Many in the GOP feel like we’ve taken a big blow to the chest after Election Day. However, it’s important to understand why this happened, and how we can pave the road to prosperity in future elections.

First and foremost; we need to run on strong principles, and not cower down every time the establishment media spins our comments, and tries to pick a fight with us. We must fight back. Mitt Romney completely embarrassed himself in the second political debate. He called out Obama for his mismanagement of the Benghazi tragedy, and made a true statement claiming that President Obama didn’t denounce the attackers as terrorists. The moderator, Candy Crowley, stood up for Obama, and said that Obama actually denounced them as terrorists the following day. Romney just stood stood there and said nothing.

Candy Crowley actually admitted that she was wrong the following day. Obama, actually didn’t denounce the Benghazi attackers as terrorists. Obama gave a speech the day after the attacks, in the Rose Garden about the incidents, then talked about 9/11, and denounced the attackers of 9/11 as being terrorists. At that time Obama was still trying to sell the lie that the attacks were based off of a YouTube video.

Another example of this that I’d like to point out goes back a little over a year ago during the primary season. Texas governor Rick Perry was leading in the polls, and was fired up and at his peak. He made comments about Ben Bernanke, and claimed that if Bernanke was printing money in Austin, like he was doing in Washington, he’d be charged with treason. The media immediately went on the attack, and Perry cowered down. He later, during a debate, made the claim that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme, (which it is). The media attacked him, as well as many of his opponents, and he cowered down. After that Perry was trying too hard not to say anything offensive, and his campaign came crashing down.

If we’re going to win elections, we have to be honest, and we must not be afraid to take the gloves off.

The Republican Party is also running into problems dealing with the issue of  major demographic changes in our Country.  We constantly isolate the Latino vote by taking such hardcore stances on immigration. Yes, the rule of law is the rule of law, but sometimes our laws are impractical. Our laws are written under the assumption that we protect our borders, and have a comprehensive immigration policy; neither is true. Our government actually gives money and provides other incentives to illegal immigrants as the result of half-formed policies which were started with good intentions but were never coupled with appropriate controls which you would have in a comprehensive immigration system. Yes, we need a strong and secure border, but we need to end all welfare and safety nets for the illegal population. That alone would do wonders for keeping illegals out of our county.

Next, we need to make work visas more accessible to foreigners who come here looking for a chance to take care of themselves, and their families – not just for highly skilled workers, but also for laborers in low skill jobs where there is high demand. We also need to provide a reasonable path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are here and have shown a commitment to the nation by  working and providing for their families.  Get them out of the underground and on the books and make sure that all applicable taxes are being paid. That’s a position that I feel many Latino voters would be supportive of. We just drive them away when we make unrealistic and bombastic statements that we are going to launch mass deportation.  It will never happen and just makes us look bigoted and foolish and many in the GOP and in the general population find this sort of posturing offensive and unacceptable in a nation which has been built on immigration.

Abortion and related issues fall into a troublesome area which tends to be given a disproportionate amount of attention and be used as a weapon against the GOP. Nothing looks worse for the party then the comments Todd Akin made regarding abortion. Many Republicans, including Mitt Romney, denounced Akin’s comments, but with the spin in the media and similar comments from Richard Mourdock and John Koster reinforcing the impression Akin created, there is no denying it had a pervasive and lasting influence on the campaign.  It made Republicans look callous and inhumane.  I understand and appreciate pro-life positions, as well as pro-choice positions, but those positions should be the choice of the candidate and not a matter of party policy.  If there wasn’t such an ingrained, anti-abortion platform backing these candidates up, it would make Akin’s comments far less destructive and less likely to produce a negative reaction that spills over onto other candidates.

Another issue that the Republicans need to keep in mind is gay rights. The Republican Party’s position on gay rights isolates a lot of individuals who respect the ideas of limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. In Massachusetts, the Republican Party nominated Richard Tisei, an openly gay former State Senator, to run against incumbent, John Tierney. Tisei received very little support from the party, and lost the election by a very slim margin.  This was a major strategic error in a state where it’s very hard to get any Republicans elected.  Electing the first openly gay Republican congressman is a small price to pay for another seat in the House.  If we were more open and fair towards homosexuals, and homosexual candidates; we would be able to bridge a gap that has long hurt our image as a party. I understand the importance of religious freedom, but it would probably be better for everyone to  just  get government out of the marriage business in the first place. Allow governments to grant civil unions to all, and allow churches and the people to call them whatever they wish.

Another problem is the bad habit among Republicans of falling back on straw man arguments.  When you manufacture bogus claims about a candidate and they are disproven you look like a liar or a fool or both.  One particularly bad example of this was the claim which circulated a few weeks ago that  Obama had passed over 900 executive orders, which is untrue. Obama actually  signed fewer executive orders in his first-term then Bush did in his first-term. The claim even lists a bunch of executive orders that sound really bad, but which easy to find public sources can confirm were not even passed under his administration. Similarly weak and likely to backfire are the many ad hominem attacks which appealed particularly to members of the Tea Party, the classic example being all the increasingly ridiculous claims about Obama’s birth certificate, which did more to marginalize Republicans than they did to harm Obama.  In this same category are all the claims about Obama being a socialist, Muslim, foreigner, former CIA Agent named Barry Soetoro, etc. These cheap shots actually made many feel sympathetic with the President and ultimately, they hurt our cause. We would have won this last election had we stuck to the issues, instead of spewing radical propaganda that was unprovable or easily disproven.

A lot of Republicans won’t like this, but all the emphasis in the campaign on Obamacare was also a mistake, much though it ought to be hated and rejected.  The Affordable-Care Act is a terrible issue to rely on because it is essentially Bob Dole’s plan from the 1990′s filtered through Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health plan.  That doesn’t mean that it’s not bad policy, and that it’s not essential for us to repeal this legislation, but it makes any Republican argument against it weaker than it could be, because we came up with the bad idea in the first place.

If we get away from our social extremism, and stand firm on Constitutional principles; we will fix what has taken this great nation in the wrong direction. If we do this, I believe that we can save the GOP, reclaim the Constitution, and restore our republic. The problems facing us as Republicans, and as Americans are obvious. It’s time for the Republican Party to make a choice and find better strategies for the future, and I hope they choose wisely.

