On the 45th anniversary of the dark day when Dr. Martin Luther King was gunned down in Memphis, I feel the need to write about some political history. I grew up in the Dayton area. Most of my friends back home are black. I have always found it hard to believe that most of them constantly vote Democrat, when the party itself has run many of Ohio’s major cities into the ground economically for many years. But I shouldn’t be surprised. The Ohio Republican Party, often showing little difference between themselves and the Democrats, deserves blame as well. They have allowed Ohio to remain a tax and spend state with failing schools, high crime, union and corporate corruption, and annoying, bigoted nativist sentiments.

Though my family mostly votes Democrat I have always been a Republican. You might call me a recovering neocon turned Rand Paul Republican through a drawn out awakening from the statism I grew up around. Though I wasn’t a huge fan of Bush I believe–and did from my teen years–that historically the Republican Party has had the better track record on economics and foreign policy; even though I’ve never quite been in agreement with them on social issues. In high school I read John Stuart Mill and got my first taste of the importance of individual liberty. The history books I read suggested that the Republican Party, at least prior to George W. Bush, had a better track record on this, through the civil rights support from Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower, and the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. When the party was founded as the party of civil rights, its motto was: Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men.

Though some northern Democrats such as my late grandfather (who would have turned 86 today) were friendly to the black community in the first half of the 20th century, most of the party — especially in the south — had always been an enemy of civil rights. It had been the party of Jim Crow. Even in the North,  working class Democrats before the 1960s had a tendency to bigotry. The earliest labor unions were founded to protect “white labor.”  After both WWI and WWII, many blacks fled the south to work in the industrial cities of the northeast and midwest, and the white unions would fight hard to keep them out. This would continue until the 50s, when the struggle for racial equality reached new heights.

Prior to the 70s, most blacks were Republicans. They began a mass exodus to the Democratic Party when Johnson signed the civil rights bill, even though it only passed because of the Republicans in congress. Ironically enough, Johnson as a Senator opposed civil rights legislation vehemently.

Unfortunately the Republican Party never did anything to maintain those voters or get them back. The last Republican president to campaign in black neighborhoods and truly speak to issues that affected black communities in televised debates was Ronald Reagan. Had he not been such a drug warrior he might have repaired the frayed relations. Now, historically misguided baby boomers and gen-xers in the African-American community have taught their children the myth that Republicans are racist; some of it as a result of the aggressive anti-drug policies that were kicked up during the Reagan years. Of course, our opposition to Barack Obama makes it easier to keep this myth going even if this opposition is legitimate because the president’s economic and foreign policies have been counterproductive and downright wrong. Perception is everything.

Fact: the only thing the Republican Party ever did to set back black people in its entire history was the War on Drugs. But that was a bipartisan mistake and has been supported over the years by just as many Democrats. Many rising Republican leaders such as Rand Paul and Justin Amash are finally willing to admit prohibition doesn’t work and does nothing but disproportionately incarcerate black and Hispanic men for crimes where no physical or financial harm was wrought by them on another; just as gun laws do (ever heard of the “white and polite” rule?). As they do this, rising Democratic leaders such as Elizabeth Warren mock them as potheads or flip flop on the issue and do nothing to alleviate the problem.

I’m sick and damn tired of ignoramuses accusing the Republican Party of being racist for reasons most of them can’t even explain when the Democrats clearly are part of the problem and won’t admit it. At least Rick Perry, in spite of all his faults, signed the Peaceable Journey act into law to strike down the “white and polite” rule that was locking up minorities in Texas for carrying lawfully owned guns in their car for their own protection. Historically, you could carry a gun in your car in Texas for protection; but if you were ever stopped, there was a de facto “white and polite” rule. If you were white, and nice to the officer, he’d let it slide. If you were black or Tejano, good luck. You were probably going to be arrested. This disgusting remnant of the Jim Crow south was finally repealed when the Texas Republican Party pushed for the peaceable journey act. Now all Texans’ second amendment rights are respected. They are allowed to carry guns in their car without a permit. It keeps me safe when driving at night in Houston, that’s for sure.

Do you ever wonder why minority poverty and minority incarceration are highest in blue states? There are a lot of reasons; and support for prohibition — which I will define as locking someone up for possession or use of an item where no physical or financial harm was done to anyone else — is one such reason. The welfare state and teacher’s unions are to blame too; as well as opposition to school choice programs that allow black students to get out of the ghetto by doing something as simple as: STOP FORCING THEM TO STAY THERE! (I’m very passionate about education reform. You’ll see me write more on it in coming months).

