge to the unconstitutional federal Defense of Marriage Act, and while we prefer a non-governmental solution to the marriage issue, the passage of these propositions was at least a politically achievable step towards greater liberty for more people.  Less publicized but possibly equally important, Alabama, Montana and Wyoming voted on initiatives to nullify aspects of Obamacare within their borders, another development likely to provoke a constitutional showdown with the Obama administration.  It’s not going to be an easy four years for the president or his unconstitutional abuses of power.

Finally, after the attacks on the grassroots of the party launched by the Romney campaign, party leaders and special interests, in many ways a Romney defeat is a victory for Liberty Republicans.  In the long term it may benefit us more than defeating Obama would have.  The party establishment and the special interests which back them placed all their bets on Romney and his failure was their failure as well.  They have lost credibility with all the grassroots groups in the party and they are saddled with the blame for the abuses of power and bad choices which led to this debacle.  Now everyone knows what we have known for years.  If the Republican Party is to survive it needs a substantive change of leadership and a return to principles which can win elections.

After this election it is much more likely that our next presidential nominee will have strong liberty principles and Rand Paul’s stock as a presidential contender is way up.  We should also expect to see the party distance itself from single issue voters on the religious right and a deemphasis of divisive social issues.  This might well be the jolt the party needs to become the fiscally conservative and socially tolerant party which it needs to be in order to win and if it doesn’t happen quickly, we’re here to give change a push.

While this may not be the time for open celebration, this election has created many opportunities to expand the liberty movement within the Republican Party and our voices will be stronger and our opponents weaker than every before as we start a new political cycle.  We have more members with substantial campaign experience, we have better campaign funding channels and we have more experienced candidates.  Plus the Obama administration will supply us with plenty of opportunities for issue activism which can raise the profile of RLC leaders and our pro-liberty, small government agenda.

I’m looking forward to two years of great opportunities for growing liberty and winning key victories in the ongoing campaign to reclaim the Republican Party and make it the vehicle for the restoration of the Republic.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, the US District Court of the Southern Region of New York has granted a permanent injunction against the exercise of the indefinite military detention powers claimed by the United States government in section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The 112 page decision goes into great detail on how the threat of indefinite detention without due process of law imposes a chilling effect on the free speech rights of critics of the government, as exemplified by the plaintiffs who include prominent government critics and radicals like Noam Chomsky.

During the Congressional debate over the passage of the NDAA many in Congress claimed that the bill did not contain provisions for the indefinite detention of civilians in violation of their Constitutional rights. The proponents of the bill went to some lengths to rearrange the text and obscure the presence of those provisions to give them grounds for denying their existence. As demonstrated in the video accompanying this article, some supporters of the bill like Rep. Allen West (R-FL) were insultingly dismissive of those who complained about the NDAA. The court’s ruling definitively refutes any contention that the NDAA does not include these provisions, confirming the opinions of many civil rights lawyers and explaining in detail how section 1021 of the NDAA could be used to deprive citizens of their liberty at the whim of the Executive Branch.

At the time the NDAA was being debated groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Republican Liberty Caucus went to great lengths to provide legislators with detailed and up to date information on the dangerous content of the bill and organized extensive write-in and call-in campaigns opposing its passage. These efforts were coordinated with the efforts of legislators like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who spoke up against the bill in Congress.

There is really no excuse for those legislators who voted for the NDAA. The flaws in the content were too well known and well publicized for them to plead ignorance. Voters are unlikely to find the self-serving arguments of the bill’s authors that terrorism is such a threat that we need to give up our basic civil liberties to be persuasive now that the court has issued this injunction.

Those who claimed the NDAA did not include this provision should read the detailed explantion of the content of the bil in this ruling and at the very least they should publicly apologize. It would not be unreasonable for some of the more outspoken advocates of the bill like Rep. West to resign. The ruling is absolutely unequivocal that the NDAA does give the President the power to suspend due process and allow the military to arrest civilians and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial.

If you have time to read the ruling, the summary of the arguments made by lawyers from the Justice Department is eye-opening. Their presentation of their position is so arrogant and they seem to be so callous in their disdain for the rights of citizens that they raise questions about their fitness and public servants and the failure of Attorney General Eric Holder to uphold his responsibility as the chief advocate for the people and their rights. He seems to have forgotten that he is the people’s lawyer and become nothing but a mouthpiece for the government.

