TAC: Thomas Jefferson Sought Congressional Approval Before Declaring War on the Barbary Pirates

 

DEBUNKED! Jefferson and War Powers May 14, 1801: WAR IS DECLARED on the United States. Despite all the lies and propaganda they constantly feed us - Thomas Jefferson didn't go to war with the Barbary pirates without getting approval from Congress. Learn the truth of this intentionally-hidden history.

People on both the left and the right claim the president possesses significant, unilateral power over military action, and they support this myth by perpetuating a big lie – that Thomas Jefferson did the same in response to the Barbary Pirates.  But like so many other myths about expansive federal power, historical truth doesn’t back up this commonly held narrative. In fact, Jefferson deferred to Congress throughout the Barbary conflict. THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR The Constitution vests the power to “declare war” in Congress. The founders understood this to mean changing the state of things from peace to war. This could occur through words or actions. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war.” Some argue that if another country declares war – whether in word or by deed – this action by the other country changes the state of things from peace to war, empowering the president to act with offensive measures without any congressional input. But Jefferson disagreed, leaving the decision of how to respond to such outside declarations of war to the representatives of the people and the states. We can see this by the way he responded to the Barbary pirates BACKGROUND By the time Jefferson took office, aggression against U.S. shipping off the coast of Africa had been going on for years, with pirates of the Barbary States preying on American ships. European countries had experienced much of the same, and negotiated peace with the states by paying tribute – sums of money that were effectively ransoms to protect their shipping.  Before his presidency, Jefferson had been involved in negotiating with the aggressors, and he did not support paying tribute. Jefferson expressed his sentiments in a letter to James Monroe on Nov. 11, 1784. “We have taken some pains to find out the sums which the nations of Europe give to the Barbary states to purchase their peace. They will not tell this; yet from some glimmerings it appears to be very considerable; and I do expect that they would tax us at one, two, or perhaps three hundred thousand dollars a year. Surely our people will not give this. Would it not be better to offer them an equal treaty? If they refuse, why not go to war with them?” [emphasis added] A month later, having learned that a small American brig had been seized by a Moroccan corsair in the Atlantic, Jefferson again emphasized the hard line in a letter to Horatio Gates: “Tribute or war is the usual alternative of these pirates. If we yield the former, it will require sums which our people will feel. Why not begin a navy then and decide on war?” Jefferson’s view notwithstanding, in the years to follow, President John Adams negotiated treaties with several Barbary states including Algiers and Tripoli, with the latter getting a payment of $18,000/year. But, as Jefferson warned in 1784, such a deal would never be enough, and Pasha Yusuf Karamanli of Tripoli felt like he got the short end of the stick. Within a year of the deal with the Adams administration – and a full five months before Jefferson took office – the Pasha demanded significantly more money and began taking an increasingly aggressive stance against the U.S.

JOIN TAC -from just $2/mo Help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not. (they don't) Monthly, annual, 5 year and lifetime options available. Details Here