It’s going to take more than a generation to get blacks voting Republican again. It starts with ignoring or even laughing at the Rovian notion that religious-right wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion are the answer. If the black community was really that passionate about social conservatism, they would not be voting overwhelmingly Democrat. Truthfully, young blacks are just as secular as young whites. The generational shift away from social conservatism transcends race. I’ve actually met fewer young blacks who are aggressively anti-abortion or anti-gay than I have young whites, and when you put the two together, the number is inconsequential. It is likely to remain that way. The liberals control the pop culture, and it has secularized the generation. The culture war is effectively over. Fortunately, secularism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive; rather they are highly compatible.

First, the GOP needs a message of economic empowerment in black communities; one that can be brought by a revival of vocational training opportunities and academic improvement that the free market can best provide. We must be able to explain why lower taxes and fewer regulations create jobs, lower the price of everyday goods, and raise local wages. We must aggressively promote upward mobility through school choice and a return of apprenticeships in skilled crafts and STEM fields.

Next, we must become the civil rights party again, by doing as Senator Rand Paul recently said:

“It is important that we always stand up for the Bill of Rights, whether the First Amendment, Fourth or Second. The Constitution is non-negotiable”

The Bill of Rights is like dominoes, knock down one and they all fall. We must become the party of civil liberties again.

Finally, it would help if the first president to pardon a high number of non-violent gun or drug offenders was Republican. Rand Paul could very well be that president. He’s probably not going to campaign on it if he runs in 2016. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he did so after being elected.

In his address to CPAC, he said:

“Ask the Facebook generation whether we should put a kid in jail for the nonviolent crime of drug use, and you’ll hear a resounding no,”

That would be as symbolic a move for the GOP as civil rights legislation was for the Democratic Party under Johnson. Tens of thousands of mostly black and Hispanic men, who have committed no physical or financial harm to anyone other than themselves, suddenly released back into society with their records expunged, so that they can get the help they need, get back on their feet and get back into the workforce. It’s the right thing to do. And the Republican governors (hint hint, Mr. Perry), should start now as congress gears up for this gun control debate.

I urge Republican governors to scour the records of the incarcerated. Find people, of any race, who were incarcerated for possession of a firearm without a permit but committed no violent or financial crimes on top of this possession, and expunge their sentences and/or reimburse their fines. The overwhelming majority of them will be minorities. Show these people the Republican Party is not the party of prohibition, but the party of liberty, by freeing them from the police state.

I also urge you to pardon those who are incarcerated for committing non-violent, non-financial drug crimes, at least for weed–which science has irrefutably proven (to the point where anyone who still denies it is stupid) is safer than alcohol or tobacco. But you might as well start with the non-violent/non-financial gun “offenders.” Think of the taxpayer money you will save! Your voters will thank you!

It’s sad. Most of my generation thinks Dr. Martin Luther King was a pro-gun control liberal and many baby boomers think he’d be a drug warrior. I assure you if he was alive today and saw the prison statistics resulting from gun and drug prohibition, he’d be ashamed. Not that he was a fan of guns or drugs. He was a preacher of non-violent resistance and would not have appreciated self-destructive behavior. However, he would have been against government locking people up for possession of either; especially with those in prison for non-violent offenses being so disproportionately non-white. He would not want self-destructive behavior to be met with police brutality and incarceration. I’m confident he would have seen it as a mission of the church to solve these problems, not the nanny state.

The pro-civil liberties, pro-economic growth Republican Party being [re]invented by fresh young faces like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, as well as the many Gen Y Republicans supporting organizations like Young Americans for Liberty, is the one that will repair the GOP’s frayed relations with the black community, as well as other minority groups; Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, even gays. The Rove/Kristol/Graham/Santorum wings of Dominionism, prohibition, crony capitalism, disrespect for the Bill of Rights, and perpetual warfare is what destroyed the relationship in the first place. The sooner we realize this, and begin taking action, the sooner black Americans will begin coming back to the party they once loved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Remember the 4th Amendment? How does a remote controlled drone knock on your door and present a search warrant?

The answer is that it can’t.

In the name of security our government at the federal, state and local level, has launched another assault on oiur 4th Amendment rights by authorizing the use of military style drones to monitor the activities of civilians with no warrants and no due process of law. With penetrating scanning technology these drones can watch you and listen to your conversations through the walls of your house and even read your email remotely without you even being aware that you are under surveillance, all of this without any kind of Constitutionally required due process of law – no hearing, no charges, no search warrant. Under the PATRIOT Act that drone might as well be sitting in your living room or bedroom, invading every private aspect of your life.

