Sometimes it is preferable to be boring. After the roller coaster ride of current events that have unfolded both domestically and abroad over the previous decade, many of us might yearn for some boring times for a change. Massive ups and downs in the economic sphere have only been matched by equal turmoil in the political one: it seems the House and presidency are switching hands more than homes at the height of the real estate bubble.

This is true in our personal lives as well, as most of us value steadiness and seek to steer clear of massive peaks and valleys in our personal relationships and family lives. So if we place such a premium on the times marked by a lack of upheaval, why do we not look back fondly on those who presided over such times while in the Oval Office? Our presidents who reigned during times of war or massive government intervention are constantly glorified and placed on a pedestal, while the ones who presided during times of peace and economic expansion are rarely even brought up.

Praise is ceaselessly heaped on the Wilsons, FDRs, Trumans, Lincolns, and Johnsons of our past. Not to say these men did not do some good things during their terms, but is it unrealistic to expect the same sort of folk tales to be told about the presidents who avoided war, saving us from untold carnage by their diplomacy? What about the ones who stuck to laissez faire principles, the men who kept the budget balanced, currency strong, and the government off the backs of the American people? These names are only brought up as historical footnotes, chalked up as too “boring” for in depth discussion. Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge come to mind; but I would wager most Americans have been taught little about the presidencies of these two men. I know I was not.

We need to teach the next generation about the men who placed peaceful international relations and a trust in market mechanisms at the forefront of their agenda, not necessarily the ones who, in the words of John Quincy Adams, sought to go overseas seeking “monsters to destroy.” Considering this sort of leader has been more the exception than the rule, learning about their administrations is valuable for those who want to curtail the massive apparatus that has emerged over the preceding decades.

While a holistic reading of our history is vitally important, we should not overlook the presidents who maintained a restrained view of presidential powers. In fact, America could use a boring president once again; after all, running the world and managing the economy is not exactly part of their job description. Our presidents need to be defined by what they don’t do, not just what they do. The urge to constantly be responding to this problem or that, intervening in this crisis or the next, has left us saddled with massive commitments we have no way of following through on. As the Republican presidential primary season gets underway in earnest over the next few months, perhaps we can look past the glamor and navel gazing, opting instead for the most boring of the bunch. Now that would be change we could all believe in.

Author, financial commentator, and 2010 GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut Peter Schiff is confirmed as the second keynote speaker at the Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention Banquet Dinner (along with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson). In 2006, Schiff correctly predicted the forthcoming crisis in the financial sector — long before most economists or financial commentators.

His father Irwin Schiff is a former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate who is well-known for his protests against the federal income tax. Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a broker-dealer based in Westport, Connecticut and CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals, LLC, a gold and silver dealer based in New York City.

Peter Schiff was an economic adviser to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. In the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, held in August of last year, Mr. Schiff received 23 percent of the vote while facing former Congressman Rob Simmons and WWE CEO Linda McMahon.

Peter Schiff is the author of five books, including “Crash Proof 2.0″, which appeared on both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal best sellers lists. He frequently appears as a guest on CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg Television and is often quoted in major financial publications and is a frequent guest on internet radio as well as the host of The Peter Schiff Show.

The Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention will take place on Saturday, February 12 at the Hilton Arlington (Ballston) in Arlington, Virginia. Registration will close very soon, so please register today!

Thank you to the following individuals, organizations, and businesses who have sponsored the Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention:

Platinum Sponsors
_______________________
The Leadership Institute
Richard P. Matthews
Dr. Clifford F. Thies

Gold Sponsors
_______________________
Silver Circle Movie
Pennsylvania Precinct Project

Convention Booths
_______________________
The Leadership Institute
Silver Circle Movie
Pennsylvania Precinct Project
New Renaissance in Education
Arlington/Falls Church Young Republicans

These generous sponsors have made the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention possible. Stop by the vendor booths at the Convention or click on the links above to learn more about these sponsoring organizations and causes.

Laurence Vance, a columnist who posts at LewRockwell.com, has a new piece up in which he provides a not-so-thoughtful analysis regarding his views about the Republican Party in general and the Republican Liberty Caucus in specific. This is his second write-up about the RLC this month. I’m pleased that we’ve caught his attention.

Mr. Vance received a postcard from the Florida chapter of the RLC inviting him to attend the recent Florida RLC Convention in Kissimmee.

