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)

Moffett faces Jefferson County Clerk Bobbie Holsclaw and state Senate President David Williams in the May 17 GOP primary.

The RLC endorsed Moffett because of his issue position statements and support for individual liberty and limited government.  Moffett has some very creative ideas about reducing the tax burden on Kentuckians as well as plans to stop the overreach of the FDA and other federal agencies which are violating state sovereignty and placing unnecessary barriers in the way of business in Kentucky.

You can learn more about Mr. Moffett and get involved in his campaign at his website.

Plus he has a catchy campaign song:

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Phil Moffett for Governor of Kentucky
Kentucky Voters Have a Strong Candidate Who Will Get Government off their Backs

On Tuesday the national board of the Republican Liberty Caucus voted unanimously to endorse Phil Moffett in the Republican primary for Governor of Kentucky.

In this off-year election season Phil Moffett stands out as one of the most promising candidates. His background in business, his support for limited government and his mission of protecting the people of Kentucky from an overreaching federal government make him the kind of strong champion of liberty the RLC wants to see elected.

“Kentucky already scored a major victory for liberty last year with the election of Rand Paul, and I’m confident that Phil Moffett will bring the same kind of integrity and dedication to better government at the state level which Rand Paul is promoting in Washington,” said RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “We need Republicans like Moffett who will stand up for the best interests of the people and for Constitutionally limited government on the state level just as much as we need them on the national level.”

RLC Vice Chairman Aaron Biterman observed, “Moffett’s ideas for cutting taxes and his stand against the intrusive policies of the FDA and other federal agencies show creative thinking and a dedication to small and responsive government. Our members in Kentucky are very enthusiastic about Moffett and are rallying around his campaign.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus wishes Mr. Moffett every success in his campaign, and will be working hard this year to promote him and Republican candidates like him in order to bring the GOP back to its founding principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty.

– 30 –

More information on the Phil Moffett campaign is at http://www.philmoffett.com
Information on current and past RLC endorsees and office holders can be found at http://www.rlc.org/

__________________________________________________

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.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is visiting Charleston today talk about his possible presidential bid, how to reign in the national debt and the current military action in Libya.

Paul, a Tea Party favorite who won his Senate seat last fall, is visiting several early presidential voting states independently of his father, 2008 presidential contender and current U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

“The only decision I’ve made is I won’t run against my dad,” Rand Paul said, adding that he wants to see the Tea Party influence the 2012 GOP nominee. Paul is set to appear this afternoon before the College of Charleston’s bully pulpit series.

This evening, he will address the Charleston Meeting, a new invitation-only, center-right organization that invites prominent politicians to address its members off the record.

I previously opined that his father, RLC Advisory Board member Dr. Ron Paul, would likely pass on running for President for the third time. I mentioned that the status of Ron Paul’s son Rand may factor into his decision.

So which Paul, if either, will run for President in 2012?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Dr. Rand Paul is Senator-elect from Kentucky. Justin Amash (pictured, right) is Representative-elect from Michigan’s Third Congressional District. Congratulations, Rand and Justin! RLC supporters have no doubt that these two champions of liberty will work vigorously to promote our vision of a free country in Congress.

The RLC is also pleased that Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, John Koster of Washington state, Chip Cravaack of Minnesota, and Steve Chabot of Ohio will join Dr. Ron Paul and our other pro-liberty Republican legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Joining Rand Paul in the Senate are RLC-endorsed Senate candidates Mike Lee of Utah and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Two RLC-endorsed candidates for Governor, Paul LePage of Maine and Nikki Haley of South Carolina, were elected. LePage and Haley come from very different backgrounds and from different parts of the country, but are united in their strong belief in the individual and faith in the free market system.

Other key RLC victories and races we are still watching are below.

Arkansas: State Rep. Mark Martin, a RLC endorsed candidate, won his bid for Secretary of State. He is the first statewide Republican elected official since former Gov. Mike Huckabee left office.