DEMANDS AND THREATS The U.S. consul in Tripoli James Cathcart wrote to the Secretary of State on Oct. 7, 1800, that the Pasha said “If you don’t give me a present I will forge a pretext to capture your defenseless merchantmen.”  Just a week later, Tripoli proved their intentions when they captured another American ship. But, possibly it was just a warning, as the crew was released immediately. By Feb. 21, 1801, Cathcart was warning that war was imminent. In a Circular to the Consuls and Agents of the United States, he wrote “I am convinced that the Bashaw of Tripoli will commence Hostilitys against the U. States of America in less than Sixty Days.” In the meantime, just before Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed “An Act Providing for a Naval Peace Establishment,” legislation providing for six frigates that “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” CABINET MEETING In a meeting on May 15, 1801, Jefferson and his cabinet discussed what options were available to them under the Constitution. In attendance were Attorney General Levi Lincoln, Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, Secretary of State James Madison, and Acting Secretary of the Navy Samuel Smith. The entire cabinet agreed that ships should be sent out – and if war was declared, to use defensive measures. Lincoln’s position was the most reserved, “Our men of war may repel an attack on individual vessels, but after the repulse, may not proceed to destroy the enemy’s vessels generally.” Jefferson’s notes also included this: “Whether the captains may be authorized, if war exists, to search for & destroy the enemy’s vessels wherever they can find them?—all except mr L—agree they should; M. G. & S. think they may pursue into the harbours, but M. that they may not enter but in pursuit.” [emphasis in original] In short – only in a state of war, did anyone in the cabinet believe the Jefferson administration was authorized to respond with force. And even there, Lincoln held that an attack could be repelled, but they couldn’t search for the enemy, and Madison held they weren’t even authorized to enter into enemy harbors except in an active pursuit. By May 20, Smith sent orders from the President to Commodore Richard Dale to sail to Tripoli along with an offer of peace.  Jefferson’s letter to the Pasha opened with “Great and Respected Friend.” “The assurances of friendship which our Consul has given you, & of our sincere desire to cultivate peace & commerce with your subjects, are faithful expressions of our dispositions, and you will continue to find proofs of them in all those acts of respect & friendly intercourse which are due6 between nations standing as we do in the relations of peace & amity with each other” He also explained that he was sending this squadron to observe the situation and “superintend the safety of our commerce.” Jefferson also made clear that peace could be the order of the day and the squadron was given strict orders on these lines: “We have yet given them in strict command to conduct themselves towards all friendly powers with the most perfect respect & good order it being the first object of our sollicitude to cherish peace & friendship with all nations with whom it can be held on terms of equality & reciprocity.” At the same time, Commodore Dale was also given specific orders on how to proceed if he found that war had already been declared against the United States: “Should the bey of tripoli have declared war (as he has threatened) against the united states – you will then proceed direct to that Port, where you will lay your ships in such a position as effectually to prevent any of their vessels from going in or out. The essex and enterprise by cruising well on towards tunis will have it in their power to intercept any vessels which they may have captuers” WAR DECLARED That’s exactly what happened in the meantime, on May 14, 1801. The following day, Cathcart sent out a circular, to inform others that the Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States: “I am sorry to inform you that our Flagstaff was chop’d down upon Thursday the 14th instant and War was declared in form by the Bashaw of Tripoli against the United States of America” [emphasis added] When the squadron arrived in the area on July 1, Commodore Dale learned that the Pasha had already declared war, and proceeded to take the defensive actions per the instructions from Pres. Jefferson via Sec. Smith. Dale’s blockade of the port of Tripoli ran until early September, and during that time, Andrew Sterret, captain of the USS Enterprise, won the first American victory of the war, in its only battle of 1801. Because Congress had not yet responded to Tripoli’s declaration of war with one of their own, Sterret could not take the 14-gun corsair Tripoli as a prize. Instead, after winning the battle, he ordered the ship disarmed, throwing its guns overboard, and then released the crew and the ship.

PODCAST: The Big Lie: Jefferson and War with the Barbary States Both left and right have been more than happy to perpetuate a huge lie in order to justify unilateral executive war powers never delegated to the president in the Constitution. They do this by telling a false story of how Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary Pirates in 1801. Learn what really happened with a timeline of events. AUDIO AND VIDEO PODCAST HERE