Vance’s first criticism is that the RLC postcard he received said that Republicans “won big on libertarian themes”. I am not involved in the Florida RLC chapter and therefore did not pen that language (and I would have chosen alternative language), but winning in politics can take a variety of forms. Perhaps the Florida RLC was talking about candidates running campaigns on libertarian themes — as new RLC-endorsed State Rep. Glen Bradley of North Carolina did.  His campaign theme was “Restore the Constitutional Order” and he featured the RLC logo at his campaign hub. Mr. Bradley was just one of many newly elected RLC-endorsed state legislators.

Or perhaps the author of the postcard was talking about ballot initiatives with libertarian themes, such as the anti-Obamacare measures passed in states like Arizona and Oklahoma and the medical marijuana initiative passed in Arizona. Still, there are other measures of successful libertarian themes in the Republican Party, such as the push for state sovereignty by elected Republican legislators, the anti-TSA resolution championed by Republican legislators in New Jersey, the legislation to decriminalize pot possession sponsored by a Republican legislator in Virginia, and the “Health Care Freedom” bills that many states are pursuing with Republicans taking the lead.

Some of this legislation has been successful, some will be in the future, and other items will fail. The legislation that fails will do so because there aren’t enough liberty-loving Americans serving in public office — which the RLC is working to change through retail politics.

In referencing the “liberty wing of the Republican Party,” which was mentioned in the Florida RLC postcard, Mr. Vance claims that the liberty wing has only one member: his hero, Ron Paul.

Mr. Vance likes one politician, but no others.

I’ve noticed that trend in the Mises economic circles.  All politicians and both political parties are evil, the story goes, with one exception — Ron Paul.

What makes Ron Paul different?

He was elected — that’s what separates him from the rest of the crowd.

To be elected, he had to participate in the political process, something Mr. Vance says he explicitly opposes.

In my e-mail response to Mr. Vance’s original blog entry from January 3, in which he initially made the claim that the “liberty wing of the GOP” was made up of one person, I cited examples of other elected officials who make up the liberty wing of the Republican Party:

—–Original Message—–
From: Laurence M. Vance
To: aaronjbiterma
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2011 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Your post about the Republican Liberty Caucus

who are the current and former elected officials?

Subject: Re: Your post about the Republican Liberty Caucus
Date: 1/4/2011 2:41:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: aaronjbiterma
To: lmvance

Governor Gary Johnson
Congressman Justin Amash from Michigan
City Councilman from New York City (Dan Halloran)
County Commissioner from Maryland (Cindy Jones)
State Representatives from Maine, Maryland, Ohio, Wisconsin

The elected officials I mentioned in the e-mail to Mr. Vance are just some of the decent liberty-loving folks who will be attending the upcoming RLC National Convention. The list excludes a plethora of legislators who were just elected in November and who have been serving as loyal libertarian Republicans for many years, such as State Senator Sam Slom of Hawai’i and State Senator Bob Hedlund of Massachusetts.

Mr. Vance chose to ignore the information I provided to continue his hero-worship instead.

I admire Congressman Ron Paul just as Mr. Vance does. What freedom-loving American doesn’t?

But there is a point where hero-worship becomes counter-productive, and Mr. Vance illustrates the point quite well:

He opposes participation in electoral politics and instead believes that writing for LewRockwell.com is going to change the direction of our country.

If Congressman Ron Paul is as wonderful as Mr. Vance says he is (and I believe he is), then why aren’t we all working to find more principled people to run for office and win?

Well, some of us are. Others would instead prefer to get paid to write articles.

Laurence Vance needs to work on his persuasion skills.

I’m a longtime libertarian, and his efforts have only dissuaded me from wanting to associate with the purity club that is LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute.

Mr. Vance expresses that he has treated the RLC fairly. He then falsely claims that the Florida RLC endorsed Ron Paul for President in 2008 (not true) and goes on to say that the Florida RLC website is out of date (also not true). He commends the “hardcore” members of the Florida RLC who have written to him in the past (presumably, these members met his litmus test) and then goes on to criticize their choice of State Senator Mike Haridopolos as a speaker at the recent Florida RLC Convention (who did not meet his litmus test).

Unlike the intellectual elitists (and racists and homophobes) who write for LewRockwell.com — sitting in their comfy computer chairs criticizing the masses who do not agree with every tenet of their ideological platform — the Republican Liberty Caucus is working to change the makeup of the Republican Party. So it’s a friendlier place for liberty advocates. So the policies in our country can change dramatically for the better. And to engage folks who may not agree with every libertarian idea but are open to the prospect of learning more about libertarian principles.

Whoever added Mr. Vance to the mailing list of the Florida RLC chapter would be well advised to remove him. Vance neither understands (nor cares to understand,) nor agrees with the mission of the organization — and the RLC Statement of Principles doesn’t jibe with his rigid purity test.

