In his historical tour de force, On Power, Bertrand de Jouvenal traces the process of centralization of power in Europe from the fall of Rome. He paints a picture of an unstoppable centripetal force, power, whose ever tightening grip on humanity was hastened first by the increasing power of monarchs and then by the rise of democracy.   Prior to mass rule that began with the French revolution and Napoleon, war was limited by the resources of local feudal rulers.  Total war became possible with the rise of democracy and nationalistic centralization. The great wars of the twentieth century which saw unprecedented numbers killed were the product of nationalism, mass rule and socialism, indeed, of national socialism and socialism in one country.  These last are the ideologies of both the Democratic and Republican parties today.

For a century the United States showed that in the absence of centralization economic progress would come quicker, the public made better off, and war limited to local expansionism.  But the Civil War began a process of Progressive centralization, and elite Americans of the Gilded Age after the Civil War, envious of the status of German universities, sent their sons to graduate school in Germany and were surprised when they returned advocating ideas that would forestall freedom and progress.  Not having access to the ideas of von Mises, Hayek and Schumpeter, elite Americans adopted German historicism, according to which they, as an expert elite, deserved power and that power ought to be centralized to that end. They chose to remake America in Germany’s image fifty years before the rise of Hitler.

We live with the heritage of their nationalist and now internationalist Progressivism.  Progress has slowed; retirement savings are insufficient to cover the needs of the largest cohort of retirees in the history of the world; the Progressive health care system has faltered and  been redesigned to  restrict care; and for the past forty years Americans have seen the”promise of American life”, an ever increasing standard of living, betrayed and slowed to a halt as the Federal Reserve Bank and the federal government  have transferred ever more resources to banks and speculators.

De Jouvenal saw the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the ultimate success of “power” in the United States.  But the process has taken longer and become more intense as the centralizers’ ideas, one after the next, have failed and destroyed sections of America’s freedom and affluence.  The nation retains its preeminent role because of  the nineteenth century’s gains and because its diminishing sphere of private initiative remains larger than under the rigid socialism that dominates Europe and the rest of the world.

No one can calculate the damage that power has done to the nation.  It is probable that, based on the absence of real wage growth since the gold standard was abolished in 1971 and the 2% compounded growth of real wages between 1800 and 1971,  the real hourly wage today is but 40% of what it might have been without the depredations of the federal and state governments.  But Americans are relatively worse off than that because of increases in taxes at the state and federal levels.

Both parties, Republican and Democratic, have participated in the relentless expansion of power.  The Republican is the more likely of the two to be transformed from a socialistic, elitist party, to one that represents freedom and decentralization. Hence, there is no more important task in politics today than that which the Republican Liberty Caucus has set before itself: to reform the GOP and transform it into a party of freedom and decentralization; to overturn the process of centralization of power; and to reestablish America as a land of freedom.

Given the low quality of public debate and the domination of the public media, this is a difficult task. Struggle we must.

Dear RLC of Florida members:

What an exciting five months it has been since our RLC of Florida State Convention. The newly seated RLC of Florida Board of Directors is been off to a great start in accomplishing our 2009 Strategic Objectives (.doc).

Below please find a brief update to things that are occurring around the state:

Chartering Local Groups

Our 2009 Strategic Objectives placed high priority in assembling organized groups of RLC Chapters around the state. By having organized groups that regularly meet, discuss upcoming events and get to know one another, we will become more effective at spreading the message of liberty.

We officially chartered our first two groups: Northeast Florida, Chaired by John Stevens and Central East Florida, chaired by Matthew Nye. Both of these men and their boards are demonstrating great leadership and are now holding regular RLC meetings with upwards of 150 persons in attendance.

Additionally we have groups in Tallahassee, Pensacola, Clay County and St. Johns County actively working to become chartered. We have a student in the University of Florida Law School that is in the process of chartering a UF School of Law RLC group.

If you are interested in starting a county chapter or a student chapter formed and chartered please contact RLCFL Vice-Chair Steven Talcott Smith or Board member Michael Durden.