The ruling concludes:

“Military detention based on allegations of “substantially supporting” or “directly supporting” the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated forces, is not encompassed within the AUMF and is enjoined by this Order regarding § 1021(b) (2). No detention based upon § 1021(b) (2) can occur.”

In granting an injunction the court not only makes clear that the NDAA contains these powers, but also blocks their exercise, protecting the rights of citizens. It is a travesty that we should have to rely on the courts to protect us from such a clear violation of our rights. Our elected representatives ought to be looking out for our interests and should never have passed the NDAA in its current form. Far too many of them failed in this basic responsibility to their constituents.

For the time being we are free of this gross abuse of government power, but it is likely that Attorney General Holder will appeal the ruling and attempt to reclaim this power, and it’s probably inevitable that the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of Senatorial malfeasance, John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) will look for new ways to incorporate indefinite military detention powers in the NDAA when it comes up for review next year.

Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas board member Jeff Larson gives his first-hand report of events in the Credentials Committee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa during their main meeting Friday of last week. Accompanying video includes a short interview with Jeff from a local TV station.

Short version, the good guys lost all three today: Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon.

Karin (Credentials Committee member from Maine) was prevented by RNC rules from voting on her own case. The Credentials Committee voted to allow her to speak, though.

The format was, first, counsel for each side got 30 minutes (or 25 minutes plus 5 minutes for rebuttal). Next, Credentials Committee members could question counsel or their witnesses. Finally, counsel and witnesses were excused, and Credentials Committee members could make whatever motions they wanted. Each of the over 100 Credentials Committee members could speak twice to each motion.

The Chair moved to allow the Vice-Chairs to speak. All the Vice-Chairs were also members of the Committee on Contests, which had pre-heard each of the three cases and had ruled against us each time. Mike (Credentials Committee member from Virginia) objected on the grounds that this would allow the Vice-Chairs to prejudice the Credentials Committee in favor of accepting the Committee on Contests reports (which were all against us). A vote was taken, and the Credentials Committee overwhelmingly voted to allow them to speak.

There was a motion to limit debate to 2 hours. Although it wasn’t clear what the motion applied to, it passed overwhelmingly.

Counsel then presented for Maine. The Challengers (the bad guys) claimed the convention was an utter mess, with people wandering in off the street and voting, people being issued other people’s credentials, etc. The Respondents (the good guys) claimed that aside from a few hiccups, the convention was well run and that all the delegates won by huge margins.

One of the questions was, “If credentials was such a mess, how did you know you had a quorum?” Respondent’s counsel answered that there were 1800 votes cast in the delegate’s races out of 2700 registered in attendance, which pretty well ought to be a quorum.

After over an hour of questions, Mike from Virginia asked just what the 2-hour limit applied to. The Chair said he thought it meant presentations+questions+motions and debate, but he’d let questions continue anyway. Someone then called for the orders of the day, which automatically cut off questioning. In my opinion, the questions hadn’t quite become circular, but had gotten to the point where little new ground was being covered.

There was a motion made to accept the report of the Committee on Contests, which would have tossed half the Paul delegates and replaced them with Romney delegates appointed by the Committee on Contests.

Mike from Virginia made a motion to amend the report to strike all the Romney delegates and replace them with the duly elected Ron Paul delegates. Karin from Maine seconded the motion, but there was an objection because she was one of the challenged delegates. (Kelly?) from Iowa provided a second, solving the problem.

The Committee on Contests had interpreted RNC rule 23 to mean, “We can do whatever we want to fix a problem with a delegation”, which is how it justified striking half the elected Paul delegates and replacing them with Romney delegates. Respondent’s counsel argued they were ignoring RNC rule 17, which allowed a delegation to elect to replace any vacant seats. This would have allowed the 5 uncontested delegates from Maine to pick the replacements. A Credentials Committee member from New Hampshire made a lengthy argument in favor of the Committee on Contest’s interpretation of rule 23. I didn’t think it had much substance.

Stavros Mendros, Credentials Committee member from Maine, made an excellent speech introducing much factual information about the Maine convention and the background. In my opinion, it had the information that Respondent’s counsel should have provided in their presentation. Stavros got an ovation from the other Ron Paul committee members and from the spectator’s gallery.

