As a result of aggressive efforts by grassroots groups in Texas, Governor Rick Perry has offered to put Rep. David Simpson’s TSA anti-groping bill on the agenda for the upcoming legislative special session which starts this coming week if certain conditions are met. Although threats from the Justice Department and the TSA temporarily stymied bill sponsors in the state Senate after it passed the House with an overwhelming majority, they are now ready to put it through both houses in the special session where rules require only a simple majority of both houses for passage. Governor Perry has promised to put the bill on the agenda if there is a guaranteed majority supporting it in both houses and to sign the bill if it passes. A good summary of the situation can be found in the Washington Times.

Simpson’s HB 1937 (now SB29 and HB41) would make it a felony for TSA agents operating in Texas to engage in certain forms of intimate touching during the course of an “enhanced pat down” of an airlin

In today’s meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee (“SREC”), the Texas Republican Party passed a resolution that urged Governor Rick Perry to call HB 1937 into the current special legislative session. This is the highly publicized bill by State Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) which make TSA employees liable for criminal penalties for inappropriately touching passengers during pat downs. The RLC in Texas and nationwide has taken the lead on supporting this important civil liberties legislation.

The Texas State Legislature is only allowed to convene a regular legislative session for  140 days once every 2 years.  Many Texans believe the strict limitation on political “law-making” is the main reason why Texas enjoys greater freedom and economic prosperity than other states.  Other Texans believe the State Legislature should only meet for 2 days once every 140 years.

The Governor has the right to call one or more “special sessions” of the State Legislature to consider emergency legislation.  These special legislative sessions may last from several days to a month.

After having been implicated in the procedural death of the anti-groping bill during the regular legislative session, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst later reversed course and recommended HB 1937 for the current special session in a letter to Governor Rick Perry.  To date, Gov. Perry has not called the bill, claiming he needed to determine if there was a “consensus” of support for it.

Well, today, another nearly unanimous consensus was added on to the pile of overwhelmingly strong support for the “restrain-the-TSA” legislation, as the SREC passed the following resolution without debate at its meeting in Austin, Texas.  Only one committee member voted in opposition to the resolution.

RESOLUTION on TSA “enhanced pat-down” Opposition, supporting HB-1937 in Special Session

Whereas 82R HB 1937 (now known as HB 41 in the current special session) safeguards basic rights defined under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for persons traveling in Texas;

Whereas “enhanced pat-downs” by the Transportation Safety Administration are administrative policies established by federal bureaucracy and not statutory law enacted by federal government and therefore cannot hold supremacy over the U.S. Constitution or the Texas State Constitution;

Whereas it is unlawful for properly trained law enforcement officers to perform “enhanced pat-downs” as performed by the Transportation Safety Administration;

Whereas HB 1937 received a unanimous recommendation from the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee;

Whereas HB 1937 was unanimously passed by the Texas House of Representatives;

Whereas HB 1937 received a unanimous recommendation from the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee;

Whereas HB 1937 had oral expressions of support from 30 of 31 Texas State Senators prior to being scheduled for hearing on the Senate floor;

Whereas Senate passage of HB 1937 was halted at the eleventh hour after the U.S. Department of Justice delivered a factually inaccurate letter concerning the effect of HB 1937 and that threatened an immediate injunction which included “canceling a flight or series of flights”

Whereas this level of intimidation establishes grounds for a constitutional crisis;

Whereas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst has now recommended HB 1937 for the current special session of the State Legislature;

Be It Resolved that the State Republican Executive Committee urges Governor Rick Perry to call 82R HB 1937–now filed as HB 41–as emergency legislation so that it may be considered by the Texas Legislature in special session.

All Texans should applaud the SREC for unambiguously standing up to what appeared to some to be pressure from the party establishment not to make this clear statement. Republican parties in other states are watching what happens in Texas and will be looking at how this situation develops in pursuing similar legislation in their states.

This is not the end of the story. Governor Perry still needs to get on board to support the bill. If you are in Texas, please call Governor Perry’s office at 512-463-2000 NOW and say that you are IN FAVOR of HB 1937, and that HB 1937 needs the Governor’s FULL SUPPORT and should  be passed in the upcoming special session.