 

“Sanctions are affecting the entire country, but it is the people that bear the brunt and have the least ability to protect themselves from this pressure.” Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council

In the wake of heavy sanctions from the United States and the European Union, Iran’s economy is very near to failing. The Iranian rial hit an all-time low this morning, trading at 32,000 per U.S. dollar, a drop of more than 9% since last Monday.

The rial has been dropping steadily in value over the last nine months as more and more sanctions have been imposed. Iranians are dealing with food and medicine shortages while the E.U. and the U.S. prepare to impose even tougher restrictions.

Earlier this week the Iranian government established a new three-tiered currency system and opened “exchange centers” in an attempt to stabilize the failing currency. The system allows importers of high priority goods like meat and grains to buy dollars at the official “reference” rate of 12,260 rials to the dollar.

Those who import other basic goods are allowed to buy dollars at a “non-reference” rate 2 percent less than the open market value of the rial. Last Thursday, Iran’s central bank stated that the rate was 23,927 rials to the dollar.

However, this move doesn’t seem to have done anything to uphold the value of the rial. In fact, the effort seems to have backfired, contributing to the current market drop. According to an article on arabianbusiness.com, the open market appeared to be “resisting” the change.

Mahmoud Bahmani, Iran’s central bank governor, believes that the resistance will end if people see that the rial is backed by strong currency. However, this is the same central banking system that has recently been accused of mismanagement of the situation by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iranian legislators continue to be optimistic. Some are not trying to play the”blame game” with the E.U. and the United States. Legislator Ezzatollah Yousefian stated that international sanctions were not a major cause of the economic crisis in Iran.

“The first approach today is that authorities accept their mistakes and failures, second, that they not blame their mistakes on others, and third, that they invite all the pundits and experts to find a way to solve the problems of the economy,” said Yousefian.

According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, Iran’s oil losses could be devastating. By the end of the year, Iran may have lost 45-50 billion dollars in oil sales.

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, warned that continued sanctions could create an uprising in Iran, much like the one in Egypt last year that removed Mubarak from power. In an interview with Haaretz, a Israeli newspaper, Lieberman said that he believed that Iranians would stage their own version of the Tahrir revolution.

“The situation in Iran, and the feelings of the man on the street, is one of economic catastrophe,” he told Haaretz.  “Just this week there was another devaluation of the Iranian rial …. There’s a shortage of basic goods, a rise in crime, and people are trying to flee the country, sending money abroad.”

“The young generation is sick of being held hostage and sacrificing their future,” Lieberman said.

The Iranian people are the ones who feel the brunt of sanctions. In the past year, the value of the rial has fallen more than 75%, and food prices have skyrocketed more than 50%. A bad harvest coupled with tougher restrictions has left many facing the fear of grain shortages. Over the summer, queues were formed for government subsidized chicken. As reported by Reuters, one cleric suggested that Iranians meet their protein needs with egg soup if they could not afford meat.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said that the situation now is much different from the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980′s, when similar shortages were faced. “They (the government) will certainly attempt to recreate this narrative of Iran versus the world, but at the end of the day far more Iranians care about the price of chicken than they do enriched uranium.”

Speaking to the United Nations last Thursday,  Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called for international “red lines” in regard to the nuclear program in Iran and urged U.S. officials to do the same.

Netanyahu, in his speech, said, “For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy.

That hasn’t worked.

Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.

For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.

I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It’s had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard.

It’s had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program either.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.

At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That’s by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war.”

An anonymous official told Haaretz that Israel has stepped up its efforts to put pressure on the European Union to impose further sanctions on Iran.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told CNN that he hoped talks would be more productive after the U.S. presidential election. “We have seen during many years that as we approach the United States presidential election, no important decisions are made,” Ahmadinejad in an interview that was published Saturday.

“Following the election, certainly the atmosphere will be much more stable, and important decisions can be made and announced.”

Ahmadinejad intimated that meetings over Iran’s nuclear program with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, will result in “a very important decision” following the November election.

“We have set forth proposals, we are holding dialogue,” he said in the CNN interview.“We do hope to be able to take some steps forward.”

Iran continues to deny any attempts to produce nuclear weapons and says that their intent is peaceful and for civilian purposes. The West is adamant that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the Iranian people are starving and dying because of lack of medicine. Where do we, as Americans, draw our “red line” on the acts against other countries under the guise of humanitarianism?

“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Barack Obama

Recently, news came out that Mitt Romney’s effective tax rate was 14%. While that is higher than 97% of the American people, the universal outcry from the left was that Romney didn’t pay enough in taxes. Not so, Romney really ought to have paid no taxes at all. How could I say such a thing? Well, almost all of his income was from investment returns, and there should be no taxes on investments. The capital gains and dividends tax rates should both be 0%. Taxing capital gains and dividends is double taxation. A corporation’s earnings were already taxed — usually at a 35% marginal rate. Profits paid in the form of dividends  paid directly to investors were already taxed. Taxing it again is double-taxation. Profits not paid out as dividends increases a company’s value and is reflected in a company’s stock price.  So, as stock prices go higher, that too is also based on after-tax earnings — so capital gains are also double taxed. Either way, an investor bears the cost of taxes on corporate profits. In Romney’s case, he invested money  into various companies. That money was used to grow those companies and that growth was taxed through corporate taxes. Then, Romney was taxed once again through capital gains and dividend taxes. His 14% effective tax rate ignores the taxes he paid through corporate taxes. Beyond the fundamental unfairness (I love turning that leftist phrase against them) of taxing earnings twice , it’s just bad for economic growth. Economies don’t grow without capital investment, and we should remove every artificial barrier that discourages capital investment. If we want more jobs, we need profitable businesses and new innovation. To get that, we need capital investment to provide the real economic resources to fuel new ventures and expansion. And the higher the capital gains tax rate, the more it discourages risk taking and the less economic growth and innovation we get. Mitt Romney’s investments created jobs and new products and services that benefit consumers. We should cheer his investments instead of taxing it multiple times. We need to encourage more investments like that by eliminating the capital gains and dividends taxes entirely. While it’s tragic that Mitt Romney had to pay so much in taxes, the real loser in this deal is us. We could have enjoyed more new innovative products, more jobs, and a better standard of living had those investments not been taxed twice.