The Chartering Committee completed a chartering application template for local groups to easily become chartered by the RLC of Florida. Essentially, the group needs paid ten members within a county or student group to petition to become chartered. Also, we have a standing conference call for all leadership around the state who wants to become more active. If you would like to begin building a group, we welcome your participation.

Marketing / Promotions

The Northeast Florida Marketing Committee group created a fantastic standard template website for use by newly chartered groups to promote their regional or county group. You can view the new Northeast Florida RLC website template at www.rlcnef.org. Special Thanks goes Kimberly Wells, the NE Florida Vice Chairman, and Erik Setzer, NE Florida RLC Board member, for their work in developing this new website.

Additionally, we are raising money for printing of new Rack Cards, Brochures, and the new 18 Page Liberty Guide. The Liberty Guide will be a magazine type document that can be given to our state legislators or fellow Republicans in the local Republican Executive Committee’s to provide an understanding of the RLC Positions. We anticipate this entire project costing approximately $5,000 for printing. The design and graphics work of these projects are substantially complete with minor edits needed. If you are able, please make a generous donation to the RLC of Florida to help promote our cause.

Committees

We have numerous committees that are working on membership, chartering, marketing, activism, legislative issues, and numerous other topics. If you would like to join one of these state committees, please let me know. A follow up e-mail is forthcoming to discuss the committees in more detail.

Legislative Initiatives

On the legislative front, there are numerous exciting pro-liberty pieces of legislation pending in the Florida legislature this year that that the Board of Directors will be considering. We will be taking Board action to pass resolutions for and against legislation. If there is a bill that you feel the board should support or oppose, please let us know. We will be assembling a committee to head up our annual Tallahassee trip. If you would like to serve on this committee please let us know. Below are some of the specific pieces of legislation with links that the Board will be considering resolutions in support or opposition:

Support:

HB 21 Florida Firearms Freedom Act

Original Bill Filed: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0021__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0021&Session=2010

HM 19 – Limiting the Scope and Exercise of Federal Power

Original Bill Filed: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0019__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0019&Session=2010

HJR 37 – Health Care Services

Original Bill Filed: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0037__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0037&Session=2010

Floridians for Smarter Growth Initiative

http://www.florida2010.org/index.php

Oppose

Hometown Democracy – Amendment 4 – a statewide “Vote on Everything”

Read and learn more about this dangerous communistic initiative

http://www.florida2010.org/aboutus.php

Candidate Campaign Endorsements

RLC Members around the state are actively working on a number of local and state campaigns. Additionally, candidates are seeking endorsements from our state board. If you would like to serve on the Candidate Endorsement Committee, please e-mail me.

Conclusion

It is a pleasure to serve as the Chairman of the RLC of Florida. We are never at a loss of events to attend, candidates to support or legislative efforts to rally behind. It is all of you that are the Patriots and the true Public Servants. The true public servants are those Patriots who tirelessly dedicate their time and energy without payment and their treasure without thought of monetary gain; whose efforts are often met with criticism and seldom without thanks; yet they remain undeterred in the glorious Cause of Liberty for themselves, their fellow man and their posterity.

It is these Patriots who have and will preserve our American way of life. We are making a huge difference in the public debate. Thank you the opportunity to serve this group during this exciting times.

Sincerely,

Will Pitts
Chairman

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Below you will find links and articles relating to the legislation being considered by the RLC of Florida Board of Directors:

Regulation of Firearms: Creates Florida Firearms Freedom Act; provides legislative findings & definitions; provides that specified firearms, firearm accessories, & ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation; provides that importation into state of specified parts & incorporation of such parts into firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in state does not subject firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation; provides that certain basic materials are not subject to federal regulation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition under interstate commerce; provides that specified firearm accessories imported into state from another state do not subject firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce; provides legislative findings with respect thereto; provides exceptions; provides applicability; requires that firearms manufactured & sold in state must bear indicia of manufacture by specified date.

Limiting the Scope and Exercise of Federal Power: Urges Congress to honor provisions of U. S. Constitution & U. S. Supreme Court case law which limit scope & exercise of federal power.