Remind the Governor that anything less would undermine his “Fed Up” campaign for the U.S. presidency.  You can also tell representatives in the Texas House and Senate it should tell the TSA to Come and Take It!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congresswoman Bachmann said:

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

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

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

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

As Senator Paul so eloquently put it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week Senator Rand Paul (RLC-KY) sent out a lengthy letter urging Republicans to sign a petition to Congress on behalf of the National Right to Work Committee in support of the National Right to Work Act which is being considered in the Senate. The email was almost bizarrely long, but I think I can summarize the idea in a few short words. The act would protect workers from being forced against their will to join unions and pay inflated dues which often support political causes they personally oppose.

Those of you familiar with the traditions of the Republican Party – the traditions which the Republican Liberty Caucus wants to restore – know that a cornerstone since the founding of the party has been the idea of free labor. That workers should have the right to choose where they work and to change jobs without coercion from government, employers or unions. This includes the right to join a union, but also the right not to join a union if they prefer not to. It includes equal access to employment for which they are qualified, but also the right of employers to make their own decisions on their own criteria for hiring. Just as we need free markets in goods and services a free society demands a free market in labor.

The text of the petition reads:

Whereas: Federal law permits Big Labor to confiscate $8 billion from American workers’ paychecks every year just to get or keep a job;

Whereas: This forced unionism breeds violent strikes and a hate-the-boss mentality which drive good jobs overseas, jack up prices and risk re-igniting inflation:

Whereas: Union bosses use this forced-dues fortune to corrupt our political system with over a billion dollars every election cycle;

Whereas: Union-puppet politicians routinely vote for higher taxes, bailouts, job-killing bureaucracy and even more porkbarrel spending keeping our nation locked in recession;

Therefore: I urge you in the strongest possible terms to strike a blow for freedom and American prosperity by co-sponsoring and casting your every vote in favor the National Right to Work Act.

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

The bill is authored by Jim DeMint (RLC-NC) and co-sponsored by all of the RLC endorsees in the Senate. Information and the actual text of the act can be found on OpenCongress.org.

I want to encourage all RLC members and supporters to sign the petition and support this effort. Protecting the rights of workers and employers against the increasingly abusive force of unions is the best way to strike a blow at the heart of the progressive agenda promoted by the Obama administration.

You can find the petition on the NRTW Site. And don’t forget to make a donation to the RLC while you’re here (see links to the right). We need your support to keep aggressively promoting pro-liberty and smaller government legislation like this.

On Thursday night, the Texas House of Representatives passed the first of two bills from Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) which would criminalize TSA searches of passengers at airports without probable cause.

The key text of HB1937 reads in part:

A person who is a public servant [acting under color of his office or employment] commits an offense if the person:
(2) while acting under color of the person’s office or employment without probable cause to believe the other person committed an offense:
(A) performs a search for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation;

The bill passed by acclamation and will move on to the Senate for consideration.

This bill had been heavily backed and promoted by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas and the RLC of Central Texas. RLC-CTX members testified at multiple hearings, with board member Pierre de Rochemont taking the lead and providing expert scientific testimony on the dangers of the TSA scanners.

The issue of TSA scanners and enhanced pat downs has become a nationwide issue because of highly publicized incidents which brought the intrusiveness of TSA screening to the nation’s attention in recent weeks. In early April, a father videotaped a TSA agent in New Orleans running her hands all over his visibly upset 6-year-old. A few weeks later, former Miss USA Susie Castillo made a tearful video after agents touched her genitalia during a pat-down. She said she came away feeling violated. And just this week, a bystander snapped a photo of screeners in Kansas City patting down an infant.

HB1937 addresses the intrusiveness of TSA pat-down procedures, making it a crime to purposefully, knowingly or recklessly touch a person’s anus, sexual organ and breasts, even through clothing. A companion bill which addresses the danger of TSA backscatter radiation scanners is also being considered and should be voted on soon. Similar bills are being considered in a number of other state legislators with strong support from RLC chapters in those states.

I have to admit to not agreeing with Ron Paul 100% on every issue, and one area where I sometimes question his positions is immigration.  I feel like he habitually comes up short when it comes to offering real solutions to immigration issues.  He’s pretty clear on what he doesn’t support, but not so clear about how he would actually form a positive immigration policy.  This probably comes from having been a one man minority for so long and never having any expectation that his legislation would ever see the light of day.  That might change in the next couple of years with more Liberty Republicans in office.