I read an article from Fox News earlier this evening regarding Mitt Romney’s energy independence plan. According to the article:

In a campaign speech in Hobbs, N.M., a few weeks ago, the GOP presidential nominee told the crowd, “I will set a national goal of North American independence by 2020. That means we produce all the energy we use in North America.

Seems like every presidential candidate since Carter has had one of those. None of them achieved it but they did bring us close. In spite of its many critics, NAFTA did do one good thing for the United States: made Canada and Mexico our two biggest oil providers, providing us with more than half of our oil. Saudi Arabian imports are now between 13-15%, which means less American money being redirected to terrorist groups and theocratic uprisings. Venezuelan imports are even less. OPEC’s stranglehold over us has been substantially reduced. And North American energy production is rising. All of this is good. But someone with no understanding of basic supply and demand or cost-benefit analysis decided to attack the GOP nominee.

Here’s what the beef was all about:

In addition to opening up new areas for offshore drilling, Romney says his energy independence goal can be accomplished by speeding up the time it takes to get permits to drill on federal lands. The way to do that, he says, is by putting state regulators in charge of the federal process just as they already are on state and private lands.

Said the article.

My immediate reaction: FINALLY! This is the Mitt Romney I’ve been wanting to see. After a mediocre campaign with mediocre positions, not much detail on how to get government out of our lives, and poor understanding of the duties of the federal government, Mitt Romney took a tenth amendment position that is much needed. A great deal of the mountain west is federally owned land. It should be given back to the states and the states should be in charge of any resources within their borders–with the federal government only involved in cross-border disputes.

But Pete Maysmith, executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters wasn’t exactly happy. He said:

“Governor Romney’s energy proposal … ignores the facts and is a giveaway to his big oil campaign supporters at the expense of our air, land and water. Energy production in the United States is at a 20-year high. So the problem is not regulations, the problem is not lack of access to federal lands.”

I don’t care what your political views are or who you are voting for. And there are many reasons not to like Mitt Romney. However, this is not one of them!

I don’t know if Mr. Maysmith is right or wrong about energy production being at a 20 year high. What I do know is this: IT DOES NOT MATTER!

That’s right. His conclusion might be partially factual in this and only this: most large energy companies are more than willing to comply with basic safety regulations. I’m a member of the Houston Economics Club, and such was the position that Andrew Slaughter, a former Chair of the National Petroleum Council, took at one of our meetings last January.

Most of the anti-fracking hype has been factually incorrect; I won’t get into detail on that but I’m just giving you an example: energy companies have engineered new methods of groundwater protection. So the private sector has addressed the problem, to the point where regulation should be toned down to a property-damage perspective. Not all regulation is bad. Property rights are paramount, and property damage must be prevented.

If you want more information on groundwater protection you can find it in this presentation by Slaughter found here

 

The point of my article is simply this: his premise is patently false, as is his conclusion that we should not increase access to federal lands.

It is not a matter of energy being at a 20 year high it is a matter of IT COULD BE HIGHER!.

Just because an industry is doing better than ever is no excuse for them not to try and do even better. America needs cheaper energy to prevent an economic collapse. I’m going to go through the dynamics here to justify my premises.

Our demand is probably higher than its even been, which means unless the supply goes up the price of your electric bill or filling up your gas tank will never be lower. It’s bad enough that Ben Bernanke’s quantitative easing policies devalue the dollar and enable speculators to drive up the price. It’s also bad enough that because of the globalized 21st century economy, prices rise even further due to the unrest in the Muslim world driving down production in the OPEC countries. Finally there is the rapid industrialization of several large emerging economies: China, India and Brazil. Brazil has a growing offshore oil supply and is ramping up its production, but China and India are not oil rich nations and cannot do the same.

So your energy prices are high, and they will only go higher if there isn’t more expansion of domestic energy production, not just in oil, but in natural gas, wind, nuclear, clean coal, and even–when cost effective–solar. Quite frankly, claiming our production being at a 20 year high (if that’s true) as a reason to stop expanding is pure economic dumbassery.

With our rising national debt, our lackluster job growth, our politicians’ inability to lessen the uncertainty on the private sector, and the Federal Reserve’s massive injections of new dollars into the market–that aren’t backed by economic growth–we face a much bigger problem than the problems conservationists tackle on a regular basis. We face the threat of an economic meltdown, the fall of the United States as a superpower and a much more difficult way of life than anyone in this country who is under the age of 70 or didn’t grow up in an undeveloped country could ever imagine. Its not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans (and I know the irony of me saying that from a Republican website), its a matter of supply and demand.

Fiat money, when not backed by a hard asset such as silver or gold, is only good if there is demand for it. Demand for the US dollar is not rising as fast as the Federal Reserve is running its printing presses. This will lead to inflation, as long as the Fed continues to pursue this while keeping its interest rates low. Even Keynes, whose followers today laugh at the thought of a dollar collapse and who didn’t predict the housing bubble or 2008 economic crash (with the exception of Nouriel Roubini and few others), knew that increasing money supply should be done during a period of strong economic growth, not the anemic year-to-year growth we have seen over the past couple of years. If you increase the supply when the demand isn’t nearly as strong, you devalue the dollar.

Some Austrian school economic alarmists believe hyperinflation is inevitable. While they deserve credit for predicting the 2008 crash years before it happened, I can’t say I agree with its inevitability. However, I do see it as a possibility. Continuous increases in the money supply, with weak increases in demand for that dollar, and politicians’ inability to tackle our national debt could lead to a fall in confidence of our dollar. That’s the difference between hyperinflation and inflation. The latter is rising prices, the former is when other countries see a significant reduction in the value of your currency, and begin to dump it for other currencies or commodities. Demand for your currency plummets and as a result, the price of everyday living requirements skyrockets.