Readers interested in hearing a substantive response to Vance’s claims about the Republican Party should register to attend the 2011 RLC National Convention on February 12 in Arlington, Virginia.  Professor Randy Barnett will give a speech entitled “Rediscovering the Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party.”  At the same time, we’ll be celebrating 20 years of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Anyone can run for office, including those of us who have deeply-held libertarian convictions. The idea that the liberty wing of the Republican Party is made up of one elected official — a lie stated and repeated by Laurence Vance — should be expunged from our discourse.

And the politics of hero-worship should be purged from the libertarian movement so that we can recruit, support, and elect libertarian-minded citizen leaders who are in the same mold as Ron Paul.

After all, it was Congressman Paul himself who said, “We must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.”

We’re just weeks away from the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention, and we hope you’ll consider attending — even if you’ve never attended a RLC meetup before. There is still time to register, but make sure to do so before February 1, when the prices rise.

The top ten reasons you should register and attend the Convention:

10. You will be able to hear from RLC leaders in other states to see how their chapters operate.

9. It promises to be really fun — an exciting and uplifting event. Check the agenda.

8. Panels will offer intellectual discussions from key figures in the liberty movement related to the Tea Party, foreign policy, drug policy reform, electoral reform, and other topics.

7. Training on communications and campaigns will be offered by experts in these fields.

6. Over 100 activists from 30 states will gather to network, socialize, learn, and mobilize.

5. The Convention will mark the largest pro-liberty gathering of Republicans in the country.

4. The RLC will celebrate its 20 year anniversary at the Convention, having been founded in 1991.

3. Justin Amash, the 30-year old Congressman-elect from Michigan, and former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson will share their thoughts and experiences.

2. Prof. Randy Barnett’s speech “Rediscovering the Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party” will make the case for libertarian participation in the Republican Party.

1. Registered delegates will be eligible to vote in the RLC’s 2012 Presidential Straw Poll!

Don’t miss out — register today!

Patriots protest! Silence is shameful. Citizens! The country is in crisis and the Congress is culpable. Ramp up the Rhetoric!

The recent shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of District Court Judge John Roll in Arizona likely had nothing to do with political rhetoric. It was, as is so often is the case, the culmination of the long downward descent of a disturbed young man. Why then are so many politicians saying that we need to be careful of what we say?

The reason is because what we are saying is true. When you pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands you might as well be talking about the lost city of Atlantis. Both have long since ceased to exist. The United States stopped operating as a constitutional republic decades ago. The Federal Government believes the States and citizens must bow unconditionally to its will. It would take a major political and economic upheaval to restore America to its former form of government.

The recent reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives was nothing more than window dressing as the newly elected liberty minded Republicans will soon discover. They are not a majority and will have to take a back seat to the will of the majority in the Congress still controlled by power brokers and the legislators who are willing to grow rich at the expense of the American People. Most members of Congress, Democrat and Republican are in continual violation of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Their individual morals go downhill from there. They should be punished for this at the ballot box, and brought to trial by jury.

There is a self-righteous elite in this country and across the globe who think that we are incompetent.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to own basic weapons for our own defense, because they fear that those arms may someday be used against them.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to decide how our children should be educated because they are afraid that what we would teach them would contradict their worldview.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to spend the money that we earn wisely and want to take it from us so that they can spend it on what they think is important. Not only that but they have stolen and mismanaged our money to the point where the country is facing a financial collapse that is just barely being reported in the news, but is nevertheless imminent and very real.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to vote and have therefore corrupted the political process by ensuring that every major candidate is vetted and selected by them, and anointed by their media outlets, so that ultimately it really doesn’t matter whom we vote for.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to manage our own affairs and have instituted ream upon ream of standards, regulations, licensing requirements, and of course fees, to ensure that we never have to make an independent decision.

• They believe that we are not responsible enough to know the difference between right and wrong and by the use of propaganda under the guise of tolerance and diversity attempt to impose their own lax moral standards upon us admonishing us to call our enemies our friends, and to call what is good, evil and what is evil, good.

Now they believe that you are not responsible enough to speak your mind. “Be careful of what you say, someone might be offended, someone might feel threatened!” “Tone down the rhetoric, after all, things are not really as bad as you make them out to be.” “Let’s all try to work together.”

This, my friends, it the BIG lie. Things are in fact worse than we make then out to be. The time for cooperation is past. Now is the time for resistance, for state nullification, for political upheaval, for throwing the bums out, for restoring liberty, not to the country, but to our state, and to our own county.