California: Despite losing on the RLC-endorsed Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana in California, the RLC’s positions on Prop. 27 (no to eliminate the state redistricting commission) and Prop. 21 (a vehicle license surcharge to fund state parks) were adopted. Additionally, the RLC’s positions on Prop. 20 and 26 were adopted. These propositions related to Congressional redistricting and the process to impose state/local fees. See the proposition results here and view the RLC’s positions on each of the proposals here.

Arizona: 55 percent of state voters supported an amendment to the state constitution disallowing the Obamacare individual mandate to take effect in Arizona. Voters also approved medical marijuana.

Colorado: Despite Ken Buck’s Senate loss, RLC-endorsed candidate Donald Beezley defeated an incumbent and is now an elected State Representative from Broomfield.

Idaho: RLC-endorsed candidate for Bonner County Commissioner in District 2, Mike Nielson, won election on a platform of transparency and balanced budgets. Nielsen said he was eager to start getting more detailed budget information on the county website and wants to get a head start on the 2012 spending plan, according to The Bonner County Daily Bee.

Indiana: Republican Liberty Caucus member Steve Davisson was elected State Representative in Southern Indiana’s 73rd district. Congratulations, Hoosiers!

Kentucky: In addition to Rand Paul’s victory, RLC-backed candidate Thomas Massie was elected Judge Executive in Lewis County.

Maine: In addition to the victory of Paul LePage for Governor, RLC candidates for State Rep. and State Senate also found success. State House Challengers Michael McClellan, Ryan Harmon, Richard Malaby, Beth O’Connor, and Eleanor Espling (pictured, above left) — each endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Maine — won election. Additionally, former State Senator Lois Snowe-Mello won her old seat back and State Rep. Doug Thomas was elected to the State Senate. The RLC had a great day in Maine yesterday!

Maryland: Cindy Jones, a RLC member and delegate at our 2009 Convention in Florida, was elected to the St. Marys County Commission. Among all of the county commissioner races, Mrs. Jones had the largest margin of victory and the highest vote total. Four of the five Commission seats are now held by Republicans.

Michigan: RLC-endorsed candidate for State Senate Arlen Meekhof was elected to the post. Meekhof wants to repeal the Michigan Business Tax surcharge and bring jobs to the state.

Minnesota: Despite losing the Governors race narrowly, the RLC had its coalition of candidates elected to the State Senate and the State House. Kathy Lohmer (pictured, right), Andrea Kieffer, Doug Wardlow, Kurt Bills, and Sondra Erickson were elected to the House and Dave Brown and Dave Thompson were elected to the Senate. Former Minnesota RLC Secretary Norann Dillon narrowly lost in her race against an incumbent in a Democrat district. Congratulations to these new legislators and to the Minnesota RLC!

Missouri: In The Show Me State, RLC-endorsed candidate Paul Curtman was elected State Representative. He will represent parts of Jefferson, Franklin and St. Louis counties. Additionally, RLC-endorsed candidate Brian Nieves was elected to the State Senate. Two RLC-endorsed incumbent State Representatives, Tim Jones and Shane Schoeller, will be taking over leadership positions in the Missouri House of Representatives. The Missouri RLC is hosting its 2010 Convention on Saturday, November 13 in Springfield.

Montana: In Montana the RLC has an incumbent coalition in the State House and the entire slate of RLC-backed candidates was reelected. Additionally, former State Senator and longtime liberty advocate Jerry O’Neill was elected to the House of Representatives.

New Hampshire: Former Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire Chair Jim Forsythe was elected to the State Senate and State Rep. candidates Cameron DeJong and Andrew Manuse were elected to the State House. RLC Board member Paul Mirski was elected to the State House in Grafton as was former RLC Chair Dan McGuire in Merrimack. Longtime liberty activists Keith Murphy and Seth Cohn won election to the State House from Hillsborough and Merrimack, too. A full list of RLC victories from New Hampshire can be found here.