REQUESTING MORE Despite this battle, the previous attacks, and the formal declaration of war by Tripoli against the United States, Jefferson was firm in his position that he was still “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” In his First Annual Message to Congress, he continued, requesting authorization from Congress to go further. “The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.” Less than 2 months later, Congress did just that. On Feb. 6, 1802, Congress passed an “Act for the Protection of American Commerce and Seamen,” authorizing some limited offensive measures against Tripoli: “It shall be lawful for the President of the United States to instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods, and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be proceeded against, and distributed according to the law; and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require.” Only after requesting, and eventually receiving, this authorization for offensive war measures from Congress, did President Jefferson order the Navy to take such actions. On Feb 18, 1802, Jefferson sent a “Circular to Naval Commanders” with instructions on what they were authorized to do. “THEREFORE, And in pursuance of the said statute, you are hereby authorized and directed to subdue, seize, and make prize, of all vessels, goods, and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be proceeded against and distributed according to law. “ In his Second Annual Message to Congress, Jefferson discussed the situation in Tripoli once again, clearly noting that “warfare” was ongoing. Yet, he still took a very restrained and limited approach. “There was reason not long since to apprehend that the warfare in which we were engaged with Tripoli might be taken up by some other of the Barbary Powers. A reenforcement, therefore, was immediately ordered to the vessels already there. Subsequent information, however, has removed these apprehensions for the present. To secure our commerce in that sea with the smallest force competent, we have supposed it best to watch strictly the harbor of Tripoli. Still, however, the shallowness of their coast and the want of smaller vessels on our part has permitted some cruisers to escape unobserved, and to one of these an American vessel unfortunately fell prey. The captain, one American sea man, and two others of color remain prisoners with them unless exchanged under an agreement formerly made with the Bashaw, to whom, on the faith of that, some of his captive subjects had been restored.” In the following years, Congress passed multiple statutes to authorize additional actions, including a March 26, 1804 “Act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers,” which gave explicit support for “warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.”  THE JEFFERSONIAN VIEW Note that these narrow congressional authorizations were explicit and described specific actions the president could take. They guided his decision-making and gave him very little discretion. They didn’t authorize Jefferson to take whatever steps he deemed necessary or to decide when and if he wanted to go to war. Congress engaged in the decision-making and Jefferson executed its will. The historical events reveal Thomas Jefferson’s true view on war powers under the Constitution. Congress “exclusively” decides whether or not the country will engage in war. Not the president. The President can use the military to respond to attacks, but can not go “beyond the line of defense” Even if a war is declared by a nation against the United States, the president cannot go “beyond the line of defense” – and must get authorization from Congress to engage in “measures of offense.” This is the kind of essential, foundational information we work to advance every single day of the year. Nothing - absolutely nothing - helps us roll up our sleeves and get the job done more than the financial faith and support of our members.  Please consider joining us today - for as little as $2/month here: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/ Help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government wants us to, or not. (they don't) If you prefer a one-time donation, you can pitch in online at this link: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/ You can also mail a check to: Tenth Amendment Center 16755 Von Karman Avenue Suite 200 PMB 705 Irvine, CA 92606 THANK YOU for reading - and for your support! --Michael Boldin, TAC.

Tenth Amendment Center: The Real Constitution that Politicians Don't Want You to Know About

The Real Constitution the politicians don't want you to know about I’ve been told that law students prepping for the Bar Exam are told that if the Tenth Amendment is ever among the answers on a multiple-choice question, they can immediately rule it out. For the "experts," the Tenth Amendment is never the right answer. And politicians today - love it that way. Thomas Jefferson had a little different view of the Tenth Amendment. He called it the “foundation of the Constitution.” I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The Tenth Amendment makes it unquestioningly clear that the Constitution constrains the general government to very specific and very limited powers. As James Madison explained in Federalist #45, “The powers delegated to the federal government by the proposed Constitution are few and defined.” James Wilson told us that "every thing which is not given, is reserved." That’s the dirty little secret politicians don’t want you to know.

JOIN TAC -from just $2/mo Help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not. (they don't) Monthly, annual, 5 year and lifetime options available. Details Here

John Jay - the first Chief Justice - described things this way: "The Constitution only serves to point out that part of the people's business, which they think proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated" That's nowhere close to what how things operate in practice today - the largest government in history. Now – brace yourself. This might come as a shock. But the people in power are perfectly happy to operate with an undefined, boundless field of power. The founders referred to that as "arbitrary power" - one of the "injuries and usurpations" listed in the Declaration of Independence. And that’s why the Tenth Amendment is never the right answer according to the politicians, and the academics, judges, power brokers, lobbyists and talking heads that support them. Before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, the political class was already “interpreting” the document to expand its own powers. For example, by changing the meaning of the word "necessary" into merely "convenient" for federal power, Alexander Hamilton got his first national bank. And we're all paying the price for it too. Today, that federal government controls nearly every aspect of your life. It runs your healthcare, educates your children and monitors your every move. Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. even tell you how much water you can flush down your toilets. So much for powers “few and defined.” Sadly, most Americans accept this state of affairs. They even embrace it. In fact, most Americans actually believe that the federal government legitimately exercises all of this authority. After all, they’ve been taught all their lives that the Tenth Amendment is the wrong answer.