A few days ago, John Boehner, the weak-willed, cry-baby, Republican Speaker of the House was unable to name a single federal program that he thought should be cut. Would it be too much for the audible cry of “IDIOT” to be heard resounding from sea to shining sea? I think not. We must not allow ourselves to be muzzled now, for if we do we will find ourselves in short order, disarmed, disenfranchised, and in chains. Do not be quiet Americans, and do not rest. Shout out all the louder for the civil and economic rights, for smaller government, for lower taxes, and for Liberty.

Louis William Rose is a political philosopher and parliamentarian for the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida. You can email him at louisrose [at] yahoo.com.

Imagining a day in America when individuals were treated like adults seems a far-fetched proposition to anyone who remotely follows current events. Treating constituents like dependent children has become a pastime of most members of Congress; their disdain for the voting public’s intelligence is matched only by the voting public’s equal disdain for theirs.

Though our political leader’s paternalistic mind set is increasingly clear with every new congressional session, it is probably most evident with regard to our methods of providing charity to the poor. Even some otherwise principled men have caved in on this question, unwilling to muster the fortitude to challenge the prevailing conventional wisdom. Challenging the idea of government assistance from Washington from a constitutional or even common sense standpoint has become so politically toxic that even the soundest of Congressmen will shy away from calling its legitimacy into question. Sometimes changes in our collective ideology can take place so incrementally that we must pick a specific event in the past and view it through the lens of today’s prevailing perspective.

In 1854, a bill from Congress to provide charity for the mentally ill came across the desk of then-President Franklin Pierce. In a move that would qualify as political suicide today, Pierce vetoed the bill. He explained his reasoning by stating, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for the public charity.” And he took this a step further, saying it “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” If a contemporary president did such a deed, many would assume he too qualified for the benefits in that very bill. Obligatory shots would be launched at how Mr. Pierce is heartless, callous, and no doubt soulless; we could picture the diatribes and epithets with minimal difficulty. Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” segment would have a new villain. But examples abound of our earlier Presidents making similar such vetoes and statements, acts that have become nonexistent since at least the Wilson administration.

Understanding why Americans have become so comfortable with governmental “aid”, particularly at the federal level, over the course of the last century is undoubtedly a complex issue. Some blame can be placed on the New Deal programs instituted by FDR, while much of the rest is attributable to the debt inducing nature of our decision to ditch the gold standard. This acted as a regulator on the “charitable” impulses of government. But the massive deficits brought on by a social welfare state were no longer seen as a drain on the economy absent a gold standard. After all, as a recent Vice President famously informed/chided us, “Deficits don’t matter.” Even worse, turning debt into a money-producing venture further encouraged the government to operate in the red. Printing or borrowing the difference made a process of giving once handled by private individuals quite palatable to fans of government meddling. Being charitable with the taxpayers’ money not only makes an ambitious congressman look good, but now the consequences it would have entailed are no longer immediately present. The day of reckoning with massive deficits is always kicked down the road.

A more simplistic explanation would be the confusion of many Americans over what the correct role of government is. Currently, the only question Congress asks before appropriating funds is whether or not it will make the American people angry. If the answer is no, they will proceed in spite of any constitutional restraints. If the answer is affirmative, then a follow up question will be asked: just how angry? Unless they foresee a major backlash, the money will usually be doled out hand over fist.

This apathy on the part of a once vigilant citizenry can be pinned largely on the lack of in depth study of constitutionalism in our school system. The teaching of our Constitution’s original intent and the raising of awareness regarding the foundation of our liberties have become collateral damage of progressivism’s century long influence on American education. Anything smacking of restraint on the government is consistently downplayed in our classrooms.

For the Founders, the legitimate role of the federal government was cut and dry: the protection of life, liberty and property were not merely paramount, but the beginning and end of government’s scope. The Constitution, as President Pierce correctly observed, gave no authority for charitable giving to Congress (or any other branch of the federal government for that matter). These words would never have been uttered by the Franklin who resided in the White House almost a full century later; the New Deal legislation solidified the idea of a strong armed, benevolent government in Washington. With the Constitution and Federalist Papers staying untaught in our schools, many of us simply nod on our heads when congressional actions are justified under the guise of the Commerce Clause.

