SB1052 gives Texas law enforcement the power to seize your online communications and shut down websites and servers without due process of law or going through the normal process of obtaining a warrant. Among the bad ideas in the bill are:

• Requires any Internet provider that serves Texans to hand over private communication and files.
• Sets no standard for warrants for such seizures, enabling arbitrary violations of Texans’ privacy.
• Forces Internet providers to respond within 15-30 days (and sometimes 4-30), giving them almost no time to protect information not targeted.
• Makes it a crime for an officer, director or owner of a company to not comply with the request within the 15-30 day window.
• Opens the door to politically-motivated seizures of online communication.

If we don’t act now to generate some pressure on our State Senators this terrible piece of legislation which will diminish online liberty for every Texan is likely to pass. It has already passed the House and there’s very little time to stop it in the Senate.

Please act now by using this form to email your State Senator. Change the text to express your personal concerns.

Senator Rand Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll

AUSTIN, TX – This weekend delegates from state chapters of the Republican Liberty Caucus met in Austin for the RLC National Convention. 38 states were represented by hundreds of delegates who came together to vote on new officers and policies for the nationwide Republican organization whose members have become important leaders in the Liberty Movement within the Republican Party.

In addition to conducting caucus business the convention included training workshops and featured speakers like Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36), Texas gubernatorial candidate Tom Pauken and noted columnist and writer Jack Hunter, who now serves as Sen. Rand Paul’s Communications Director. One of the highlights of the convention was a presidential straw poll conducted by the Texas chapter of the RLC which was hosting the event.

The poll consisted of 331 votes for 24 potential candidates picked for consideration by an earlier online survey. The top finishers in the poll were:

Rand Paul 40%
Ted Cruz 19%
Andrew Napolitano 10%
Justin Amash 8%
Gary Johnson 7%
Mike Lee 4%
John Huntsman 3%
Ben Carson 2%

All other candidates scored 1% or less.

The results of this straw poll are similar to those of other early straw polls which show Rand Paul with a strong early lead among Republican primary voters.

The poll results were greeted enthusiastically by convention attendees, many of whom were supporters of the Paul campaign in 2010 and the Cruz campaign in 2012.

###

Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is part of a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party. You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas at http://www.rlctx.org

Step #3: Go the extra mile and use

Changes%20 in%20 the%20 party%20 rules%20 made%20 at%20 the%20 national%20 convention%20 in%20 Tampa%20 last%20 year%20 take%20 control%20 of%20 the%20 party%20 away%20 from %20the%20 delegates%20 and %20state%20 parties%20 and%20 concentrate%20 too%20 much%20 power%20 in%20 the%20 hands %20of %20powerful%20 interests %20and%20 unelected%20 party%20 leaders.%20 They %20also%20 weaken%20 the%20 autonomy%20 of%20 the%20 state%20 parties%20 and%20 reduce%20 popular%20 input%20 in%20 the%20 party%20 primary%20 process.%20 Inclusion%20 makes%20 the%20 party%20 stronger%20%20and%20 top-down%20 leadership%20 disenfranchises%20 the%20 members%20 and%20 ultimately%20 drives%20 them %20away%20 from%20 the%20 party. %0A

Although it has been touted as the way forward for victory in 2014 and beyond, the GOP Growth and Opportunity Project contains some recommendations that leave cause for concern.  Some of these recommendations, specifically related to the 2016 presidential nomination process, (along with existing RNC rules), literally ensure that any grassroots/rank and file Presidential Candidate stands no chance of winning the GOP Presidential nomination.

Let’s begin with the existing 2012 RNC Rules that were passed at the Tampa Convention.  These rules were pushed through the Convention rules committee by Romney campaign lawyers and were not properly ratified on the floor of the convention as the “ayes have it” for these rules was read off of a teleprompter without a proper vote.

Due to this outright fraud, the Maine Republican State Committee passed a resolution in January 2013 rejecting the 2012 RNC rules and instead recognized the 2008 Rules as being in full force and effect.  In the end, these rules, if not changed, ensure that the grassroots will be cut out of the presidential nomination process.  The rules that are of most concern are rules 12, 16 and 40.