HJR 37 – Health Care Services

Health Care Services: Proposes creation of S. 28, Art. X of State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system; permit person or employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from health care provider; permit health care provider to accept direct payment from person or employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, & health care providers from penalties & fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; permit purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems; & specifies what amendment does not affect or prohibit.

Articles of Interest Relating to the Above:

Will Florida Ban National Health Care?

Plakon and Baker File Florida Health Care Freedom Act (.pdf)

Florida reacts to Federal overreach, joins 10th Amendment reserved rights effort

Baker sponsors 2nd Amendment protection bill in Legislature

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, last week Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by RLC-endorsed State Representative Susan Lynn. At a meeting several months ago, Tennessee RLC Vice-Chair Matt Collins encouraged Lynn to draft the resolution.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions — Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana — but Tennessee is the first to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.

The Tenth Amendment Center says that “[p]assage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels. Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 36 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.”

Most recently, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure for public approval on the 2010 state ballot that would give Arizona voters the opportunity to nullify, or opt out, of any potential national health care legislation.

The resolution will be forwarded to Congress and the President for their information.

South Carolina is a peculiar state. It’s managed to produce both Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford, two politicians who come from the same place but are literally like oil and water.

Graham is the model of the kind of Republican who infiltrated the party after the Reagan era. He’s religiously conservative, completely irresponsible on budgetary issues, and has a record on civil liberties that can only be described as embarrassing.

Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater wouldn’t have recognized him as a Republican at all. He’s like an old-style southern Democrat but with less integrity.

Mark Sanford is almost his exact opposite. He’s fiscally conservative and a strong supporter of civil and individual liberty. He’s in the Goldwater tradition and willing to stick by his principles regardless of the cost.

Being from the same state, it’s inevitable that two such opposite politicians would clash. When Sanford held firm and opposed federal bailout money for the state, Graham tried to end-run him in the Congress and play havoc with states rights by giving legislatures federal authority to override governors to accept federal money.

Last weekend at the South Carolina Republican Convention, it’s not surprising that there were some fireworks.

On the floor, Graham made a speech arguing in favor of compromising Republican principles and moving to the center and was heckled by members of the audience who were Ron Paul supporters. In response he made a strong statement against libertarianism, saying:

“I am not a libertarian. If you are, you’re welcome to vote for me and help this party, but we’re not going to build a party around libertarian ideas. I am a Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham, Carrol Campbell Republican.”

It was certainly not news to anyone that Graham isn’t a libertarian, and his self-identification with former Democrats, segregationists and pork barrel spendocrats tells the whole story about why so many in South Carolina aren’t happy with their senior Senator.

More interesting than Graham’s remarks was Governor Sanford’s reaction a few minutes later when RLC member Amanda Moore stopped him in the hallway and asked him what he thought about Graham’s comments on libertarianism. Sanford went on at length, and said:

“It’s funny it was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Senator Graham spoke and said ‘I’m not a libertarian’, and whatever, whatever, as if that’s an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment. That is the distinguishing characteristic of our republic and frankly, what’s made it great. In my comments last night I said that is the genius of America, of affording liberty so that in your pursuit of happiness versus my pursuit of happiness and the dreams that went with that you unleash individual initiative that can’t be there with central planning. People say, you know, ‘Mark, you’re kind of libertarian’ and they’ll say it as if it’s an evil word like ‘You’re a communist’ or something. I’m like ‘Throw me in that brier patch. I’m guilty. I love liberty’ and I think that ought to be a good thing and I don’t think that it should be something that people back away from. I’ve been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor, because I believe in, love and support liberty.”

Sanford expressed a vision of the Republican Party which strongly contrasted with Graham’s concept of a party of appeasement and opportunism. Sanford offered a positive vision of a party which embraces rights and individual liberty and enterprise and initiative, a party like the GOP which freed the slaves and fought the monopolies and championed civil rights and won the cold war.

Sanford seems to understand that the arguments between conservatives and moderates in the party is meaningless and that the party needs to move on a course perpendicular to the old ideas of right and left, in the direction of liberty.

Lindsey Graham represents the worst of the failures of the post-Reagan GOP.

It’s not just that he doesn’t want to be a libertarian. He doesn’t want to be in a party which bases its policies on principles at all.