Whatever its root causes, the politicization of charitable giving has done much to depersonalize the relationship between the giver and receiver of one’s assistance. Once a function of a religious or other nongovernmental institution aiming to help the needy, many now view their tax tab as a substitute for compassionate giving. Aside from being unconstitutional and markedly inefficient, this form of expansive government breaks down the voluntary nature of charity that used to leave so many feeling fulfilled. C.S. Lewis summed up the drawbacks of this form of government when he said “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Following the predetermined process is more important than producing an equitable outcome. This principle holds true whether applied to athletics, governmental affairs, or the legal system. As is often is the case, happenings in the world of sports can provide key insights into much broader truths.

On its face, it seems illogical when one stops to consider that an 11-5 New Orleans Saints squad would be forced to travel over 2,000 miles to play a Seattle Seahawks team with a losing record. The typical NFL fan might reason that the Saints are the defending Super Bowl champions and won a stunning four more games than their opponent in the NFL’s wild card round. How unfair! This might appear to make even less sense when one stops to consider that a 10-6 Tampa Bay Buccaneer team sitting at home during this postseason, while the 7-9 Seattle franchise is hosting a home playoff game. Due to the NFL’s rules governing the seeding of playoff teams, the Seahawks are slated to have home field advantage in the first round of the playoffs thanks to their status as division champs. For better or worse, this was the agreement all sides agreed to years ago when the playoff process was outlined.

Without any context, it would appear absurd that a team with a losing record would make the playoffs simply because it won its respective division. The casual observer would find this at least marginally unjust. They might even propose the NFL should just move the Buccaneers or Giants, teams with a winning record who did not qualify for the playoffs due to the NFL’s previously agreed upon rules, into the spot reserved for the Seahawks. A Bucs or Giants fans would surely agree: we had the better record, who cares about divisions? ‘Sure, those rules have been long established, but they don’t fit the current realities; we are more deserving, just put us in there instead’ might be a refrain offered by the fans whose teams did not qualify for the playoffs despite finishing with more victories than Seattle. Similar parallels to this have rise in the world of NCAA football even since the installing of the BCS system, notably Connecticut’s appearance in the BCS Fiesta Bowl on New Year’s Day.

But the NFL cannot simply change the rules midstream. It has adopted clear, concise policies about how the playoff system works. Straying from those would create a precedent which disorder would stem from. Division winners in the wild card round get the home game, even if they have half as many wins as their opponents. This framework, having been agreed upon at a previous date, cannot be thrown out the window on a whim. Even if it appears more “fair” or popular in the short term to allow a team with more wins to leap frog one with fewer wins, this would cause massive uncertainty during future seasons. If this arrangement could be aborted on a whim, what else might the league do for convenience’s sake? This mirrors the way in which the rule of law regulates matters in our system, letting individuals act with the knowledge of what is and is not foul of the law.

As 20th century economist F. A. Hayek stated, “The only public good with which the judge can be concerned is the observance of those rules that the individual could reasonably count on.” Judges need to “apply the rules even if in the particular instance the known consequences will appear to him wholly undesirable.” This concept is known as the rule of law. It is one of the few things separating first from third world countries, preventing governments from substituting arbitrary personal feelings for the blind application of justice. Without this, contracts and private property become a farce, and the country’s resources can never develop as efficiently as possible.

This line of thinking has major implications when it comes to how a country conducts itself in the governmental sense. A country with a written constitution that contains clear, delineated powers cannot simply usurp these because they find it will produce desirable result A, B, or C in the near term. If anything deemed in the general welfare is able to done by a government, then it has no speed bumps to its actual powers. That sort of society becomes governed by statutory, not constitutional, law; everything is fair game that the legislature or executive in that nation labels as such. Aside from mere formalities relating to its proceedings, a constitution is meaningless if a government possesses the power to stretch its language beyond recognition.

A Senator or House member who feels their election requires them to do all they think is “best for their constituents” has no restraint on his capacity to do tremendous harm. When dealing with things as complex as our modern economy, long term harm is generally all that can come from this mind set in government. The same is true with our Federal Reserve system, which assumes that a few Fed Board members and governors can have free reign to force economic contractions or expansions while never having been granted that power under the U. S. Constitution. If a contract as publicized as that country’s constitution ceases to become anything but a toothless historical document, then how are any contracts safe in the long term? The concise rule of law becomes endangered when a society views agreements that have been signed off on as too much of straitjacket to one party or special interest.

Just look how it turned out for the NFL. By sticking to their past agreements, they not only kept the chaos at bay which would have emerged if fans of other teams begin clamoring about this or that injustice, but they ended up producing one amazing game in the process. The unthinkable happened, as the Seahawk team that seemingly “did not belong” ended up pulling off the upset. Sometimes being committed to the process over fleeting, quickly disappearing gains can produce much more of an upside than we might have that. We need to be mindful of that once again as a nation as well.