Rule 12 allows the RNC to change these rules until September 2014, while Rule 16 allows for statewide presidential straw polls to be binding with regards to delegate allocation and allows for delegates to be removed at the will of the presumptive presidential nominee.  Rule 40 now requires any presidential candidate to have the majority of 8 states to be placed in nomination at the convention whereas it used to only require the plurality of 5 states.

The RNC will be meeting in Los Angeles April 10-12 to address these rules and many RNC members have expressed concern that these rules must be changed to ensure fairness to all candidates.  To accomplish that goal, it is recommended that the only fair and equitable solution to this situation is to call for the RNC to reject the 2012 rules and instead, revert to the 2008 rules.  Short of this, Rule 12 will be used to reform these rules within the RNC Standing Committee on Rules.

Besides, the current rules that clearly favor a well funded establishment candidate, the recently released Growth and Opportunity Project recommends all states move to a primary system and eliminate caucuses and/or conventions as the vehicles to elect delegates to the National Convention.  This top down approach from the RNC, if implemented, will eliminate once and for all any chance of a grassroots candidate winning the nomination.  Historically, caucuses and conventions are where the grassroots come alive in favor of candidate whose message is more in line with the rank and file of the party.

Another recommendation is to hold an earlier National Convention in June or July.  This strategy ultimately condenses the primary season into a shorter period of time, favoring the candidate with the larger purse and more established network, making it again that much harder for a candidate from the grassroots to gain traction.

To save the GOP grassroots with regards to the 2016 Presidential Campaign, you can start by contacting the RNC members of your state and let them know that the GOP grassroots will not be ignored and cast aside.

First, let your RNC members know that the 2008 RNC rules should be in full force and effect.  Second, explain that an accelerated primary season with an emphasis on caucuses and/or conventions being removed as a vehicle to nominate national delegates as well as an earlier National Convention are unacceptable.

Mark Willis is a member of the RLC of Maine and  National Committeeman for the Maine Republican Party

Now, with the legislative session under way, there are a couple of bills that accomplish this goal that are worth supporting. To this end, RLC national chair and RLC-TX treasurer Dave Nalle had an op-ed published in The Washington Times entitled “Will Texas Take a Chance on Gambling?” In it, he analyzes two bills that deserve a committee hearing. The first is SJR 64, and the second is SJR 36.

In the interest of attracting more jobs and investment to Texas, will you help get these bills a hearing in their respective committees? Doing so is the first step toward passing a measure that would give Texans a chance to decide on gaming expansion via a constitutional amendment vote. This would finally take the issue out of the hands of Austin politicians who have long been bent on micromanaging how we spend our entertainment dollars – and failing miserably given that Texans are gambling both illegally in state, as well as in droves in neighboring states.

You can send two letters expressing your support for to the heads of each bill’s committee through our RLC-TX liberty action alert system.

To support SJR 64 filed by Senator John Carona, click here.

To support SJR 36 filed by Senator Hinojosa, click here.

These liberty action alerts include a pre-written letter that you can change at your discretion, but all you need to do is fill out your contact information and click send. Please send both as soon as possible.

Thank you for your tireless support of liberty in Texas!

We believe that the number of Regional Directors should be expanded from 4 to 8 for the following reasons:

• Flexibility. The Board might consider changes to the regions or just doubling up the number of Regional Directors from one to two per region. Culture, geography, population and regional RLC activity can all factor into the equation.
• Decentralization. Adding regional representation to our Board, with Regional Directors that are more focused on smaller geographic areas empowers the grassroots at the national Caucus level. Empowering the grassroots means that the state Charters and the local Chapters within those states will have a more direct voice on our national Caucus Board of Directors.
•  Contact potential. When we eventually subdivide regions, whether right after adding the four Regional Directors to the four existing ones or later, if we only end up doubling the Regional Directors per region, the smaller regions will empower Regional Directors to travel to the states in their regions with greater frequency.
•  Chartering potential. Increased frequency of travel will allow Regional Directors to put greater focus on un-Chartered states and territories that normally don’t get the same level of attention.

  Historical knowledge. Increasing participation at the Board level helps to share institutional knowledge with new members, which makes for an easier path to future growth.

Thank you for your time and please vote YES on this proposed Bylaws change to increase the number of Regional Directors.