Sanford seems to understand that ideals and principles and doing the right thing matter. He represents hope for a better future for the party and a return to real Republican values.

April 16, 2009
Certified Mail

Louis William Rose
[address deleted]
Jacksonville, FL 32211

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Madame Secretary:

I have read with great interest the recent report: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment and am writing to ask if you would please add my name to the Terrorist Watch List, if this has not already been done. I am confident that many of my friends must be on your list, and I would not want to be the one left out. I think that once you read my qualifications you will agree that I definitely make the cut.

I am a veteran.

I served from 1972 to 1975 in the U.S. Army. I never made sergeant or even corporal, but I learned how to take an order, give an order, and how to disobey one. I learned how to G.I. a toilet and generally how to clean house. Also, I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and … domestic.

I am a conservative.

Just as it says in your report, I reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, agreeing with James Madison that, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

I am a gun owner.

I have owned various rifles since I was thirteen and revolvers since I was twenty-one. I am fifty-five now and I carry an automatic so as not to appear old-fashioned. I don’t own guns for target practice, or for hunting. I decided long ago to keep and bear arms in order to vigorously exercise my natural right of self defense so that I may be confident of being able to vigorously exercise all the other rights with which I am endowed.

I am concerned.

Regarding social change, immigration and citizenship, government spending, economic collapse, I am concerned about these and other issues, discussing them with as many as are willing, so that I might gain a greater understanding. However, I am especially concerned with the suspension of the U.S. Constitution, something which I consider to already be the case and the political reality for several years. I seriously wonder what it is going to take to reestablish the rule of law and constitutional government in this country.

Yes, please ensure that my name appears prominently on your list. It would be an honor to be included.

Respectfully,

Louis William Rose
Parliamentarian,
Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention

From the Libertarian Party’s blog:

“If you’re lucky enough to live in Montana, take a moment to thank Joel Boniek.”

“Boniek, a Republican state representative from the Livingston area, sponsored legislation exempting Montana-made guns from federal legislation. It was signed into law April 15.”

“Joel’s bill applies only to guns made and kept in Montana. Supporters hope it triggers a court case over whether the federal government can regulate gun sales.”

“Boniek overcame amazing odds and defeated a Republican incumbent in the primary who voted to expand government and openly criticized tax relief efforts. He’s not your typical politician. A quiet, peaceful man, Joel lives “off the grid” and still makes his living as a crane operator, carpenter and hunting guide.”

“But Boniek’s upset win proves that voters want representatives who put freedom first, and that principled candidates who run smart campaigns can knock off entrenched incumbents – and accomplish great things in office.”

“Now, wouldn’t it be nice to have a state representative in your town just as passionate about defending your rights?”

In February, Missouri RLC Chair Rob Hillman testified before a legislative committee in support of a Missouri Sovereignty Resolution. Since that time, the Missouri RLC and Mr. Hillman have not let up about the sovereignty initiative.

Recently, Rob Hillman took his passion for limited government to the Saint Charles County Council. The County, which has over 280,000 people, is located in the metro St. Louis area. There are six members of the County Council. County Council Chair Joe Brazil sponsored legislation, Resolution 09-03, to support Jim Guest’s State Sovereignty Concurrent Resolution, HCR 13.

Rep. Jim Guest was endorsed by the RLC in 2008. (And is again endorsed in 2010.)

Recognizing the value of asserting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, St. Charles County legislators adopted the Resolution by a vote of 5-1.

When RLC activists in Missouri want something from their legislators, they take it right to them. Rob Hillman has paved the way for the Missouri RLC to continue its legislative victories such as the victory obtained on Charles County Resolution 09-03.

The Missouri RLC Board unanimously resolved support for HCR 13.  The RLC Board’s resolution was delivered to Republican Majority leaders in the State House and Senate, Rep. Guest, and Missouri GOP Chair David Cole.

The next step:  passing HCR 13 through the State Senate.

RLC Chair Rob Hillman (right) with Charles County Council Chair Joe Brazil.

I would count myself among the first to agree that one of the legitimate roles of the Department of Homeland Security is to make sure that we aren’t attacked by terrorists, including those of the homegrown variety. The next Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski is as much of a threat to the safety of the nation as the cleverest al-Qaeda operative who might sneak over the border from Mexico or go AWOL on his or her student visa.