Nonetheless, the lack of some fully defined positions on immigration doesn’t justify the gratuitous slam directed at him in NumbersUSA’s recent ranking of the presidential candidates.  Admittedly, Numbers USA is a hardcore nativist and protectionist group who I suspect would secretly like to round up all non-white people and deport them even if they are citizens.  That’s still no excuse for grossly misrepresenting Dr. Paul’s record and views in a way which suggests a general attack out of other motives rather than just assessing him negatively on their issues.  If immigration is your one official issue you ought to be able to do better with it than they do ranking Paul.

Their recent attack on Paul takes the form of downgrading his rating on their immigration-related issues from a C- to an F, putting him barely ahead of President Obama’s F-. The problem is that some of their criticisms of Paul don’t actually square with his record and past statements and they even misinterpret statements in his recent book Liberty Defined. Perhaps in response to this critique Paul went on the Jon Stossel show and clarified his positions, repeating statements which he has been making for years and which are well documented.

In their Consumer Reports style ratings, NumbersUSA ranks Paul as “Bad” on Amnesty. Their position is total opposition to amnesty in any form. Yet that has also been Paul’s position for years. He made it clear on the Stossel show and in a 2007 presidential forum he said “I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty.” That has always been his position. How can that earn him their second worst rating on the issue?

They also give Paul their third worst rating of “Unhelpful” on Border Security, yet Paul voted for the construction of a border fence, the kind of spending he normally opposes on principle. They also rated him “Bad” on Reduce Overall Immigration, yet Paul supported cutting off visas for students from terrorist nations, voted to deport illegals who received hospital treatment, and has a 100% rating from FAIR on reducing immigration.

These low ratings in ares where Paul has a strong anti-immigration record suggest that NumbersUSA may be pursuing some sort of political agenda beyond their stated concerns about immigration. It’s like they were looking for ways to specifically hurt Paul with their constituency. This seems grossly unfair and you have to wonder what hidden agenda they are really pursuing. They seem more anti-liberty than they are anti-immigration. Perhaps they started from some faulty assumptions about Paul, but he really isn’t a doctrinaire open-borders style libertarian. His positions are much more traditionally consevative.

The other aspect of this is the question of whether a low rating from NumbersUSA is really such a bad thing. Their positions on immigration and related issues are so extreme that they are far outside of the norm for the Republican Party and the political right in general. It’s arguable that a low rating from NumbersUSA is a sign that you have some good sense on immigration issues. They may be trying to sink Paul unfairly, but that might end up helping him with the larger section of the population which doesn’t believe in draconian anti-immigrant policies.

Paul’s positions on immigration are mostly pretty sensible. He doesn’t have a comprehensive plan in mind, but he does oppose some of the worst ideas on the issue. He doesn’t like singling businesses out for excessive punishment if they employ illegals. He has a very sensible perspective on the fact that immigration is closely linked to the state of our economy and that there are benefits from immigration when the economy is strong and that immigrants go home and reduce their impact when the economy is weak. He’s also strongly opposed to excessive security measures like REAL-ID which would infringe the rights of US citizens.

Paul should probably rate about a D on NumbersUSA’s rankings if they were being fair, but I’m glad he doesn’t rank any higher than that. His position is moderate and sensible and theirs is not. Controlling immigration is important, but the approach promoted by NumbersUSA is extremist and deceptive. Implementing their ideas would be economically devastating. They even oppose legal immigration of skilled workers and they completely write off the need for low-skill labor and any benefits immigrants bring the economy.

Those for whom immigration is a major issue should look at NumbersUSA with skepticism and take the time to check out Ron Paul’s actual statements and how he has voted on the issue. Better to make up your own mind than to look to a source with such obvious biases and a suspect anti-liberty agenda. We may not know whose dirty work NumbersUSA is doing, but we do know that Ron Paul stands for liberty.

As liberty voters we’re very lucky this year that we have a better choice of candidates than we have had since the days of Goldwater and Taft.  With both Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul running some of us are finding it hard to figure out which candidate to support and others are bickering and squabbling over their choices rather than celebrating how lucky we really are. Liberty is catching fire in the hearts of America and this campaign proves it.

At this point, early in the primary process, it benefits us to have as many candidates as possible talking about cutting back the federal government and reclaiming our rights.  Right now there are no delegates at stake and no serious establishment frontrunner to focus on defeating.  That will probably remain true through the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, where it’s all about exposure and there aren’t many delegates to win. After that the race gets serious and there are more and more delegates to be won.  At that point we’re going to have to make a choice of who to throw all our efforts and resources behind and it seems obvious to me that the right choice is Ron Paul.