It’s not a risk worth taking, and neither is inflation. So while our politicians bicker like children and fail to address the debt, economic growth is the only thing that will stop the two.

Increasing our domestic energy production is perhaps the best shot we have at this for many reasons.

Ramping up energy production will create jobs in the industry. More unemployed people go back to work, start paying taxes again, and revenues to the federal government increase.

When people aren’t unnecessarily wasting as much of their money on gasoline and utilities they can be more productive with that spending by spending it on other industries or investing it into new capital. This creates even more jobs. And I do say we are wasting because if the price can be much lower, you’re being inefficient. Inefficiency is a waste.

Lower energy prices  cause the price of other goods to come down across the board, because transportation costs pretty much affect everything. So this offsets some of the inflation that will happen as a result of quantitative easing.

The growth in the economy will strengthen demand for the US dollar, further offsetting  Bernanke’s disastrous easing policies and preventing a dollar collapse prior to his replacement in 2014 (in the case of a Romney victory).

I imagine that Bernanke’s replacement in the event of a Romney victory will be Martin Feldstein. My familiarity with his work suggests to me he would finally allow interest rates to rise and roll back QE3. If this were to happen, we could prevent a debt crisis and a dollar collapse provided our politicians finally figure out how to balance the federal budget. With economic growth, balancing the budget comes much easier.

 

What I hope everyone takes away from this article is: WE SHOULD NEVER STOP! We should never stop trying to ramp up energy production so long as it cannot meet the demand at the cheapest possible price–and for you conservationists out there, I mean we will do it in a responsible manner. Pete Maysmith–who I hope reads this and learns a thing or two–made a huge error in his premise by ignoring the laws of supply and demand. This line of thought is poisonous, and I ask of my readers that you share this article with as many people as you can. The less people believe his ridiculous notion, that the goal for any or industry to stagnate or decrease production at any level, for any reason, other than falling demand or maxed out capacity, the better off we will be. And as the research shows, rising global energy demand is inevitable and we are far from incapable of increasing the supply in a responsible manner.

 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi obtained a B.S. in Economics from Texas A&M University in 2012, and is a National At-Large Board Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

 

 

 

 

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.

With the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate in the 2012 election, Romney is hoping to strengthen his credentials as a budget cutting “deficit hawk” through association with Ryan’s famous budget plan. Given the other choices which Romney was considering this is probably a good overall choice. As Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Dave Nalle said in response to the announcement:

“While Paul Ryan is by no means the most exciting or creative choice for a running mate, his selection does suggest that there would be an emphasis on budget cutting in a Romney/Ryan administration. Using the Ryan plan as a starting point and with the addition of deeper cuts and more significant reforms to entitlements, Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency might be able to pull the country back from the brink of the fiscal abyss.”

The problem is that Ryan’s reputation as a fiscal conservative may not have much substance to it and his positions on other key issues are at the very least worrisome. He has received a great deal of press for a budget plan which does include some cuts and restructuring of medicare, but despite fearmongering from the left, the cuts are far too small and the reforms too limited to really pull us back from the edge of the abyss of debt which faces the nation.

The Ryan plan might be a good starting point if it was augmented with more substantial spending reductions and more comprehensive entitlement reform, but that would require a very proactive and fiscally conservative Congress. By itself it is just not sufficient. It takes a decade to balance the budget and potentially 40 years to deal with the debt, by which time there may be no economy left to save.

In addition, Ryan’s record on spending and other budgetary issues gives little hope that he is terribly serious about promoting limited government. In 2010 the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin published an analysis of his record and the report is not encouraging. I am reprinting it here in its entirety for those who are concerned about Ryan’s real credentials as a fiscal conservative.

Increasingly our Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan has become a national media darling. Representative Ryan is consistently being promoted on social media networks and by the Republican Party of Wisconsin and the nationwide “free market” group Americans for Prosperity.The fact of the matter is that Congressman Ryan voted with George W. Bush 94% of the time. That’s why Ryan’s 2007 Republican Liberty Caucus Liberty Index score, which ranks members of Congress on their voting record from a constitutional perspective, was 91% on economic issues but only 56% on social issues. In 2006, his score on the Liberty Index was 66% on economic issues and 67% on social issues. He has scored better on the Liberty Index; his 2008 score, for example, was 88 both on social and economic issues — an impressive score.It appears that when Paul Ryan’s party is doing the spending, raising debt limits, and acting unconstitutionally… Ryan goes with the flow. Congressman Ryan’s actual record leaves much to be desired. The issue Ryan is most known for is his interest in cutting the deficit and balancing the budget. But why did the Congressman vote to bail out the auto industry, to pass the Medicare package to the tune of $400 billion, and to nationalize education via No Child Left Behind? Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli -Voted YES on TARP (2008) -Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008) -Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008) -Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009) Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs -Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003) -Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) -Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008) -Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007) Paul Ryan on Education Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education. -Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001) Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties -Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005) -Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) -Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006) Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad -Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) -Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003) -Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) -Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid. According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, “[Paul Ryan] gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.” Congressman Ryan: if you don’t like debt, stop voting for debt.

Ryan’s record of fiscal irresponsibility has continued beyond 2010 when this article was written.  He has since voted to raise the debt ceiling multiple times and approved ongoing extensions of military spending on unnecessary foreign wars.  To be fair his record on fiscal issues has become increasingly mixed.  He has voted against foreign aid, farm subsidies and some other specific spending increases as well.

Possibly of even greater concern is Ryan’s ongoing record of absolute irresponsibility in the area of civil liberties.  Since 2010 Ryan has been on the wrong side of almost every important vote involving basic Constitutionally protected rights.  He voted to extend the PATRIOT Act, for CISPA, for DOMA, for the NDAA (three times), to expand the Department of Homeland Security, to extend troop commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and to give the President the power to appoint department heads without Senatorial approval.  At a time when more and more Republicans are waking up to the threat of expanded government power to operate without observing traditional limits on their police power these votes are a major concern.

TARP, bailouts, entitlement expansion, endless military spending and bigger, more intrusive and less constitutional government. Is the Ryan record an example of the kind of policies a financially imperiled nation needs and which grassroots Republicans are demanding? Ryan is probably a gesture in the right direction, but Liberty Republicans should be concerned that the gesture is more symbol than substance and demand a clear and aggressive fiscal plan from the Romney campaign.