North Carolina: Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed candidate Glen Bradley won election to the State House of Representatives. Congratulations to Glen and the North Carolina RLC!

Oklahoma: 65 percent of voters supported a ballot proposition to rebuke Obamacare by not allowing the individual mandate contained in the health care law to be enacted in the Sooner State.

South Carolina: RLC-backed candidate Curtis Loftis, who ousted the incumbent State Treasurer earlier this year in the primary, is now the State Treasurer-elect of The Palmetto State.

Uah: Two new RLC-endorsed candidates won election in Utah — Daniel Thatcher was elected to the State Senate and Ken Ivory won election to the State House. Ivory joins several other RLC incumbents in the House.

Texas: The Texas RLC helped elect two new State Representatives, Jason Isaac and David Simpson. Additionally, former Texas RLC Chairman Melissa Goodwin was elected Justice on the Third Court of Appeals. RLC Advisory Board member Jerry Patterson was re-elected State Land Commissioner. A full list of Texas results are available at our blog.

Wisconsin: In Wisconsin, a coalition of RLC-backed candidates for State House have won election for the first time. The slate includes: Andre Jacque from Green Bay, Jim Steineke from Appleton, Chris Kapenga from Delafield, Evan Wynn of Whitewater, Scott Krug of Black River Falls, Jeremy Thiesfeldt of Fond du Lac, and Roger Rivard of Rice Lake. Mr. Krug beat incumbent Marlin Schneider, who served in the legislature continuously since 1970. Congratulations to the Wisconsin RLC and Badger State voters!

Wyoming: Endorsed State Representative candidate Gerald Gay won election to the legislature for the first time.

These election results show not only the strength of the Tea Party, but also the disgust of average Americans with unresponsive, anti-liberty bureaucrats. The results also illustrate that liberty principles are popular and will make a comeback!

The battle has just begun, so thanks to all of our activists and candidates from across the country. Thanks especially to the state and national officers of the RLC who allow our organization to function.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a grassroots coalition of liberty-loving Americans.

Won’t you join us in this critical battle to win hearts and minds for liberty and Constitutional restoration?

Congratulations to the below candidates, each of whom is committed to limited government and protecting individual liberty.

U.S. Senate
Ken Buck, Colorado
Joe Miller, Alaska
Christine O’Donnell, Delaware
Dr. Eric Wargotz, Maryland

U.S. House
Roscoe Bartlett (Incumbent), District 6, Maryland
Steve Chabot, District 1, Ohio
Scott Garrett (Incumbent), District 5, New Jersey
Jim Jordan, District 4, Ohio
Charles Lollar, District 5, Maryland
Joel Pollak, District 9, Illinois
Adrian Smith (Incumbent), District 3, Nebraska

Statewide
Martha Dean, Attorney General, Connecticut
Mark Martin, Secretary of State, Arkansas

Local & State
Tracie Nakano Bean, State Senate – District 24, Hawaii
Thomas Massie, Lewis County Judge Executive, Kentucky

Tonight at midnight, the last push of the campaign begins

Dear Patriot:

Our two day Money Bomb is this Thursday and Friday, August 19 and 20. I hope you’ll join your fellow Patriots and give our campaign the funds we need to put our message on the air in the coming weeks.

You’ve seen how the drive-by media misquotes, distorts, and outright lies about my views.

You know they can’t stand the thought of a U.S. Senator actually fighting for Liberty. They don’t understand our issues, our supporters or our mission.

But you do.

You’ve helped over the past year, and I hope you’ll help again in the next two days. So much is at stake, and there is so little time left in our race. Only 76 days remain until election day!

Please consider your maximum possible donation to our campaign. You can pledge HERE or go to http://www.randpaul2010.com/donate tomorrow.