Yet on reading a controversial new report from DHS, I have to wonder about the selective and political nature of their concerns. They seem to have a handle on one or two potential sources of domestic terrorism, while completely dismissing or ignoring other potentially much more serious threats.

Their report focuses entirely on domestic terrorism originating from disgruntled conservatives. Their concern over racist and nativist groups and their rising activism seems justifiable, but in the document they spread their net awfully wide to include just about every kind of conservative who might have legitimate concerns over the policies of the Obama administration and the political trends in the nation.

They break potential terrorists down into two groups: hate groups, whose inclusion makes a great deal of sense; and a much broader category of those whose motivations are “mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely” — which is an extremely broad category that could easily include those who have been promoting 10th Amendment state sovereignty legislation or who oppose federal bailout and stimulus spending.

The latter group also includes a great many people who would never sensibly be classed as terrorists. It’s a group that includes me.

They also express understandable concern over a resurgence of conspiracy fanatics who “believe that a ‘New World Order’ would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.” You only have to visit infowars.com to see that the potential for extremist violence from that quarter remains very real.

Yet the government officials responsible for the report don’t seem to grasp the difference between those fanatics and the much broader and more mainstream popular concern over actual threats to civil rights originating with the current administration. They seem not to understand that when the Second Amendment is actually threatened, it is the anti-Constitutional actions of government — not those who want to stand up for their rights — which is the problem. I guess that reflects what side their bread is buttered on and who is buttering it for them.

These officials’ callous awareness that the Administration is potentially creating terrorists by its actions and their acknowledgment that there is a real attack on gun rights, is rather dismaying. Of the gun rights issue they write:

“Legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among right wing extremists…Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.”

This is probably a genuine concern, but — in the report — they seem totally oblivious to how broad the discontent with gun rights restrictions are and how large a role the actions of the government play in radicalizing ordinary citizens.

I worry as to whether these bureaucrats can tell the difference between legitimately concerned citizens and actual potential terrorists.

I’m not happy with legislation to restrict gun rights. I might be buying a lot more ammunition as a result of shortages. Does that make me a terrorist?

For some critics of this report, it also prompts a legitimate concern that it may put too much focus on broadly targeting veterans and soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan. The report seems to take the attitude that anyone with a military service background is automatically a terrorism suspect just because they might be a high value recruiting target for anti-government groups. The report raises the issue of “disgruntled military veterans,” without considering the reasons why they might be disgruntled, focusing only on the potential for the rise of another Timothy McVeigh, a possibility which could be most easily prevented by addressing the psychological and social support needs of returning veterans rather than labeling them potential terrorists. It seems a shameful disservice to operate on the assumptions which DHS expresses in this document.

Perhaps what troubles me the most is what’s not addressed in the report as well as the politically one-sided nature of the report. Historically, the U.S. has faced as much threat from domestic terrorists on the left as on the right, yet it is the rise of “right wing extremism” which is the sole concern here. It’s all about the next Timothy McVeigh, with no attention to the threat of the next Unabomber. This despite the fact that ecoterrorism and far left radicalism are demonstrably on the rise here in the U.S., mirroring an enormous growth in “leftwing extremism” and — in particular — socialist anarchism on a worldwide basis.

I worry because this document is just a starting point for a much wider exploration of the idea that the right wing is a haven for terrorists. It is the unfortunate but perhaps inevitable outcome of the security measures taken after 9/11, where the legitimate need to monitor real threats begins to come under the sway of politics. The report concludes by declaring that:

“DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in right wing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive right wing extremist radicalization.”

This is a frighteningly broad mandate. The biggest factor driving “right wing extremist radicalization” could very well be the activity of government in stigmatizing the political right, classing them as extremists and terrorists and launching partisan investigations of anyone who speaks out against the current administration and its policies.

When our government starts labeling discontent and disenfranchised citizens as radicals and extremists simply because the bureaucrats disagree with their political beliefs, it is the first step towards driving them to become what they are unfairly accused of being.