We have about a week to mobilize opposition to Mr. Reince Priebus, frontrunner for RNC National Chairman.

So take five minutes of your time to review the below information, write a polite letter to your RNC Committee members (or ALL of the members), and then forward this message to others who care about our principles.

I received this note from someone in Wisconsin yesterday: “Having experienced the power exercised by Priebus to reject my application to join the Marathon County GOP, I can testify fist hand to how tyrannical a party he would run if in charge at the RNC level. It would be catastrophic for the RNC for him to get the chair. He must be stopped.“

Who can stop him? The grassroots, that’s who. Here are some reasons to oppose Mr. Priebus. Below you will also find a sample letter, RNC Contact Information, and related links of interest.

1) The election results in Wisconsin had little to do with Reince Priebus. Wisconsin’s economy suffered under a long period of Democratic control. Voters — led by the 60+ Tea Party groups in the state — were ready for a change. Priebus happened to be in the right place at the right time. Check the 2008 election results in Wisconsin and you’ll see why Priebus had little to do with the 2010 results.

2) Mr. Priebus is not loyal to anyone except Mr. Priebus (and Paul Ryan). This is evidenced by the fact that Michael Steele appointed Mr. Priebus to an important, high-profile post in the RNC, yet Mr. Priebus repaid his friend/ally by stabbing him in the back. This type of behavior does not seem like that of a leader.

3) Mr. Priebus’s employer actively supports Obamacare and has lobbied to receive federal stimulus funds for its clients. Erick Erickson at RedState as well as numerous other authors have exposed Priebus’s support for Big Government. Priebus himself admits he supports REAL ID, a national identification program that will expand surveillance and government power.

4) Mr. Priebus is not qualified to be National Committee Chair. In 2004, he lost his bid for State Senate. In 2007, he became Wisconsin GOP Chair and happened to lead the GOP to success in the 2010 election.  The 2008 election was a disaster for the Wisconsin GOP — also under Priebus’s leadership. He became a lawyer in 1998. Look at the other candidates for RNC Chair and you’ll discover why Priebus’s resume just doesn’t add up.

5) Mr. Priebus does not support the Tea Party. He will use the Tea Party to his own benefit, but there is no evidence that Priebus has shared values with the Tea Party.

6) Mr. Priebus will change Republican National Committee rules to strengthen GOP party bosses to the detriment of primary voters and Tea Party activists. Priebus supports a top-down approach where party bosses decide which candidates should receive support rather than a grassroots, bottom-up approach where voters decide which candidates have earned their trust.

7) Mr. Priebus believes in a GOP “unity pledge” and hopes to use his authority to boot out those who disagree. “A Republican must believe in something,” says Priebus. I don’t think we should leave it up to Priebus to decide who should and should not participate in the Republican Party.

8.) Mr. Priebus re-directed Wisconsin GOP donor monies to his favorite candidates, a clear misuse of donor money. Two candidates for Governor and US Senate in Wisconsin (Scott Walker and Ron Johnson), despite having GOP primary opponents, were endorsed at the 2010 GOP Convention by party insiders — four months prior to Wisconsin’s primary. Wisconsin has a tradition of allowing primary voters to pick its nominees. Under Priebus, this system fell apart — to the detriment of grassroots conservatives and Tea Party voters whose candidates were not given support by party insiders. The establishment candidates selected were given over $700,000 in monies directly sent to the state GOP. Can a state Republican Party redirect money directly to candidates in a contested primary without consent from its donors?

9) Mr. Priebus is not a good spokesman for the Republican Party. His performance in the RNC debate was lackluster and awkward. The audience barely responded to a word he said.

10) Mr. Priebus is the choice of the political establishment — the same people who got our country and our party into this mess. Look who is supporting him.

11) Mr. Priebus will use RNC money to lobby for REAL ID, a de facto National ID card that many states have already opted out of. He admitted this in the ATR/DailyCaller RNC debate.

12) Mr. Priebus is an unapologetic advocate of pre-primary State Party and potentially National Party endorsements. This policy will strengthen party bosses and disempower grassroots activists and Tea Party voters. It also will increase the likelihood that non-conservative establishment candidates will be chosen in GOP primaries, and, as a result, General Elections.

Sample Letter

Dear RNC Committee Member,

Thank you for your service to our party. As an active GOP voter and contributor, I am asking you to oppose Reince Priebus for RNC Chair.