The cause of Liberty can be greatly advanced in the coming months and years – with your help. Thank you for all you’ve done and, I hope, for your support tomorrow

In Liberty,

Rand Paul, MD

Additionally, please tune in tomorrow at 2pm Eastern to listen to a representative of the Republican Liberty Caucus on the Rand Paul Radio Marathon.

by Aaron Biterman

A recent article in The American Spectator by Philip Klein highlights Dr. Rand Paul’s view of Israel. In short, Rand Paul supports free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and “strongly objects to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration” toward the peace process, according to documents Klein obtained from the Paul campaign. Continues the Kentucky doctor, “Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations.” The younger Paul says, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.”

The truth is that most Kentucky voters agree with the above-stated positions. Most Americans — especially those right of center — also agree with these positions. From a libertarian perspective, there is simply nothing objectionable about the above position statement. If you’re a minarchist and support the ability of the U.S. military to defend our borders against attacks, then it stands to reason that other countries should also be able to protect their borders.

But there is a vocal and growing fringe element within the libertarian/Constitutionalist movement (see DailyPaul.com to hear their rants and raves, or pick up a copy of the filthy American Free Press newspaper) who agree with left-wing radical Helen Thomas, who recently opined that all Israeli Jews should leave Israel and go back to Europe. (View her disgusting comments here.)

This article has been written to refute their bogus claims and defend a pro-Israel position from a libertarian perspective. (Other pro-Israel arguments have been made by libertarians, such as this excellent defense of Israel from Ilana Mercer.)

To Whom Does the Land Belong?

The prime argument driving the anti-Israel fervor is the claim that Jews belong somewhere other than Israel — that they have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel. Those individuals making this claim believe that the millions of Arabs from the 1948 exodus should be returned to their original homes in pre-1967 Israel based upon the libertarian conception of private property rights. This would clearly result in an Arab majority Israel.

I don’t agree with his argument for several reasons. In late 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. One party was willing to compromise and the other was not — a familiar trend in the seemingly never-ending feud.

When Israel was declared a state in 1948, most of the Arabs living within the boundaries were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. These Arabs were promised Jewish property after victorious Arab armies won the war. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Think 1939 to 1945 in Europe.

Of course, the day after Israel was declared a state (in 1948) it was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. And it’s been on the defense ever since. It is hard to believe that any libertarian — a person who purports to believe in the right of self-defense, even for a nation — would deny that a nation like Israel should be permitted to defend itself against terrorists seeking to exterminate Jews in the Middle East and replace Israel with a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy.

According to Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and his co-author Peter Schwartz, “Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy. Contrary to what the Palestinians are seeking, there can be no ‘right’ to establish a dictatorship.” The Palestinians elected a Hamas majority to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly and now Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas is a radical Islamist terrorist organization that seeks to wipe Israel (and all Jews) off the face of the earth and replace it with an Islamic Palestine.

Concludes Brook and Schwartz, “Israel’s founders — like the homesteaders in the American West — earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities-and the concept of individual rights. Those Arabs who abandoned their land in order to join the military crusade against Israel forfeited all right to their property. And if there are any peaceful Arabs who were forcibly evicted from their property, they should be entitled to press their claims in the courts of Israel, which, unlike the Arab autocracies, has an independent, objective judiciary — a judiciary that recognizes the principle of property rights.”

Double Standards and the Need to Single Out Israel

The individuals leading the vocal anti-Israel movement within the broader coalition of pro-liberty activists claim they are interested in the quality of the lives led by the non-Jews living in the region who are being persecuted by the evil tyrant nation of Israel. But it’s rare to hear these same vocal anti-Israel critics talking about the fact that Jews cannot enter Mecca or Medina, that Jews cannot purchase or sell land in Jordan (nor can they become citizens), or that Jews and Israelis are banned from entering Saudi Arabia.