This report is not an exhaustive list of everyone who spoke to every motion, but hits some of the highlights. A committee member from Louisiana spoke against the amendment (in favor of the Committee on Contests), and the other committee member from Virginia (the lady) spoke in favor of the amendment.

A committee member from Washington gave a speech that was very hostile to Ron Paul. It was the first genuinely anti-Paul speech I’d heard that day, as opposed to one that was merely against Mike’s amendment.

Karin from Maine gave a very emotional speech, claiming that the Challengers had deliberately tried to sabotage the Maine convention, and when that didn’t work, they then filed the challenge. She used the phrase that I’m sure was on a lot of people’s minds, claiming the challenge was just an example of Sour Grapes.

Karin got applause for her speech, which was followed by a voice vote. To my ears, Mike’s amendment went down by about a 2:1 margin.

Mike then made a second motion, to amend the Committee on Contests report to strike all the disputed delegates, and to allow the 5 undisputed delegates (which included the Governor) to elect replacements.

A committee member from Minnesota made a good speech, reminding the committee that although the Republican Party was supposed to be the party of the grass roots, allowing an RNC committee to hand-pick the delegation instead of allowing Maine to select their own delegation was concentrating all the power at the top, to the detriment of the party.

Stavros Mendros from Maine then made another great speech, this one in favor of Mike’s second amendment. He mentioned that the results of the previous vote defeating his first amendment had been tweeted back to Maine, with the result that the Governor had affirmed he would not be attending the convention. Stavros begged the committee to not embarrass his state any more, and to allow them to elect their own delegates. Again, he got applause, only the 3rd time of the day for anyone.

A voice vote was taken, heavily against Mike’s 2nd motion. Mike from Virginia called for a standing vote. 12 committee members, all from states like Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the Virgin Islands, all stood (I hope I didn’t miss anyone, Maine was not allowed to vote). In opposition, the entire rest of the room stood. Cries of “Shame on you!” and “Shame!” erupted from the gallery. The Chair ordered the Sergeant at Arms to remove anyone disrupting the meeting, and he escorted a couple of people out. Afterward, a few people cried “Shame” once, then immediately left the room.

Business returned to the main motion. Since both amendments had failed, the motion was to adopt the Committee on Contests report, striking half the elected Maine delegation and replacing them with Romney people. The motion carried without much opposition. (I’m pretty sure there were 12 no’s.) Thus, the Maine Ron Paul delegates under dispute were not seated. We still get half the original strength as part of the Committee on Contests “compromise”.

The Credentials Committee stood at ease, so I went out into the hall to break the bad news to some of our people. I was talking to a delegate from Arkansas, when a curious thing happened. An RNC staffer approached, and told him he had to go with her. She told me I had to come, too. I asked why, and was told that I couldn’t be here, that my guest credential had been issued in error. She said that Credentials Committee members couldn’t have guests (contradicting what they’d been told in their orientation briefing), and that only RNC members could have guests.

I made a fuss about retrieving my property from the meeting room before getting the bum’s rush, and another staffer escorted me in so I could get my hat. (It’s my special hat.) Inside, I met a Ron Paul-friendly Credentials Committee member who was hanging out in the guest area during the break. I explained the situation to him, and he got nearly as upset as I was, and followed me up to the security checkpoint where I was told to wait while the first staffer straightened things out.

To understand how absurd this all was, there were nearly two dozen guests of Credentials Committee members in the guest area of the meeting room. Yet only I and the Arkansas delegate were being asked to leave. Neither of us had been the least bit disruptive, although he looked “out of place” (hair dyed red and casual clothes). I was in a suit and tie.

The first staffer and my friend on the Credentials Committee went down the hall toward the meeting room while I was left to stew at security. A few minutes later, she came back, told me it was all a big misunderstanding, apologized, told me she hoped I hadn’t thought I was singled out because that was not the case. I was willing to let it all go at that.

EXCEPT that a few hours later, I got the other half of the story. The Credentials Committee member lost track of her for a few seconds, and when he found her again, she was talking to a couple of RNC types, asking them what to do about me. He heard one of them say, “Is he a Paul guy?” At which point the Committee member inserted himself into the conversation, and was told he was intruding on a private conversation. He begged to differ, expressed his outrage at the whole thing, and so I was allowed back in. The red-haired Arkansas delegate was allowed in, too.