The Federal Reserve was created to stabilize the money supply and protect taxpayers, but after 100 years it has drifted farther and farther from that mandate to become an unaccountable banking cartel which functions as nothing more than a piggybank for out of control spenders in Congress, expanding credit, expanding the money supply and devaluing the dollar in a cycle which could very easily lead to hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the dollar which has lost 97% of its value, mostly in the last 30 years.

Although irresponsible leadership in Congress is a very large part of the problem with the Federal Reserve, Rep. Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act is the first attempt to reign in the Federal Reserve and reassert Congressional authority under the Constitution which has a real chance of passing the House and Senate. It would end the secrecy at the Fed and require a clear accounting of their monetary policies and practices. It can pass with your help.

Representative Justin Amash is one of the strongest supporters of the bill in the House and has worked as a close ally of Ron Paul in getting it this far. He assures us that just a few dozen calls or emails from constituents can make a huge difference in how Congressmen vote, and that’s just what we need to pass this bill and start the process to Audit the Fed. This won’t be the end of the fight, but passing the bill with a strong majority in the House will build momentum to get it through the Senate and into law.

Please take just a few minutes to send an email to your representative using this form. Customize the text provided to express your personal concerns and send it off as soon as you can.

Change Congress to Restore Accountability and End Federal Mandates
Republican Liberty Caucus Candidates Have the Answer to Obamacare and Out of Control Government

WASHINGTON, DC  – Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is a strong reminder of how important it is that we elect new leaders to the House and Senate who will stand up for smaller government and to protect individual liberty and who will make repealing this tyrannical legislation a top priority.

While Obamacare may technically be Constitutional, because the 16th Amendment opens the door to all sorts of unreasonable taxation, that does not mean that it is good policy. Raising taxes enormously on every citizen, either directly in the form of penalties or indirectly in the form of mandated health insurance and inflated prices, is outrageous in a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty. As fewer and fewer people pay taxes at all, placing an even greater burden on the productive segment of the population is unconscionable.  Even worse, this is just the first step.  As insurance prices rise the call will come for more interference by government and we will slide into a the complete control of the healthcare system by unaccountable bureaucrats, an end to individual choice and a rapid decline in quality of service.

In today’s ruling the Supreme Court has at least identified Obamacare for what it is, the largest tax increase in United States history, though it is much more and much worse than just that. In the middle of an election year this provides a winning issue and a rallying cry to all true fiscal conservatives, and the Republican Liberty Caucus is supporting a nationwide slate of candidates who share the highest possible commitment to protecting the rights of citizens to be free from unjust government mandates of every kind, to preserving personal and economic liberty and to getting the increasingly heavy weight of out of control government off of our backs.

Candidates like Ted Cruz in Texas and Barry Hinckley in Rhode Island are  poised to join our prior endorsees like Rand Paul and Mike Lee in creating a powerful voting block in the Senate which will never compromise when liberty is threatened. In the House those same values which are being championed today by Ron Paul and Justin Amash will be carried forward with reinforcements like Thomas Massie in Kentucky, Lauren Stephens in Wisconsin, Kerry Bentivolio in Michigan,  Jessica Puente Bradshaw in Texas and scores of others.  With their guidance Congress will reassert its authority over the federal bureaucracy and demand accountability from the executive branch.

We are the  grassroots backbone of the Republican Party, committed to issues which truly matter to the people and an agenda which demands reform from our own party as well as the national government. The time for compromise on principle is over. As so many of our own leaders fail to stand up to the Democrats and their agenda of plundering and spending, the momentum has shifted to the Liberty Movement within the GOP and with a rapidly growing membership and new chapters springing up all over the map, the Republican Liberty Caucus is carrying the banner.

Repealing Obamacare makes a great battle cry, but it is just the beginning. It is just the cap on the mighty pyramid of government excess which we must tear down. Government has reached too far into our pockets and taken too much control of our lives. As we reclaim our independence we must elect new leaders who will defend our right to be free, to make our own decisions and to take back responsibility for our lives. Let us start by repealing Obamacare and keep fighting until government is once again dedicated first and always to protecting our personal and economic liberty.

President Obama has stirred up a lot of controversy recently, after deciding to give “amnesty” to young illegal immigrants. So I’m going to give some food for thought. This issue has been one which pits the various factions within the Republican Party against each other. You have the liberty wing of the GOP–like myself–who want the market to be the primary force deciding immigration. You have the protectionist wing–old former Democrats who came to the party during the Reagan years but didn’t leave all of their big-government policies (and occasional bigotry) behind, and you have the establishment-types who are probably just trying to find the political winds and go with what’s popular. Also to consider, the large number of Hispanic Republicans at the convention, who are sick and tired of the games by those who seemingly want to choke Latin American immigration off completely.

At the Republican Party of Texas’ state convention in Ft. Worth a couple weeks ago, this ideological battle was clear and present. I was attending as an alternate for Brazos County and RLC Chair Dave Nalle was a delegate for Travis County. I won’t be going to Tampa but I’m proud to say that going to the convention allowed me to do two things I really wanted to do. Send some authentic small-government Republicans (including some Ron Paul supporters) to Tampa, and get some really dumb things removed from the state party platform during the drafting process. The end result was shocking to me at first but also gave me hope that the Republican Party is moving in the right direction. The liberty wing and the establishment united on one of the biggest hot-button issues: immigration.

During a minority report, delegates had the chance to voice opinions on the party platform before the final draft was taken to the floor–where delegates from all over the state would vote on it. Dave and I attended this session. It was small, as most of the people had left for dinner or their hotel rooms. It was around 8 PM. What I saw in the platform was an immigration plank that was very market friendly, attempting to make it easier for immigrants with the skills we need to get work visas. Work visas that may eventually lead to those immigrants becoming proud Americans. Well, the protectionists were having none of it, and they tried to get it struck down, using some of the most bogus arguments.