Senator Rand Paul has introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (S. 3287) which would require a legal warrant issued by a judge before drones were used for any purpose other than patrolling the borders or pursuing known terrorism suspects. It would keep drones from engaging in preemptive surveillance or broadly tasked data gathering missions as proposed in the PATRIOT Act. It would protect you and other law abiding citizens from being monitored by drones for nothing more than the convenience and curiosity of the NSA or local law enforcement.

Read more about the bill in The Hill and please use our convenient tool below to write your Senators today and ask them to join on as sponsors.

When a virtual army of RLC endorsees including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Mike Lee plus Congressmen like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul are all backing something you know it has to be a good idea and an important statement for smaller and more responsible government. While some congressional leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell seem ready to sell out to the Obama administration’s demands for more taxes and spending, responsible leaders with principle are promoting the “Cap, Cut and Balance” pledge.

With the US facing an unavoidable debt crisis, we’re not going to be able to balance the budget and revitalize our economy on the backs of taxpayers or with superficial cuts in a few programs or cuts put off over long periods of time. We need real and substantial cuts now, including an end to our unnecessary wars, restructuring of entitlement programs and a program by program audit of every aspect of the federal government.

Faced with demands to raise the debt limit without implementing needed cuts, fiscal conservatives in Congress are signing the new “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge which follows the guidelines of the Republican Study Committee and demands real and immediate cuts, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

* Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
* Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
* Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

You can show your support by signing the pledge too at www.cutcapbalancepledge.com.

And please help support our efforts to promote liberty issues and reform the Republican Party by joining the RLC today or by making a donation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congresswoman Bachmann said:

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

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

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

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

As Senator Paul so eloquently put it:

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

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

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

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

The text of the petition reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, RLC Advisory Board member Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan’s plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

Ryan gave it right back to him. The budget committee chairman went directly after Sen. Paul’s five-year budget plan, which he had clearly studied closely. Ryan’s criticism went roughly like this: yes, he said, you slash the Department of Education and make fast, dramatic cuts, but you don’t deal with entitlement spending. In the out years the deficit would sky-rocket, he said, making an air chart with his hand moving through the air and pointing sharply upward.

A GOP aide sympathetic to Sen. Paul said that Rep. Ryan’s criticism unfairly isolated a single part of his plan and treated as if it represented Paul’s global approach to deficit reduction. Paul does plan to announce a proposal for cutting entitlement spending, the aide said, but wanted to put the domestic spending plan out first.

The private challenge from Sen. Paul reflects criticisms of Rep. Ryan’s plan Paul also made to HuffPost. Paul thinks that Ryan’s approach doesn’t go nearly far enough.

“Here’s how bad it is: The president’s proposal, his ten year plan, is 46 trillion in spending. Paul Ryan’s alternative, which everybody is going crazy over, is still 40 trillion dollars in spending,” Paul told HuffPost. “My problem with the whole thing is that all of the proposals basically increase spending.”

Rand Paul said that Paul Ryan’s plan relies too heavily on deficit spending. “The president adds, I think, 11 trillion to the gross debt and Ryan’s plan adds eight trillion. I don’t think anybody up here realizes that we can’t withstand trillion dollar annual deficits,” he said.

A Ryan spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The House recently approved Ryan’s spending plan, but it was rejected by the Senate. A compromise budget expires at the end of September.

(Source: Ryan Grim at Huffington Post)

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote the following letter urging his fellow lawmakers to vote against compromise.

__________________________________________________

To my fellow Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,

The much-ballyhooed 2011 continuing resolution will leave the federal government spending $1.6 trillion more than it takes in. Despite descriptions of cuts, the 2011 Congress will spend more than it did in 2010 and with a larger annual deficit. It is the third year in a row with a record deficit.

Only in Washington can a budget that spends more than it did the year before, with a larger deficit, be portrayed as “cutting.”

The only “good news” from the 2011 CR would be that it adds less debt than President Obama’s plan, but it does not appreciably change the accumulation of debt.

Last November, riding a wave of voter discontent with out-of-control government spending, nearly 100 new House and Senate Republicans were sent to Washington to put an end to Big Government.

Most of us are small-government conservatives, who truly believe the size and scope of our federal government needs to be reversed. But being serious about this mission requires being honest with those who sent us; and it requires standing up when our leaders themselves abandoned their promises.

House Republicans were all voted in on the promise to pass a spending bill that cut $100 billion, a modest proposal when you consider our estimated $1.65 trillion deficit.

House leaders promptly floated a 2011 spending cut of less than $33 billion in January. House freshman rightly balked, saying that is not what they promised and not why they came to Washington. So the leaders went back to the drawing board and proposed a better, but still inadequate, $61 billion.

Fast-forward to last week. What numbers were the House, Senate and White House officials negotiating over? The difference between $33 billion and $40 billion. Note that the original House proposal somehow morphed into the White House/Senate Democrat proposal. If that doesn’t show the complete failure in the initial House proposal from January, I don’t know what does.