Moral of the story…apparently, you can get thrown out of an RNC committee meeting just for talking to someone who looks like an obvious Ron Paul supporter. And you can get right back in if you have friends on that particular committee…but possibly not if you don’t have those friends. I’m not interested in running the experiment.

Next up was Oklahoma. The Challengers (the good guys) claimed the establishment slow-rolled the convention until taking roll-call votes was an issue, blew voice votes where delegate seats were at stake, and refused the roll-call votes that would have exposed the lie. The Respondents (the bad guys) claimed they bent over backwards to give the Paul people several breaks that weren’t in Robert’s Rules, put on a fair convention, and are the victim of sour grapes as the Paul folks lost several delegate votes 75-25 or so.

My take on it is that regardless of the merits of the Challenger’s case, the presentation of that case was very weak. My understanding is that Challenger’s counsel was not a trained attorney, and it seemed to show. In all the other challenges, everyone used the full 25+5 or 30 minutes allotted to them. After 15 minutes, Challenger’s counsel rested. The Chair asked him if he had anything else, any witnesses, anything. He passed. The other side used every minute of the time allotted to them, called one of the convention officials as a witness, and creamed them.

The case by Oklahoma Challenger’s counsel boiled down to, “They didn’t follow the rules! They didn’t follow the rules! They didn’t follow the rules!” In my opinion, a glaring omission was any explanation of why not following the rules thwarted the will of the Oklahoma convention. This is especially so in light of the Respondent’s counsel’s claim that the votes went against the Paul people by 75-25.

A Credentials Committee member from California moved to adopt the report of the Committee on Contests, which would seat the Romney delegates elected at the convention, and not seat the Paul delegates elected at the rump convention. Eric Opiela from Texas seconded the motion.

The voice vote was a massacre. I only heard one voice, possibly a second, vote nay. Even the Ron Paul Credentials Committee members who had fought so hard for Maine didn’t vote nay on adopting the Committee on Contests report…they’d have just looked foolish if they had because the case for Oklahoma was so weak. By that, I don’t mean that bad things didn’t happen at the Oklahoma convention, just that if all you’d heard was what was presented at the Credentials Committee meeting, you’d never believe anything was wrong.

The Credentials Committee stood at ease for a few minutes after considering the Oklahoma case. This is when I learned from the Credentials Committee member who had saved me from getting kicked out of the meeting about the conversation between the staffer and the RNC member, and how the Credentials Committee member had intervened on my behalf.

The last case considered was Oregon. The Challenger’s counsel (the good guys) claimed that the establishment deliberately slow rolled the conventions once they saw votes going against them, in hopes that a special Oregon rule for selecting delegates by an executive committee when the conventions fail to elect them would be invoked. Respondent’s counsel (the bad guys) claimed that there was only one convention in 5 locations, that all 5 locations had to adjourn at once, and that they couldn’t have foreseen that the day’s business would have taken so long.

The arguments were very technical at times. There was extensive questioning over whether there was one convention at 5 sites, or 5 different conventions, and the two sides disagreed on that issue. One “site” adjourned promptly at 5pm, and the other 4 “sites” continued on. The establishment considered everything the other “sites” did after 5pm to be null and void. I was amused when Respondent’s counsel (who was claiming that there was 1 convention at 5 locations, not 5 conventions) slipped a couple of times and referred to “conventions” instead of a “convention”. Challenger’s counsel pointed out that Oregon has 2 rules about holding conventions, one for conventions held in odd numbered years, and one for holding them in even numbered years, and that the Respondent’s kept referring to the wrong rule to justify their actions.

Only the at-large Alternates were in play in the Oregon challenge, but due to numerous factors, that actually made a difference with regard to Presidential nominations and voting. Someone on the Credentials Committee moved to adopt the report of the Committee on Contests, which would seat the at-large Alternates chosen by the Oregon star chamber and toss the at-large Alternates elected at the 4 Oregon conventions that did not adjourn at 5 pm. Mandy Tschoepkes (sp?) from Texas seconded that motion.