I testified in favor of it. Gave a brief bio of myself as the son of an immigrant and congratulated them on taking a market based approach. Immediately I was followed by some angry man who came off as a lunatic, claiming we’d become an overpopulated, poverty-stricken place like Mexico City. I wanted terribly to rebut him and put his “arguments” to shame, but we only got to speak once. Fortunately, a fellow Aggie was there to do a much better job than I did. His name was Jerry Patterson, and he will be running for Lt. Governor of Texas in 2014. Since I see no candidate emerging with better positions than him, he’s definitely getting my vote. The committee decided to keep the plank. Later, when the plank was being brought up before the at-large caucus, the protectionists lined up to testify against it, again calling the work visas “amnesty”. The establishment and the liberty wing loudly shouted “ay” as Chairman Munisteri issued a motion to move on to the next issue. The plank passed.

Now, had I been given the opportunity to speak again on the issue, and in more detail, I would have said something along the following lines. I would have made the case for a market-based immigration policy. I would have explained to the clearly uninformed voter that our current immigration system of quotas and a ridiculously unnecessary level of federal bureaucracy is a remnant of the so-called progressive era. Progressivism is the very thing we Constitutionalists are [supposedly] trying to combat within the Republican Party.

So here’s some food for thought on why the current system is unacceptable, and why the market can solve this issue better than a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington. I’ll follow it up with my plan for an immigration overhaul: a simple, fair, merit-based system that would save the taxpayer billions of dollars and grow this economy exponentially.

First, lets talk illegals. There’s this notion that all of the 12 million illegals in American were merely border-hopping people with no respect for our laws. This is far from the truth.

A lot of the “illegals” are only so because of useless bureaucracy that originated not with the founding fathers but with progressives like Woodrow Wilson–a notorious bigot. To understand how things were prior to the progressive era, think prior to the 20th century. And just before the turn of the century there was a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship that gives you a general idea about immigration policy before the federal government became the center of our lives it is today.

If you revisit the rationale behind the 1898 Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim Ark, you find a realistic solution to the “anchor baby” problem, and you also put a bunch of the ridiculous birther propaganda about Senator Marco Rubio in the trash heap of conspiracy nonsense where it belongs.

The case ruled that a child born on American soil to immigrant parents who were “engaged in the procurement of non-diplomatic business” (i.e. worked in the private sector) and had established a domicile (homestead law, which varies from state to state) was a natural born citizen. Back then it was pretty much “work hard and obey the laws and you can stay”.

This is the approach we need to take as Republicans. It destroys the liberal media’s ability to smear us as racists. It exposes the Democrats for the hypocrites they are on the issue. But most important of all, it would create something that President Obama hasn’t. Tens of millions of new jobs!

Due to the bureaucracy it takes too damn long to become a citizen. My father immigrated to this country from Lebanon in the mid 1970s. He did not become a citizen until 1999. Some of this delay was due to the fact he was always working but in today’s America 20 years is probably the average length it takes from immigration to citizenship. That, to me, is just plain stupid! The bureaucracy also makes it too hard to get a green card. Take the case of a German man named Gunter. He is a restaurant owner in New Braunfels, TX. I met him last year at a Students for Liberty regional conference. He still has to leave the restaurant and return to Germany every few years and reapply for a visa because they have made it too difficult for him to get a green card. This man is a small-business owner, who obviously wishes to do business in a freer country than his own, and is being given the runaround by a bunch of gubment employees who I’m willing to bet have never created a real job in their lifetimes.

Gunter is just one example of many. We have all these high skill international students in our colleges. They outperform their American peers in science and engineering programs subsidized with our tax dollars, and what do we do? We make naturalization so difficult that they go back to their home countries and use the skills we taught them against us in the global market? How is that intelligent? They should be playing for team America. We are a country where the best in the world left their homelands to escape poverty and tyranny, and to embrace the free-enterprise system that has created more wealth and human advancement in a couple centuries than any other in the entire history of the world before in.

So I propose a new immigration system for the United States. A capitalist system.

Step 1: We reopen Ellis Island and centers like it all across the country.

That way we can actually account for the people that come into the country for national security purposes. We must still be stringent on immigrants from countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or from Gaza/West Bank, to make sure they are legitimate people seeking freedom from theocrats and not theocrats themselves coming to this country to commit terrorism. And trust me, virtually everyone would choose going through one of those processing centers to using a coyote. At least every honest person would. So at the same time it makes it easier to figure out who the good guys are. These centers should be able to provide immigrants with some advice on where to live, work, and possibly offer English speaking courses for those who need it.

Step 2: Create a new system of regulating immigration status that is based in merit and behavior.

Everyone who comes into the United States gets a five-year trial period. They would get a work visa. At the end of this 5 years if they will be examined. If they work in the private sector, and do not commit any violent or financial crimes–and I emphasize this because nobody should be deported for something like a traffic violation–and demonstrate reasonable English speaking skills, they will be awarded permanent residency in the United States. If they are convicted of a serious violent or financial crime they should be immediately deported. If the English speaking does not meet the standard they will not receive a green card, but can reapply for a temporary work visa. No need to kick them out over that. This will probably not be an issue as most immigrants will be encouraged to learn the language because they want to stay in this great country.

As for welfare use. We need to crack down on sanctuary cities. Government welfare should be denied to anyone who is not a permanent US resident or US citizen. Personally I would like to see the federal welfare state abolished, but I’m a realist and understand that this is at least 20 years away from happening. Private charity, religious or secular, should not be a factor in whether or not one is granted permanent residency. If a church or private organization wants to help an individual, that is purely at their discretion. Its their money!

Step 3: Reform the naturalization process in a manner that expedites it.

After receiving their green card, they enter another five year trial period. If during this trial period they continue to meet the criteria set for them in the first, work hard and obey the law, then at the end of that 5 year period they will be moved to the front of the line and naturalized as citizens of the United States.

Step 4: What to do about the illegals already here? Well obviously it would be financially impossible to deport them all. So here’s where President Obama actually had a point for once. Focus on the criminals. As for the others, the proper solution is that they must take the new route established. They must go to the back of the line in the new processing centers, and begin the first five-year trial period. For those that were brought here as children by parents, they’re really victims of human trafficking if you think about it. Provided they have no criminal records and work hard I see no reason why they should be deported. But they should still go through the new system.