Finally, with great hand-wringing and drama, negotiations settled on just over $38.5 billion, or roughly $6 billion more than the freshmen objected to in January.

I didn’t come to Washington to settle for $6 billion less in spending than if I had not been here. I suspect most of my freshmen House friends didn’t either. That’s barely half a day’s spending at our current pace. This discussion is simply not credible or serious, and unfortunately, it has not been from the beginning, as the House leadership has made clear.

Think about it another way before you vote: The entire budget cut plans skim 3 percent off the top of our historic $1.65 trillion deficit. That means the side of Big Government got 97 percent of what they want.

I prefer to be on the other side. The side of the people who sent us here to Washington to do something. To cut spending. To save our economy. To move toward a balanced budget.

I will vote a resounding NO this week to this so-called deal. And I urge my colleagues, if they are serious about cutting government spending, to do the same.

When Kentucky senator Rand Paul recently proposed cutting off the entirety of American foreign aid, his plan was immediately denounced by almost every corner of the ideological spectrum. Most of the disagreement centered on his willingness to do away with foreign aid to Israel, a suggestion many Americans find unacceptable when it comes to our long-time Middle East friend. Paul found himself with few allies, a scenario underscoring just how difficult it will be to ever truly get our deficit under control. Though the $3 billion in annual aid provided to Israel is a drop in the bucket compared to overall annual federal expenditures, the fact that conservatives and liberals alike cannot picture a world without foreign aid is quite telling.

One of the fallacies that leads many to oppose cutting foreign aid, be it to Israel or another nation, is the assumption that the absence of federal aid to Israel would somehow impoverish the nation having funds cut off.  But this notion is very suspect. Americans are a notably charitable people, and the wide support for Israel demonstrated by public opinion polls indicates Americans would be apt to generously give to that nation by way of private donations. Sure, there will be initial howls and obligatory accusations of callousness. But the public dole would quickly be displaced by donations from private organizations and individuals, which is the means conservatives are supposed to favor when it comes to helping those in need. Numerous Jewish and evangelical Christian organizations would no doubt pick up any slack left over from the elimination of government funds.

Domestically, we refer to recipients of government transfer payments as ‘welfare recipients’, but as far as I know this title is rarely applied when referencing foreign aid. Rand Paul indicated as much when discussing his foreign aid proposal; do conservatives really think the Israelis so lack self-sufficiency that they would be an economic basket case if not for U.S. taxpayer dollars? Do we really want other countries who receive the other $22 billion worth of foreign aid to feel as if America is merely buying their goodwill, or would we instead prefer to have peaceful exchanges of trade and commerce with them that foster reciprocal good feelings?

Whether applied to Israel or Egypt, conservatives should not favor the spreading of American’s tax dollars around the globe on the whim of a D.C. politician. Instead, individual donating on their volition and time would not only be more rewarding for all those involved, but it would allow our government to take a small step in the direction of solvency.

For years, we have given money to Israel’s avowed enemies, some of whom even share a physical border with that small nation. The subsidization of Mubarak in Egypt was just one of many foreign dole practices that should cause Americans to scratch their heads. Would not an even handed approach dictate that we simply cut off the spigot of money to all overseas governments? It is astonishing that our politicians are all but oblivious to this sentiment, one that is widespread among the everyday public.

After all, we are rapidly nearing $15 trillion debt; at what point do we begin taking the steps necessary to get our own house in order and cease subsidizing the lifestyles and military budgets of countries thousands of miles from our shore? Some might incorrectly call this “isolationism”, but our current foreign aid policy, when you get down to it, comes perilously close to qualifying as socialism. Is that any better?

We need to begin treating the Israelis like the grownups they are and stop interjecting ourselves in their finances and internal affairs. To do so is in no way to be anti-Israel, but instead would be a commonsensical approach for fiscal conservatives to adopt across the board. The minimal amount of money saved would pale in comparison to the feelings of sovereignty this would grant both to Americans and Israelis, as a recent Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies study shows.

Countries who formerly received aid would no longer need a paternal figure looking over their shoulder as they are freed up to manage the affairs in a manner they, not America per se, see fit. Many of us have been taught as conservatives that success should be defined as how many people are able to leave, not sign up for, welfare programs. This line of sound reasoning need not be divorced from our approach to overseas assistance either.

Douglas Casey once stated that: “Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” This quote has a lot more truth to it that those in Washington are willing to admit.

Perhaps the time has come to stop forcing Americans to aid those in poverty overseas by gunpoint, and instead let them do so out of the goodness of their own hearts.