Respectfully Submitted,

This proposal provides considerable simplification, eliminates redundancy and gives chapters complete autonomy over setting their local dues while keeping national dues at a reasonable level. It reduces math and simplifies dues reconciliation.

To get this proposal on the agenda for the national convention, we just need enough member signatures on this petition. Please add yours if you are a current RLC member.

Myth # 1: This is a States’ Rights Issue.

FACT: Giving states the power to collect sales taxes across their borders isn’t about states’ rights, it’s about state coercion. Governments would have fewer incentives to keep their own tax rates low, eroding the important federalist principle of tax competition.

Myth #2: We need to enact this bill as soon as possible.

FACT: There’s no good reason to rush into such an enormous and controversial tax policy matter. While some have stated this issue has been on the docket for almost 10 years, the reality is that there is still a lot of work to be done, such as holding hearings on alternatives to the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Myth #3: Online stores enjoy a “special loophole.”

FACT: What Marketplace Fairness Act supporters call a “loophole” is actually the physical presence standard, a firmly grounded constitutional doctrine the Supreme Court has upheld for decades to protect businesses and their customers from predatory tax administrators. The physical presence safeguard helps to protect taxpayers from many types of aggressive policies that could affect income, property and other taxes.

Myth #4: The Marketplace Fairness act will “level the playing field” between online and brick-and-mortar stores.

FACT: While the Marketplace Fairness Act would require remote sellers to collect sales tax on every item, it would force them to do so by a completely different and harsher set of rules than currently exist for brick-and-mortar sales. If the Marketplace Fairness Act were to pass, states could strong-arm remote sellers into complying with more than 9,600 separate sales tax jurisdictions across the country, forcing online retailers to quiz each and every customer about their residency – something no brick-and-mortar retailer is required to do.

Myth #5: Compliance is easy.

FACT: Because they would now answer to 9,600 tax jurisdictions across the country, remote retailers would have to shoulder heavy overhead costs just to meet their new tax collection liabilities. The sponsors even recognize this, however imperfectly, through a paltry exemption in the legislation for businesses with remote sales of less than $500,000/year. However, a 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers study demonstrated that small businesses with sales between $1 million and $10 million still face enormous costs that would threaten profitability, causing significant harm to interstate commerce and the economy during an especially fragile time.

Myth #6: States need to collect Internet sales taxes to balance their budgets.

FACT: Instead of pursuing one cash grab after another, states need to cut spending to get their budgets in order. Some standout states are actually enjoying relatively good growth compared to their poorer neighbors – they are the states that pursued free market reforms, eliminated waste, and controlled growth of government to create a competitive economic climate that attracts jobs and workers. The Marketplace Fairness Act nullifies an important facet of that competition by doing away with the long-held physical presence standard for taxation.

Myth #7: All the Internet retailers support it.

FACT: There is no consensus among online retailers in favor of destination-based sourcing. As is usually the case when government gets involved in the marketplace, those who would benefit the most from the legislation are lobbying in favor of it, and those who would be harmed are working hard to stop it. Nor is the general public clamoring for it. A December 2012 Mercury poll of 800 likely voters asked the neutral question about whether they supported “allowing states to make online retailers collect and process sales taxes on Internet purchases based where the customer is located, regardless of where the retailer is physically located.” By a 48 percent-41 percent margin, respondents were opposed. When given a more realistic description of the bill, “The proposed legislation would allow tax enforcement agents from one state to collect taxes from online retailers based in a different state,” opposition rose dramatically: 61 percent to 28 percent.

Myth #8: This tax is the only, best fix to the problem.

FACT: Instead of creating schemes that could open-up a Pandora’s box of unstoppable tax-grabs on the part of cash-starved states on unsuspecting citizens, states could move forward with origin-based sourcing sales tax plans, where the business charges all customers one rate of tax, based on the jurisdiction in which that business is located. If Congress takes any action on Internet sales tax collection, it should be in pursuit of uniform origin-based sourcing to preserve proper limits to taxing authority and encourage tax competition.

Myth #9: Retail sales on the Internet are “tax-free.”

FACT: Under existing law, a remote mail-order or Internet sale between a customer and a business located in the same state is subject to sales tax – a not uncommon occurrence in large states. Furthermore, Internet-based businesses pay profit and property taxes the way many other businesses do. Because they rely so heavily on telecommunications to stay connected, some online sellers may have proportionally heavier burdens of taxes associated with these technologies. When customers shop on the Internet, the shippers pay fuel and other types of transportation taxes.