I am very concerned about the consequences of electing Mr. Priebus. We need to maintain the broad political spectrum support that we have gained in the past year through the Tea Party movement. Mr. Priebus is an establishment Republican who would unnecessarily marginalize the Tea Party and grassroots conservatives. His performance in the recent RNC Debate showed not only that he isn’t concerned about grassroots conservatives, but also that he could potentially embarrass the party as its representative. Additionally, a litmus test to be a Republican is absolutely unnecessary at such an important time for our country.

I also urge you to look into his record in Wisconsin. Yes, there were electoral victories, but could the over 60 grassroots Tea Party groups and the right climate (Democrats controlling every level of government, resulting in job loss and overregulation) have been more of a factor than anything Mr. Priebus himself did? The 2008 results in Wisconsin, when Mr. Priebus also served as Chair, were not impressive by any stretch. You’ll also find that his resume pales in comparison to the other candidates for RNC Chair.

The rule changes Mr. Priebus oversaw as GOP Chairman disenfranchised Wisconsin Republican primary voters and the GOP’s pre-primary endorsement did not sit well with the Tea Party groups in the state. As you know, Tea Party groups communicate with each other and once the word spreads, Priebus is going to do more damage to the RNC than his talents are worth.

Mr. Priebus is the wrong choice for the RNC and for grassroots conservatives — especially the Tea Party. We need to capitalize on the gains we have made. Let’s focus on cutting taxes and spending and putting our constitutional principles into practice. A top down approach for the RNC will not achieve our goals — not now.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cordially,
[YOUR NAME]

RNC Member Contact Info.

(Note: Some of this contact information may be outdated. I apologize in advance.)

AK Ralph Seekins
AK Debbie Joslin
AK Randy Ruedrich
AL Paul Reynolds
AL Hon. Bettye Fine Collins
AL The Hon. Mike Hubbard
AR Jim Burnett
AR Reta Hamilton
AR Doyle Webb
AS Te’o Fuavai
AS Hon. Su’a Schuster
AZ Bruce Ash
AZ Sharon Giese
AZ Randy Pullen
CA Shawn Steel
CA Linda Ackerman
CA Ron Nehring
CO Hon. Mark Hillman
CO Lilly Nunez
CO Dick Wadhams
CT Hon. John Frey
CT Pat Longo
CT Chris Healy
DC Tony Parker
DC Betsy Werronen
DC Bob Kabel
DC Ron Kaufman
DE Laird Stabler III
DE Priscilla Rakestraw
DE Tom Ross
FL Paul Senft, Jr.
FL Sharon Day
FL John Thrasher
GA Alec Poitevint
GA Linda Herren
GA Sue Everhart
GU Peter Ada
GU Mary Torres
GU Jesus Torres
HI Jonah-Kuhio Ka’auwai
HI Brennon Morioka
HI Miriam Hellreich
IA Kim Lehman
IA Steve Scheffler
IA Matt Strawn
ID Blake Hall
ID Cindy Moyle
ID Norm Semanko
IL Pat Brady
IL Demetra DeMonte
IL Andrew McKenna
IN James Bopp, Jr.
IN Dee Dee Benkie
IN Murray Clark
KS Mike Pompeo
KS Helen Van Etten
KS Amanda Adkins
KY Mike Duncan
KY Gail Russell
KY Steve Robertson
LA Ross Little Jr.
LA Ruth Ulrich
LA Roger Villere Jr.
MA Jody Dow
MA Peter Torkildsen
MD Louis Pope
MD Honorable Joyce Terhes
MD Alex Mooney
ME Rick Bennett
ME Jan Martens Staples
ME Charlie Webster
MI Saul Anuzis
MI Holly Hughes
MI Ron Weiser
MN Brian Sullivan
MN Evie Axdahl
MN Ron Carey
MO Lance Beshore
MO Ann Dickinson
MO Doug Russell
MP Mary Lou Ada
MP Edward Tenorio
MS Henry Barbour
MS Cindy Phillips
MS Brad White
MT Errol Galt
MT Betti Hill
MT Erik Iverson
NC David Lewis
NC Ada Fisher
NC Linda Daves
ND Curly Haugland
ND Sandy Boehler
ND Gary Emineth
NE Pete Ricketts
NE De Carlson
NE Mark Quandahl
NH Wayne McDonald
NH Phyllis Woods
NH John Sununu
NJ Ginny Haines
NJ Tom Wilson
NM Pat Rogers
NM Rosie Tripp
NM Allen Weh
NV Joseph Brown
NV Heidi Smith
NV Mark Amodei
NY Lawrence Kadish
NY Jennifer Saul
NY Joe Mondello
OH Bob Bennett
OH Jo Ann Davidson
OK James Dunn
OK Carolyn McLarty
OK Gary Jones
OR Solomon Yue, Jr.
OR Donna Cain
OR Vance Day
PA Bob Asher
PA Christine Toretti
PA Rob Gleason, Jr.
PR Hon. Luis Fortuno
PR Zori Fonalledas
PR Hon Carlos Mendez
RI Hon Joe Trillo
RI Hon Carol Mumford
RI Gio Cicione
SC Glenn McCall
SC Cindy Costa
SC Karen Floyd
SD Dana Randall
SD Mary Jean Jensen
SD Karl Adam
TN John Ryder
TN Peggy Lambert
TN Chris Devaney
TX Bill Crocker
TX Borah Van Dormolen
TX Steve Munisteri
UT Bruce Hough
UT Enid Greene-Mickelsen
UT Stan Lockhart
VT Hon. George Schiavone
VT Susie Hudson
VT Robert Roper
VI Holland Redfield II
VI Lilliana Berlardo De O’Neal
VI Herbert Schoenbohm
VA Hon Morton Blackwell
VA Mrs. Kathy Terry
VA Pat Mullins
WA Jeff Kent
WA Fredi Simpson
WA Luke Esser
WV Jim Reed
WV Donna Lou Gosney
WV Mike Stuart
WI removed
WY Hon. Diemer True
WY Jan Larimer
WY Diana Vaughan