As a result of organized Democrat opposition in key state legislatures, the state sovereignty movement is probably not going to be able to sweep the nation or even produce passed sovereignty resolutions in a majority of the states. Yet there have been some important achievements that may be enough to be called a limited victory, though the victories may never be acknowledged by the media and the current administration.

In one of the biggest developments for the state sovereignty effort, on Thursday Governor Rick Perry of Texas came out with a wholehearted endorsement of not only Texas House Representative Brandon Creighton’s state sovereignty resolution (HCR 50), but in support of all of the states whose legislatures are seeking to assert their rights to self-governance under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

I’ve never been a big fan of Rick Perry, though I’ve always admired his lovely hair. He’s too much in the pocket of the religious right and has too often been wrong on key issues vital to the future of Texas like the legalization of gambling. Yet on this issue Perry has consistently taken the lead, championing the autonomy of state governments, by rejecting federal stimulus money for unemployment and the strings which came with it, and now by supporting legislative efforts to assert 10th Amendment rights.

The bold stand which Perry and a few other governors like Alaska’s Sarah Palin, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and South Carolina’s Mark Sanford have taken against federal intrusion into the rights of state governments and the citizens of those states and the efforts of more than 30 state legislatures which have tried to pass — with mixed success — resolutions asserting state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment have offered a small ray of hope for better government at a time when the administration in Washington seems to be running completely out of control.

As the federal government spends us into generations of inconceivable debt, responsible state governments are trying to insulate themselves, protect their citizens and govern with fiscal common sense. Perry summed up what has become the common concern of people across the nation when he said:

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Meanwhile state sovereignty resolutions have been moving forward in the state legislatures. In Oklahoma, Alaska, South Dakota, Indiana and most recently this week in Idaho and North Dakota, sovereignty bills have passed in both houses. But New Mexico, Arkansas and New Hampshire sovereignty bills were either killed in committee or voted down along partisan lines, and that’s likely to happen in many more states in the next couple of months. In other states bills just seem not to be moving forward and may not go anywhere because of Democrat opposition.

Even if the state sovereignty movement has not yet achieved enough success to be called a revolution, with six state legislatures and a number of prominent governors committed to sending a message to Washington, it is bound to have some impact. The influence has already been felt among Republican Senators and Representatives, who have started to realize that keeping their jobs means not waffling on fiscal issues. What remains to be seen is what governors with an eye on the presidency in 2012 like Sanford and Perry are banking on — whether this movement will translate into votes in the 2010 Congressional elections, building towards an even bigger shakeup in 2012.

Perhaps even more importantly, it shows that at least on the state level, some legislators and governors have woken up to the fact that the people are fed up with the excesses of the federal government and the mess they have created and are screaming for real grassroots change.

Not just a change of faces in the White House, but fundamental changes in national policy and a transfer of power away from bureaucrats and politicians and back to the people. We’re tired of seeing our rights, our money and our futures squandered and want to be back in control, through the ballot, through protests and through using the power of state governments under the Constitution to hold the federal government accountable and bring an end to its abuses of power.

In Florida, the Republican Liberty Caucus recently drafted a resolution that RLC activists have been circulating to friendly legislators for introduction. The legislation is based off of the Oklahoma resolution introduced by the RLC-endorsed Rep. Charles Key and Sen. Randy Brogdon. The Florida RLC is encouraging residents to sign a petition in support of the resolution and urging legislators to introduce it in the 2009 session. Stay tuned! The fight has just begun in Florida.

The newly up-and-running Asheville Area RLC chapter in North Carolina was able to obtain unanimous approval of a “Resolution for State Sovereignty” at the recent Buncombe County GOP Convention. The State Sovereignty Resolution will be forwarded to GOP Delegates at the North Carolina GOP Convention to be held June 12-14 in Raleigh.

Last month, Missouri RLC Chair Rob Hillman testified before a legislative committee in support of the Missouri sovereignty resolution. Rep. Cynthia Davis, who has been in close contact with RLC members in the state, introduced the resolution, H.R. 212.

Across the country, the sovereignty movement continues to grow, and the RLC is proud to lead the way to affirm sovereignty of the states.