St. George Tucker: Our Original Originalist He wrote the first systematic commentary on the U.S. Constitution - and was one of the most influential jurists and legal scholars during the formative years of the United States. Article Here Get Tucker's Book Here

The nature of the American political system today exacerbates the expansion of power. “Democracy” gives everybody the false sense that they have some hand in exercising power – or that they will at least benefit from its expansion. This creates a dilemma, as political economist Bertrand de Jouvenel explained. Under the ‘ancient regime,’ society’s moving spirits, who had, as they knew, no chance of a share in Power, were quick to denounce its smallest encroachment. Now, on the other hand, when everyone is potentially a minister, no one is concerned to cut down an office to which he aspires one day himself, or to put sand in a machine which he means to use himself when his turn comes. Hence, it is that there is in the political circles of a modern society a wide complicity in the extension of Power.” A written constitution was meant to lay down rules that check the tendency for government to grow. It erects barriers to government power that must not be crossed. As Jefferson put it, “in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” As John Hancock put it, "the powers reserved by the people render them secure" But like most things, a constitution won’t ever work if the people don’t know how to use it. While we do a significant amount of work to help reach and teach people about the original, legal meaning of the Constitution - based in principles from the Revolution - "how to use it" is probably our most important work. But for far too long politicians, bureaucrats, judges, law professors, and chattering pundits have told us how the Constitution should work - instead of the other way around. The political class has “interpreted” the rules. And it’s interpreted to give them more and more power over you and me. They teach us from day one that the way to keep the government in check is to convince the government to keep itself in check. Thomas Jefferson warned us how that would play out, noting that allowing the government to determine the extent of its own power would put the people of the several states "under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them" After generations of interpretation by the people in power - just like Jefferson warned, we now have a federal government that claims the authority to do virtually anything and everything. Along the way, our liberties have been whittled away. The power of the politicians grows at the expense of our liberties. If we want to reclaim our liberties, something has got to give. It’s time for dis-interpretation. It’s time for “we the people” to reclaim their own Constitution and their own liberty. To do that, we have look at the Constitution through the eyes of the generation who wrote and ratified it. We’re have to follow Jefferson’s admonition and “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” And then we have to follow what the founders told us has to be done to keep the government in check when it refuses to follow the rules. Today, of course, that's 24/7/365 James Madison told us that states and individuals should use a "refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union." James Iredell - one of the first Supreme Court Justices - told us that the ONLY way to deal with usurpations of power is through "the inherent right of the people to prevent its exercise." Not just a mere good idea - but the only way to deal with federal overreach. And Jefferson said "where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy" Also, not just a mere suggestion to try after everything else fails - but THE rightful remedy to all undelegated power. This is the real Constitution that the politicians don’t want you to know about. The one where the people of the states themselves determine the limits of federal power. The one where the people of the states themselves enforce the constitution through non-compliance and resistance. The one where no one who violates their oath of office is given support.  As John Dickinson put it, when there's a "bad administration" (which we sure do have) - the answer is to be found "before the supreme sovereignty of the people." IT IS THEIR DUTY TO WATCH, AND THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE CARE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED; Or in the Roman phrase on perilous occasions—TO PROVIDE, THAT THE REPUBLIC RECEIVE NO DAMAGE. (yes, he used the all caps in the original!) In other words, in the American political system, as originally conceived, the Tenth Amendment is always the right answer. We've got a lot of work to do - but with your support, we're building a strong foundation for today and the future.  Brick by brick. Person by person. State by state: For the constitution and liberty. Thank you so much for reading and your support! --Michael Maharrey, Michael Boldin along with TJ, Alan, Mike and the  rest of the TAC Team.

 

California GOP at a Crossroads ... or on a Cross!

July 12, 2017.

Richard Eber published the following article:

California GOP at the crossroads

We are not a crossroads.

We are hanging on a cross, but dying for nothing.

We have leaders in the state legislature which have routinely sold out the voters, the business owners, the taxpayers and rate-payers.

How much are we going to take getting taken on like this?

Part of being a political writer involves reading blogs and emails from both the left and right side of the political spectrum. If there is a middle of road one, it has escaped my attention thus far.

Middle of the road is always based on reaction to the extremes. Such political posturing has never helped our country.

Progressive Democrats leave little to the imagination. They express their views on sanctuary cities, health care, global warming, affordable housing, law enforcement and pro-choice policies with a passion that is to be admired. There are no secrets despite how radical some of these stands might be.

They are no longer ashamed of these radical points of view. They should feel ashamed.

Democratic Party Central Committee meetings reflect this energy as there is never a shortage of advocates for any issue. Except for rare occasions when determining endorsements for political office, the press is welcome to cover their events. Transparency and openness dictate democratic proceedings.