Related Links:
– Current RNC Whip Count: Priebus Has 33 Endorsements (1/7)
– RedState.com’s Erick Erickson is Concerned About Priebus (1/3)
– RedState.com: The Priebus of Disaster (1/3)
– Wisconsin Tea Party Group Opposes Reince Priebus (12/6)
– American Spectator: Priebus’s Employer Helped Clients Get Federal Stimulus $ (12/15)
– BigGovernment.com: Priebus Was Terrible in the RNC Debate (1/5)
– Rep. Paul Ryan: Priebus is “front-runner” in race for RNC (1/6)
– Connecticut GOP Chair Opposes Priebus (12/31)
– Reince: Foe of Tea Party Movement? (12/30)
– Jon Stewart Mocks Reince Priebus (1/4)

In yesterday’s DailyCaller/ATR Republican National Committee candidate debate, the five candidates were asked a question about what sort of non-conservative issue position a candidate could have which would cause them to not be welcomed as a Republican.

Candidates Ann Wagner (Missouri) and Maria Cino (New York) both gave more general answers about how candidates should uphold all the party’s core beliefs. Candidate Saul Anuzis (Michigan) was a bit more open to differences — though he said that a prospective GOP candidate should be with the party 80 percent of the time or more.

The most interesting answers came from RNC Chairman Michael Steele (Maryland) — seeking a second term — and presumed front-runner for the job, Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.

Steele said: “I would agree with all of that, but I would also say having done the job for two years and recognizing that this country is much bigger than we think it is sometimes, and it runs a lot deeper with its passions than we like to believe on a host of issues. I see the job of the chairman as the standard-bearer is to, one, uphold that platform, yes, but to recognize that everyone who comes into this party will have some problem with this platform. So your responsibility and your opportunity is to work with them and help them if they want to be active, if they want to assume leadership, then they’ll have to come to understand the importance of these principles and what they mean. But we cannot be a party that sits back with a litmus test and excludes, and the national chairman cannot go into a state, ‘You’re less Republican than you are, therefore I will not talk with you and only talk with you’. That is not the Republican Party that I joined at 17 years old. And it will not be the Republican I lead over the next two years. Trust me.”

Priebus said: “Well, I think that being the standard-bearer for the Republican Party has to take into account that our country’s in great peril. As I said before we’re about to walk off a fiscal cliff. And I think that the RNC chairman ought to take a chance and promote that conservative platform every time that he or she has an opportunity to do it. Because right now, just without anything Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi did this past two years, normally it costs about 19 cents on every dollar made in America to run the federal government. Without anything that they’d done, it will cost, by the time my son who is five years old is my age, it will cost 40 cents for every dollar made in America, to run this country. And if we don’t have a chairman who understand that being a Republican means something, that if you’re pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-G.M. bailout, pro-AIG, well you know guess what, you might not be a Republican.”

Reince wants to decide who is and who is not a Republican.

The problem with Priebus’s stated position is that — if a party litmus test is imposed by the powers that be — those who do not fall in line will simply be removed. Presumably that would also include removing or disenfranchising many Republican Liberty Caucus members throughout the country.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons the Wisconsin RLC came out against Reince Priebus the day after he made his announcement.

No thanks, Mr. Priebus.