The female Virgina Credentials Committee member moved to amend the Committee on Contests report to seat the elected (Ron Paul) Alternates instead of the appointed (Romney) ones. One of the committee members from Iowa seconded the motion.

Stavros Mendros gave a speech asking why the contested Alternates from Oregon weren’t split between elected Paul supporters and appointed Romney supporters, just like the Maine delegation was. This got him applause for the 3rd time of the day. There was also an emotional speech by Mike from Virginia urging the Committee to “not reward bad behavior” (on the part of the Oregon establishment that denied the elected delegates). This was followed by a motion to call the question (stop debate and vote on the amendment to seat the Ron Paul Alternates), which passed.

The voice vote to seat the Ron Paul alternates failed by a large margin. I suspect the only “ayes” were the same 12 people who stood for Maine on the earlier vote.

Kelly from Iowa moved to amend the Committee on Contests report to throw out all the contested at-large Alternates, and to allow the uncontested Oregon Delegates to vote for replacements, as provided for by the Oregon State GOP rules. The Chair ruled her motion out of order. Mike from Virginia appealed the decision of the Chair (giving the Credentials Committee an opportunity to overrule the Chair). He needed a 2/3 majority, and the voice vote sounded like he got less than 1/3.

Stavros Mendros from Maine proposed an ammendement to the Committee on Contests report to have the Credentials Committee select half elected Ron Paul Alternates and half Romney replacements, just like the Committee on Contests did for the Maine delegation. Robert (“Max”) from the Virgin Islands seconded the motion. The voice vote failed, again by a large margin.

Someone moved the previous question (again, “let’s quit making new amendments and decided this once and for all”). This passed unanimously, as the Ron Paul Credentials Committee members were just about out of ammunition. There was a final voice vote to adopt the Committee on Contests report, tossing the elected Ron Paul at-large Alternates in favor of the star chamber-selected Romney at-large Alternates. It passed, with the usual 12 or so members dissenting.

Summary: We lost Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon.

The Credentials Committee took one final vote. The motion was to have only one vote as a permanent committee when they reconvene after the start of the Convention. That vote will be to approve all the decisions made so far (Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon). I expect it to pass handily.

My most recent information is that the permanent Credentials Committee will meet sometime tomorrow (Tuesday, 8/28/2012).

A common failing among political activists is the inability to see political decisions and situations from the point of view of those they may disagree with. Activists are by their nature ideological rather than pragmatic and frequently the decisions made by political leaders who have moved beyond their activist roots are made based on considerations which are purely practical and are based on only a very loose understanding of what will really satisfy the activists who make up the various grassroots constituencies they are trying to appeal to.

So if you’re a highly motivated Liberty Republican, a Ron Paul supporter or an ideological libertarian working within the Republican party, I’m going to ask you to try to think outside the box for a little while here while looking at the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

From our liberty activist perspective Paul Ryan is pretty much just another establishment Republican hack. With 7 terms under his belt he’s been in office too long. His voting record is utterly uninspiring and shows no real sign of acting on fiscally conservative principles. He’s a big military supporter and never saw a domestic security clampdown or foreign military adventure he didn’t like. Plus he’s about as hardcore a religious conservative as you can find in office. Despite all these indisputable facts, I’m going to suggest that Paul Ryan is still a major concession to the liberty movement within the Republican Party.

Remember that the party establishment is not ideological. All they care about is getting things done, particularly getting their party in power and being able to satisfy the constituencies which keep them in office year after year. They are not inherenly hostile to the best interests of the country or to ideological principles, but they are more loyal to those who provide the enormous amounts of money it takes to get elected or who can provide them with blocks of reliable votes in their home districts. They are made very nervous by any politician who seems too ideological and whose decisions are likely to be unpredictable and deviate from the general strategy of maintaining power and avoiding change.

Now try to get into their heads. From their perspective politicians like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn and Jeff Flake and even Paul Ryan are radical firebrands because they occasionally come up with an innovative idea or stand firm on an issue for reasons of principle. Not very often, but just enough to make the leadership nervous while still largely satisfying their desire for people to stick with the program. From this vantage politicians like Rand Paul or Justin Amash are positively terrifying because they will consistently challenge the system and operate on an alternative agenda which the establishment is constitutionally incapable of understanding.