How about that? Well, it really is no surprise that Democrats welcome the press. The mainstream tilts left and supports many of these left-wing narratives. They will often write the most glowing articles about the Democratic Party. Because the media is the pet lap-dog for the Left, activists for Berniecras an the corrupt Democratic Party are not ashamed of their views.

Not so with the Republican Party in California these days. It would seem that it is their policy to not discuss issues as a party and allow individual office holders to deal with the press. The state party under the leadership of former state Senator Jim Brulte, (with financial assistance from Charles T. Munger) is content to act as a fund-raising apparatus.

And yet even there is fails. All the major money is coming from Munger. Thtat's why eight Republicans in the state legislature voted for the Crap and Betray deal yesterday (July 18). They do not discuss issues because they have no interest in standing for anything anymore. The powers that be who have taken over the California GOP 

Interviews with party officials on the state and county level are almost impossible to obtain. In fact, in Contra Costa, where I live, the chairwoman intervened to have me disinvited to an event where she was speaking. Gaining publicity and educating voters does not seem to be a priority with the state GOP game plan. They seem to be content with their current “benign neglect” role  in “Left Coast” politics.

Wow! Who was the chairwoman at the time?

I know your pain, buddy. The Republican Party of Los Angeles County revoked the charter of the Beach Cities Republicans because ... for no good reason. They routinely lied about what was going on. They took no clear stance on issues, and I did. I welcomed Latinos for Trump to speak at our club, and they tried to shut it down.

What was supposed to happen? What was I supposed to do? Just let them get away with allowing nothing to happen? RPLAC turned into RINO-PLAC, with nothing to show for their efforts.

One might ask why things have not been shaken up in the Republican Party as it exists today. In terms of achievement today we find:

• GOP registration has continued to decline and is projected to represent less than 25% of registered voters behind the decline-to-state group.
• The party has less than one third of membership in both houses of Legislature thus affording conservatives negligible influence in formulating legislation or approving budgets that requires a 66% majority to pass.
• Republicans have zero state office holders and haven’t elected anyone to such a post in 10 years. Even worse, in most cases such as the U.S. Senate race in 2016, two democrats ended up squaring off in the run-off.

The Republican Party leadership does not want to fight.

They don't want to do anything.

Guess what? I want to do something. I still want to fight! I want to bring down the regressive leftists who are destroying our culture and our way of life. I want to fight for what is right and stand for truth in every arena. After all, it's the truth that sets us free.

It's the truth WHO sets us free!

This headline says it all about the GOP in California

Despite these dismal statistics, the state GOP acts as if everything is “A OK at the KOA.” At the Republican State Convention that followed the general election last November, Jim Brulte ran without opposition for a third term in office. His organization was basking in the victory of Donald Trump for which they had nothing to do with. In fact, Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote was almost entirely due to her landslide win in California.

Hw true this assessment has become. They California Republican Party leadership is taking credit for something that they had nothing to do with. Nothing at all. I remember seeing President Donald Trump fighting hard to enter the CAGOP Convention in Burlingame in February 2016.

The only reason national Republicans care about California is two-fold:

1. The Presidential primary, and the large cache of delegates which follow
2. Donations and fundraising.

That's it.

There are no victories to be had in California, whether at the state or the national level

All of this has not escaped conservative rank-and-file Republicans who feel left out of the party. They are tired of having no say trying to revitalize the organization that has failed them. This group of the disenchanted regularly sends out emails and tweets that find their way to me. What separates current complaints from past correspondence is their belief that the current GOP does not have the ability to do a makeover and reform itself.

The current CAGOP leadership is happily committed to accomplishing very little. They spend more time stalling and thwarting opportunity to change the party rather than allowing the grassroots determine the time and direction of their own party, then taking the fight to the corrupt Democracy.

A divorce and a new political party is what they want.

I think that take is acceptable.

According to a perplexed Pamela Olson, “Please correct me if I am wrong in this. I do believe unless we cut the dysfunction out of current boards, we will never unite a strong 2.0 versions and rebirth of conservative ideals just as we birthed Reagan conservative ideals. We’ve the right groups and right people … wrong folks on dysfunction boards is our issue.”

Indeed, especially if they are talking about the abortive, useless central committees.

Indeed, these boards and associations are supposed to be invested in raising money, recruiting candiates, and registering voters. None of this is happening, and even worse, the latest RINO actions of assembly Republicans vote to increase taxes and regulations, while handing over more power to unaccountable government boards.