5 years to permanent residency and 10 years to citizenship, its not a bad deal. But nobody is just going to be handed it. That would be amnesty. And amnesty is not the solution.

Now, I’m gonna get some responses to this. So, I’m going to preempt some of the typical ones I get.

The left will call it ‘fascist’ for the English-language requirement. Anyone who is familiar with my views knows I’m as far from fascist as Kim Kardashian is from the Blessed Virgin Mary. English should have been made the official language a long time ago I don’t understand why it isn’t. Multikulti has failed miserably in Europe. I recommend reading Bruce Bawer’s books While Europe Slept and Surrender. I have no intention of chasing away foreign culture. I took two years of Spanish in high school and one year of Japanese in college and am currently teaching myself the latter and plan on doing the same with the former once I have the time. My father speaks Arabic and French. That’s what makes America great. Immigrants like my father bring the best of what the old country has to offer (usually in the form of cuisine or music), but unlike the lawless Islamic enclaves in European cities Bawer documents, they don’t bring the authoritarian ideologies with them, that’s why they left!

It makes it easier on immigrants when they are able to communicate with natural born citizens rather than having to search for people from their own country. The language barrier tends to break down over generations as their children learn English but it seems more efficient to me if it is expedited. There will always be Korea Towns and Little Italys. But segregation was repealed and tossed into the ash heap of history half a century ago, yet America today still has a defacto segregation. We don’t need to be living in white neighborhoods or black neighborhoods or Hispanic neighborhoods we need to be living in American neighborhoods.

Encouraging English speaking skills (notice I didn’t even say reading/writing, as most Americans struggle with grammar) as a manner to expedite the path to ones citizenship merely tests their mettle as to how badly they want to be a part of America as a whole and not just as a “minority”. It opens more doors to them in terms of career advancement, which of course leads to more money. And its not going to be an arduous task, as many of them will likely be learning it already as ESL students or employees working alongside Americans if they didn’t know some coming in.

Then of course the protectionists claim things like “overpopulation” and “they’re gonna take the jobs Americans need”. No, they won’t. In fact, we actually have people leaving the US because there aren’t jobs for them. There is NOT an overpopulation problem in the country. For those of you who think there is I have merely one thing to say to you: Have you ever been to Nebraska?

Okay, maybe I have more than one thing to say. There is no overpopulation problem, only a population density problem. In fact, if the entire population of the world, which is approaching 7 billion people was spread out into one area with the population density of New York City it would fill an area about the size of Texas. If it was as dense as Houston, it wouldn’t even fill the continental United States.

Overpopulation only becomes a problem with the presence of a welfare state. And it is the welfare state that needs to be reigned in. By requiring immigrants to work (or use private charity) and cutting them off from welfare programs, they are not a drag on the taxpayer; they become taxpayers. The welfare behemoth is going to take years to reign in and if we don’t start now we will suffer a Greece-like debt crisis before decade’s end. But as it relates to immigrants its not nearly as difficult an issue as it is relating to citizens.

Hard working people sustain themselves and should not be barred from becoming citizens provided they obey the laws. They should be welcomed with open arms. They will create jobs, create tax revenue, grow the economy and shrink the budget deficit. Its the criminals and the moochers that are the problem and they should be sent home. We have too many Americans that fall into those categories.

If these immigrants “take your job” its because you didn’t work hard enough to defeat them. Sorry bro, but that’s how capitalism works, the best win.

So lets recap.

5 years to a green card, 10 years to citizenship. And all I’m asking is that they work hard and stay out of trouble? This is the immigration policy that will allow the GOP to seize control of the issue from the Democrats permanently. It gives us two things: the reduction of federal bureaucracy conservatives want, and the opportunity to join the free-enterprise system that immigrants want.

Hey Mitt, think about it!

———————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi obtained a B.S. in Economics from Texas A&M University in 2012. He is a national board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

At the Texas Republican convention, while a lot of eyes were focused on the efforts of Ron Paul supporters to become part of the national delegation, the more interesting fight for many Liberty Republicans was over the platform and what it might say about the future character of the Republican Party. Because Texas is the most Republican state in the union: and has such a large presence at the national convention, our platform is looked to as a guide when setting policy for the national party.

I was involved in the platform fight long before arriving at the convention as a delegate. I was an outspoken critic of the 2010 platform, having written several widely read articles critical of its contents and spearheaded a publicity campaign for the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas which targeted the divisive social issues sectiion and had led to interviews in state and national media. Months in advance I created a working group of people with similar concerns which produced and distributed a dozen pro-liberty platform resolutions, including a proposal to limit the length and specificity of the platform. We also wrote an alternative platform to be introduced from the floor if the final platform proved to be unacceptable. Prior to our county convention I contacted all of our county chairmen and SREC members with an email urging them to appoint reformers to their local and statewide platform committees. In the weeks leading up to the convention I also lobbied the members of the platform committee directly by email and wrote an article suggesting key areas where the platform could be improved.

I used every resource at my command to influence the process, from direct appeals to media pressure to threats of an embarrassing floor fight. I knew it was working when anti-reform insiders who actually liked the abominable 2010 platform began to get paranoid and started talking publicly about a conspiracy to destroy it.

All of this work had three main objectives. First, to generally shorten and simplify the platform. Second, to eliminate as many of the anti-gay planks as possible. Third, to reduce the section on foreign policy to a simple statement of principles without specific planks on policy towards other nations. These goals were not intended to address every problem in the platform, but focused on targets which were particularly offensive and also easy to argue against.

In the process of developing this effort I had made contact with sympathetic members of the platform committee and was in touch with them by text message during their meetings and deliberations and saw draft sections of the platform and provided input outside of the normal process of testimony at hearings. I did attend the hearings, but ended up having to testify only once in person, though I also had confederates giving testimony.