The establishment of the Republican party has a general idea that the grassroots are not happy with them. They have encountered the Tea Party and it scared them. They have heard about the liberty movement and dismissed it as so far outside of their worldview as to be irrelevant. They cannot deal with the more ideological elements of the grassroots because operating on ideology is so far outside their experience that they have no tools to deal with it. There’s no way to fit it into their strategy except as a force to somehow be placated with the right rhetoric and symbolic gestures, but most of them don’t have enough contact with the party base to really know what it is asking for. They got huge numbers of phonecalls and emails for Audit the Fed, so they voted for it to throw us a bone, not really understanding that it is merely the tip of the spear of legislative reform which many are demanding, and figuring that somehow that one vote protects and legitimizes them. They stepped outside their box to support that issue and from their perspective that is a huge concession to popular demands.

They have established a norm for the party and varying even slightly from that norm is viewed as dangerously radical. Here’s where Paul Ryan comes in. Paul Ryan came up with a budget plan which included actual Medicare reform and budget cuts. From our perspective the plan is kind of pathetic and inadequate, a mostly symbolic gesture in the right direction which produces mediocre results. But from an establishment perspective it’s absolutely revolutionary because doing anything except voting for more spending and more pandering is very radical.

From that viewpoint, selecting Ryan as the vice presidential candidate is an enormously bold move and a major concession to what their very limited worldview tells them are the concerns of the grassroots. Ryan is more fiscally conservative than they are comfortable with. He is more of an initiator and policymaker than they feel safe with. He’s effective enough that they find him somewhat threatening. From the establishment’s myopic point of view Paul Ryan is an absolute flame breathing radical. He may not seem that way in comparison to Ron Paul, but most of them are not even capable of understanding the ideological views which drive Ron Paul. They don’t take his views or the views of those who support him into consideration at all, because they dismiss them as aberrant and outside of the political mainstream.

The idea of compromising with Ron Paul or making a concession to Liberty Republicans is absolutely inconceivable. It would be like pandering to cows or chickens. Only the most perceptive among the party leaders have even noticed that the liberty movement can raise money and turn out votes, and even they have no idea how to court that constituency. In that position of uncomprehending ignorance the selection of Ryan represents what the establishment sees as an enormous concession. They can’t imagine selecting someone more radical than Ryan and they assume that Ryan is such a strong libertarian (OMG, he reads Ayn Rand!) that he will make everyone happy, bring the Paul supporters on board, fire up the tea party and win over libertarian-leaning independents.

In reality the response in the grassroots has been fairly tepid. Some of the more sold-out tea party groups which have been taken over by the religious right are genuinely excited. But the more ideological groups and those who are real Liberty Republicans have reacted with anything from boredom to outrage. From the perspective of real radical activists Ryan is so close to the establishment norm as to be indistinguishable, just as from the establishment perspective he’s far enough out of the norm to appear like a real concession to the radicals.

The problem with these two conflicting worldviews is that ideological voters are not likely to be terribly forgiving or understanding of an establishment they view more and more as a major part of the problem in our political system. We don’t see what a huge concession Ryan is from the perspective of those in power, we just see how far he is from our ideals and feel disappointed. It’s possible that this is not the right reaction. In analyzing any action the intent behind that action is enormously important. Yes, Ryan isn’t what we wanted, but acting within their limitations, the selection of Ryan shows a clear intent from the establishment to offer a concession to the more radical pro-liberty elements within the party.

That said, it’s possible that we ought to be scoring the Ryan selection as a major victory for liberty because it is a sign of the establishment stepping outside of their comfort zone and offering us something they think is significant. It’s like when your senile grandmother gives you a pair of used socks for Christmas. You don’t like the socks and you don’t want the socks, but you have to appreciate her intent to do what she thought was something nice, even if the result was horribly disappointing. You welcome the old socks with enthusiasm and don’t express your inner dismay, either because you respect her and feel sorry for her, or at the very least because you hope she’ll leave you some money in her will.

Ultimately, if we object to Ryan, if we raise the roof with outrage, they’re sufficiently out of touch that they won’t understand and will just get confused and offended. If we accept their lame gift with a winning smile that makes them think they did the right thing, that makes them feel good about us and next time the gifts may be more generous and they’ll write us into the will and we will eventually inherit it all.