I’ve reached that conclusion for reasons which are both pragmatic and political, and from both perspective he is the gold standard for liberty in 2012.

Practical Advantages

Paul’s practical advantages are obvious.  He is better known, has a large established base of followers and a national organization which is well established with an extraordinary record of fundraising success. Fundraising will be particularly important in a race where the Democrats have promised to spend a billion dollars. Paul is already all over the media, especially the cable news networks.  He is better known than the other hardcore conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty. He has multiple bestselling books in print and his followers promote him tirelessly.  The level of love and support he has generated says a lot about the man and his ideas.  Plus we saw his success at spreading his message in 2008 and now he can build on that base to go even further. Paul has shown he’s a strong debater and an energetic campaigner despite his age, and we need that enthusiasm to beat Obama.

Paul also has long-term associations which will benefit him in the election. He has long been a supporter of pro-liberty groups like the Von Mises Institute and the John Birch Society and was a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has a wide base of support on the internet from groups like Justin Raimondo’s AntiWar.com and Lew Rockwell and the many political writers at LewRockwell.com, and has built powerful tools for communication on his own networks like RonPaulForums.com and for grassroots support in Campaign for Liberty. Plus it can’t be forgotten that the idea of the Tea Party originated in Paul’s 2008 campaign and many Tea Party voters are still drawn to him.

The Right Ideas

On his political positions Paul is also superior. People keep comparing him to Gary Johnson, but it’s a false comparison. They’re not nearly as similar as Johnson supporters would like us to believe and they really aren’t even competing for the same voters. Ron Paul is a true constitutional conservative and it’s a mistake to call him a libertarian, even if he has a lot in common with that movement. Gary Johnson is more of a moderate libertarian. He’s a minarchist who is a liberal on social issues. He’s closer to Ronald Reagan or the old Rockefeller wing of the party on many issues and he’s too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters. Paul has a more clearly defined constitutional position and an established reputation for standing on principle.

Ron Paul’s positions are more appealing on a number of issues. He’s the only candidate who is willing to stand up and call for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is a dangerous cabal run by foreign bankers with no basis in Constitutional authority. He’s the only candidate who believes in sound money and a return to the gold standard rather than fractional reserve banking. He’s also the strongest candidate supporting states rights and state sovereignty and an end to federal tyranny under the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul is the only candidate brave enough to have a foreign policy which admits the mistakes we’ve made overseas and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. It is Israel and it’s powerful lobby which have drawn us into war after war and made us the target of terrorism, and Ron Paul would end that relationship and he would withdraw all of our military bases outside our border and stop spending money to prop up dictators and intervene in the affairs of countries all over the world. He’d get us out of the United Nations, thumb his nose at the New World Order, and strengthen our borders to protect our workers and our jobs.

What is absolutely essential for the primary election is that Paul’s personal values can win over GOP primary voters. While he believes that states rights are sacrosanct and is willing to leave many things up to the states to decide, Paul personally believes in fundamental moral values. He believes in the sanctity of human life from conception, opposes the immorality of gay marriage, supports the right of students to pray in school and the posting of the ten commandments on public property. He believes in economic liberty, but also the liberty to practice religion freely and maintain a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code in our society without the interference of the federal government.

It is these values which do the most to differentiate Paul from Gary Johnson, and it is these values which will win him the support of key voters in the religious right so that he can win a primary victory. When traditionalist Christian voters discover that Johnson personally supports gay marriage and abortion and letting the federal government dictate social policy to the states they will turn against him in droves. Unless Ron Paul is there for them to turn to they may support a socially conservative candidate who is terrible on other issues like Mike Huckabee.

Winning in 2012

Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for libertarian ideas, but he is out of step with many in the Republican party and while he might draw Democrats and independents in the general election, he cannot win in a Republican primary because of his controversial views, and you don’t get to the general election without winning the primary. As a true constitutional conservative Ron Paul does not have that liability. Once his message gets out most Republicans will realize that he’s got the right ideas for them.

If you believe in the Constitution, states rights, ending the Fed, sound money and a non-interventionist foreign policy, then Ron Paul is your candidate. He will end the abuses of the last two administrations, cut back the overgrowth of the federal government, get us out of hock to foreign bankers and end the Bush-Obama era of imperialism, torture and murder.