The platform committee was under the leadership of Tom Mechler who I would describe as state chairman Steve Munisteri’s right hand man, a choice which tipped me off early that I and my group were not the only ones with a plan to influence the platform. Sitting in the audience at the committee meetings it quickly became clear that the other organized effort was coming from an element of the party leadership headed up by Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, a long-time ally of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who was pushing a comprehensive immigration reform plank to replace the entire section on immigration in the platform with a single, coherent plan. Their goal did not conflict with ours and between their influence and our activism we were more effective than expected.

Our first success came when Mechler split the platform committee out into subcommittees for each section of the platform and specifically instructed them to trim down the verbiage and resolve inconsistencies. I assume this was done to protect the new immigration plank with a hand-picked subcommittee, but it also meant smaller groups looking at each section, with more autonomy and room for individual initiative. The revisions which came out of this process were excellent. The overall wordcount was cut by almost 40% and while not many full planks were cut, secondary clauses which contained controversial content were cut aggressively.

At the start of the process there were 8 anti-gay planks and almost 30 foreign policy planks on specific countries. By the final committee meeting this was down to three anti-gay planks and the only country specifically mentioned under foreign policy was Israel. Along the way bad bits in other sections also got the axe, including much of the language supporting creationism. Planks equating homosexuality with pedophilia, condemning gay scoutmasters and opposing gay adoption were among those we had targeted which had been removed. In the original draft of the family values section which came out of the subcommittee a particularly ridiculous plank expressing support for the Texas law criminalizing sodomy which was struck down by the supreme court several years ago had been removed, but it was put back into the platform by the committee at large.

At the final session of the committee I had planned to come to add my voice to those testifying in support of Jerry Patterson’s immigration reform plank, but on discovering the reintroduction of the sodomy plank I left immigration to an associate and got on the list to speak on the sodomy issue. In my three minutes at the microphone I argued for a general softening of the language on gay issues and specifically pointed out that the sodomy law had been struck down by a Republican Supreme Court mostly appointed by presidents from Texas and that if we believe in the Constitution and the rule of law as stated elsewhere in the platform then it was ridiculous to demand that our legislature attempt to override the highest federal court on a constitutional issue. I saw a lot of smiles and nods from the committee and was not surprised to learn several hours later that the committee had followed my advice and again removed the sodomy plank. Most other arguments before the committee were not as successful. Attempts to remove or weaken the new immigration section were not well received, nor were attempts to restore the old foreign policy planks, with the exception of a brief statement in support of Taiwan.

That wasn’t the end of the fight. The platform still had to go to the floor of the convention where it could be challenged and modified by any delegate who stood in line to speak at one of six microphones and could stir up enough support for his position. Unlike previous years the floor debate for the platform was scheduled on Friday, rather than at the close of the convention on Saturday, so there was potentially plenty of time for a fight over controversial planks on the convention floor.

When the platform committee report was presented to the general session of the convention, long lines immediately formed at all of the microphones. As I learned while standing in line, there were three groups of people at the microphones: nativists who wanted to reinstate the 2010 anti-immigration language to the platform, outraged religious right activists who wanted to put the anti-gay language back in the platform and agents of the group that framed the new immigration section planted there to make arguments in support of it. I was there to counter anyone trying to bring up the social policy issues, but as it turned out my efforts were unnecessary. It became fairly clear that supporters of the new immigration plank had a well-formed plan and all I had to do was go along for the ride.

I don’t mean to suggest that anything happened which was not entirely above board. The Chairman made sure that people got equal time to speak on both sides of any issue which was raised. But beyond that it was fairly clear that the situation was being carefully orchestrated. Although immigration was the last item in the platform, the Chairman agreed with a request to take it out of order and examine it first. He then heard motions which were basically complaints about the section which were masquerading as points of information. Supporters were given equal time to defend the immigration plank, including Land Commissioner Patterson who spoke from one of the floor microphones. Back and forth about immigration went on, with several suggestions for changes, including replacing the whole thing with the 2010 wording, being voted down on voice votes. Then, much to everyone’s surprise there was a motion from the floor to close debate and vote on the platform as a whole, and suddenly with about 60 people waiting in line to make motions on the platform, the whole thing passed and it was over.

The intent, clearly planned carefully by the party Chairman, the head of the Platform Committee and the backers of the immigration plank, was to make absolutely sure that the platform passed with their plank in place and unchanged, regardless of what else in the platform their strategy left unchanged. So because of their efforts dozens of anti-gay activists were left fuming on the floor while the platform passed with most of the anti-gay planks edited out. It was a surprise victory which fell into our laps, and while there remain two problem planks in the family values section, we got more change than I had ever realistically expected.

That personal victory aside and without minimizing the progress made on social issues, the really important result of this process was the immigration plank which ended up in the platform. Chairman Munisteri made very clear that he expected our platform to be looked at closely at the national convention, and that Texas ought to have a strong voice in setting national immigration policy for the Republican Party. To that end, what Commissioner Patterson crafted is something the nation has been begging for, an authentic, balanced and comprehensive plan for dealing with all aspects of immigration, and one which a national campaign can be run on.

The immigration plan includes provisions for border security, for limiting the access of immigrants to public welfare and services and a proposal for a robust guest worker program with a modern system for monitoring workers to make sure that immigrants can find jobs and industries which need temporary immigrant labor can find workers legally. It also does this while explicitly avoiding draconian penalties for businesses, punitive measures against those currently in the country illegally and any form of national ID system for citizens like E-Verify. It is very much a “square deal” in the best Republican tradition, looking out for the interests of all the parties involved, including native workers, immigrants, taxpayers and businesses.

With Romney as the nominee we have to expect that the Republican Party will move back towards a more pro-business, small government agenda. Attracting independent voters, small business owners and hispanic voters will be a key component of any winning strategy for the GOP, and a well-conceived position on immigration which satisfies the needs of businesses and the hispanic community to see immigrants treated fairly will be a major asset.

It seems clear that the “fix was in” for this immigration plan at the Texas convention. If this was done with the cooperation and support of the Romney campaign then that is a very promising sign that they will be taking a smart stand on this key issue. If the Romney camp was not involved, they would be wise to pay attention to the opportunity to pick up a good idea from the most Republican state in the union, a state with the longest border in the nation and a wealth of experience in immigration policy.