Not only do Arabs have representation in the Jewish Knesset (legislative branch of government), but Israel also offers one of the few safe havens for women and homosexuals who fear persecution (and humiliation and/or death) in many other parts of the Middle East.

The vocal anti-Israel voices within the broader liberty movement always single Israel out whenever they have an opportunity. They ignore the fact that Egypt, Jordan, and the Sudan are each on the top ten list of recipients of U.S. foreign aid, with Egypt receiving nearly $2 billion annually.

They don’t talk about anti-Semitism at all. Perhaps they believe it doesn’t exist. The truth is that worldwide, scores of anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) outbursts are recorded each month by monitoring groups, ranging from armed and other attacks on individuals and property to the desecration of cemeteries and Holocaust memorials and the daubing of anti-Semitic slogans on buildings, often those housing Jewish communal offices and synagogues.

In the U.S., for example, the number of anti-Semitic crimes went up from 969 in 2007 to 1,013 in 2008. Such episodes represent 66 percent of all religiously motivated crimes and 12 percent of all recorded hate crimes. These are unsettling numbers when we consider that Jews constitute approximately 2 percent of the general population. Anti-Semitism is widespread throughout the Arab and Muslim world, manifested in every segment of society. Here (.pdf) are some examples from the Arab media alone.

As Ilana Mercer mentions in her defense of Israel, any libertarian who defends Israel recognizes its many imperfections. It is a quasi-socialist country which has violated human rights in the past via demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories. We don’t excuse this behavior and criticize the Israeli government when it oversteps the rule of law.

But Israel’s current air and naval blockade on Gaza — which is controlled by Hamas — is justified defense of Israel.  Clearly Hamas intends to acquire lethal weaponry to wipe Israel and its citizens off the map.  As is pointed out in The Washington Post, an organizer of the ‘humanitarian’ boat that was stopped by Israel last week admitted that the boat was meant to break Israel’s blockade, effectively ending their inspection process. If successful, weapons — no doubt meant to exterminate all Jews in Israel — could be obtained by the radical government in charge of Gaza.

Regardless, libertarians in the U.S. who support Israel do not support U.S. foreign aid for Israel (although many believe that the U.S. should help Israel with arms technology development), believing instead that private aid would be more than enough to defend Israel against its enemies.  Of course, they believe that foreign aid should also be cut off to all other countries as well.

Just as libertarians in the U.S. support a strong national defense of our own country, pro-Israel libertarians also support Israel’s right to defend herself against attack. The same libertarians defending Israel’s right to self-defense can simultaneously defend a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no contradiction, except by those who would have Israel wiped off the face of the earth due to an erroneous claim to ‘property rights’.   

Libertarians Should Support a Two-State Solution

A two-state solution is the sensible answer to the problem in the Middle East.

A two-state solution would create two separate states in the Western portion of the historic region of Palestine.  Israel would remain a Jewish state and Arabs would be given citizenship by a new Palestinian state. The new Palestinian state would also offer refugees citizenship, while Arab citizens of present-day Israel would be offered a choice of citizenship among the two states.

A one-state Palestine will, as Ilana Mercer put it, have “no economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights.” Even worse, there is a huge threat that such a government will be run by radical dictators with an agenda that has little to do with protecting the rights of their citizens.  Such an endeavor would not only threaten the Middle East, but the world as well.

Why so many so-called freedom fighters continue to advocate this ‘solution’ — a one-party dictatorship state — is beyond me, but in the interim Israel will continue to defend itself — as any libertarian should expect it to.

When analyzing the situation in the Middle East, it’s important to look at the big picture. Over a period of many years, Israel has worked to reach an agreement — a compromise — but the other side has not.

That’s why Rand Paul stands by Israel and why you should, too.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aaron Biterman is Vice Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. As it is stated below this post, this article is just one opinion. We realize some RLC members will disagree with this opinion. If you would like to write a counter piece to be published in this blog, contact the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Only articles from dues-paying members of the RLC will be considered.