Myth #10: The Internet is “destroying Main Street businesses.”

FACT: The Internet has enabled “Mom and Pop” retailers to advertise their products and services to a whole new world of consumers. It has also provided practical money-saving technologies that have allowed numerous traditional firms to survive and thrive, including online tax preparation services, better inventory management, and ease of ordering various inputs necessary to producing their finished goods. In 2012, research by The Boston Consulting Group found that “small and medium-sized companies that embrace the Internet in their business operations grew by 10 percent annually in the last three years, adding jobs as they did so.”

<i>To take action against the Internet Sales Tax, use our email tool to write your Senators.</i>

Right now, sales over the internet are usually only taxed when the buyer and seller are physically located in the same state.  This bill from Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) would lift the usual federal protections on interstate commerce and authorize state governments to tax sales which cross state lines, and put the burden of collecting that tax on the online business making the sales, regardless of where it is located.  This addresses a claim from huge retailers that they are at a competitive disadvantage because they have retail outlets in every state and therefore charge tax on all of their sales in person or online.

How online businesses operate is basically the same as mailorder businesses have for over a hundred years, but now that there are more of them with a little more access to consumers suddenly the big chain stores think they are unfair.

Store chains with physical locations have their own advantages.  They can attract casual buyers and allow them to examine their products with access which is impossible online.  Plus their size and the bulk in which they buy products wholesale give them an edge through economy of scale which allows them to sell products through their stores at lower prices.  They can  undercut online retailers because they do not have to pay shipping to deliver each product.

Most online businesses are entrepreneurial micro businesses which operate in very specialized areas and have to do everything they can to cut overhead.  They are one of the strongest and most dynamic areas of growth in our troubled economy.   They have also become a second chance for many of the unemployed, who have taken their savings and invested them in internet businesses and found a new way to earn a living and become a new middle class.  This proposed tax policy will take all of that away and bankrupt them, leaving them without even unemployment to fall back on.

Raising the effective price  of goods sold by online retailers may drive them out of business.  But the more serious threat is the incredible paperwork burden which compliance with this law will place on these vulnerable businesses.  Online businesses will have to charge taxes to satisfy the rules of 50 states and hundreds of thousands of other smaller taxing jurisdictions.  There is no way they can track all those taxes, charge them accurately and deliver the money to all of the taxing authorities without a huge cost in man hours or money.  When you have thousands of employees, hiring a department of tax accountants is a manageable expense.  When you’re one guy working out of his garage with a couple of part time employees it’s instant bankruptcy.

This bill would stifle the freedom which the internet has given to consumers and small businesses and sacrifice the welfare of hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs for the benefit of some of our largest and most powerful corporations.  This is not just a way to raise revenue for spendthrift states and make commerce more “fair” – it is a death sentence for most online businesses.

The bill is backed by the powerful lobbying machines of companies like Best Buy, Target, WalMart, PetSmart, Lowe’s and PetCo as well as by state and local governments eager to get their hands on a few more consumer dollars.  It is largely opposed by consumer advocacy groups who see that it is monopolistic and realize that competition makes the marketplace stronger and prices lower for everyone.

The giant retailers have already forced most local businesses which try to compete with them out of business and now they want to do t

If you support his stand for principle against murder for expediency, take this opportunity to call your Senators and encourage them to support Rand Paul and demand an answer from the administration before any further business is conducted.

To get contact info for your Senators, just CLICK HERE

This is particularly timely because our efforts have just been endorsed by the Federation of Hispanic Republicans, Cafe Con Leche Republicans and the 5-11 Campaign (opposes a national ID).

Th basic concept of our statement is to focus on the benefits of immigration for our nation when it is part of a comprehensive free market economic approach to the needs of workers and businesses. It emphasizes three primary points. First, that any policy should be designed to preserve the rights and economic interests of citizens and businesses. Second, that access to visas should be limited by the market and not quotas, through a robust guest worker program. Third, that immigration reform should be part of a comprehensive free market approach to business and labor in America.

Please use the form below to send a full copy to your representatives. Feel free to add some comments of your own to personalize it.