Self-proclaimed “political contractor” John Bechtel believes the fractured state of the Republican Party goes beyond the leadership in the state level. He thinks, “In many cases, the local county chairs are the problem, alienating critical sectors of the community, proving the reality of guilt-by-association, and undermining the efforts of good people.”

Yes indeed! The RINO-PLAC Central Committee revoked the charter for the Beach Cities Republicans, and also threatened the Mountain View Republicans in northeastern Los Angeles County. Who needs Democrats when Republican, or "Republican" leaders are more interested in playing along with the left-wing descent into madness.

To show how far things have deteriorated, Bechtel said, “The GOP is weak and apathetic that as of yet they have not applied to have a table at the State Fair in Sacramento to recruit new members. I guess it does not bother them that less than one quarter of the voters in the state belongs to the party.”

Who wants to join the California GOP now? Who wants to go along with the left-wing tilt and fallout of the latest betrayal vote! Of course the state party has not invested any money into registering voters. Why would anyone want to be a Republican.

What to call the organization which is intended to recruit disgusted Republicans, many of whom have become decline-to-state voters? It was suggested by John Bechtel to replace the current GOP and call the new one the Jefferson Party, in honor of the founding fathers.

This appeals to Pamela Olson who says, “Personally it’s my favorite, though I wonder if we should avoid names already associated with hard founded groups such as the Jefferson State. We need not burn bridges just to rebuild a party that is worse than a paper house on fire!”

What is the chance that there would be the necessary manpower and funding to start a new political organization for Republicans to rally around to become a strong force in the Golden State? Probably not much but we must not underestimate the power of grass roots politics as Donald Trump’s election demonstrated.

It's time for grassroots activists to take control. We showed our muscle and our might with the election of Donald Trump. We need to direct our efforts toward true representation for individual citizens.

Perhaps as Bobby McGinnis stated, “Personally I think Republican/Conservative groups already have a number of groups, chartered or nonprofits that already exist.” Naming over 10 of them she added, “I am a member of 5 of them. Not to mention all of the different clubs. Each of the above groups are chartered, file tax returns, establish mission statements & by laws and perform various duties all in the name of getting Republicans elected.”

The Beach Cities Republicans is still up and running!

No reason for people to stop coming! We are still active, and we are still conservative.

Regardless of whether conservatives want to start from scratch or reform the existing organization, there are few rank and file Republicans who think that their party is doing a very good job enticing voters to join their ranks. Jim Brulte and the country organizations under his care should know this and try to improve an ineffective structure that has delivered dismal results in partisan elections.

Rather than wait another 4 years to continue the trend of losing voters and office holders to unaccountable progressives, the right thing to do is to admit there is a problem and that the current strategy operating  as a low key stealth political organization is not working and needs to changed. As such Brulte should consider resigning and ask all county chairs and boards to do the same.

The problem is represented all too well by Charles Munger Jr. who has all the money in the world, and yet chooses to misuse his inheritance ruining the Republican Party of California and allowing it to stand for nothing and gain nothing.

To replace these individuals, mini constitutional-like conventions should be held throughout the state to redefine what being Republican means. Instead of hiding in the weeds, conservatives need to show voters what they stand for and present an alternative to the unabated liberalism which completely dominates California politics.

They do know what we stand for. The problem is that we have leadership which refuses to stand behind us.

Regardless of the outcome we need to praise this band of Jefferson Republicans who want to bring conservative government back to the state. Their enthusiasm is needed to combat liberal democrats who are equally intense in their beliefs. Such passion will only serve to improve our current one sided governmental environment.

I am all for Jeffersonian Republicanism.

I am all for the state of Jefferson, too.

I am furthermore in favor of either burning down the California GOP as we know it and rebuilding from the ground up. Why not? It's time for all of us to audacious! It's time for us to take clear stances on issues and demand that our leaders do the same.

Conservatives, citizens do indeed find themselves at a crossroads. We can either get off the cross and start reigning in life, or we can hang on a cross and die the ignominous death which faces all martyrs and losers who have nothing new in life to look forward to.

More Winning! The National Right to Work Act Gains Sponsors

There is no better news than to learn that the United States Congress is inching closer to embracing right-to-work provisions among its federal agencies as well as protecting workers' rights at the state and local level, to!

US Senator Rand Paul has been sponsoring the National Right to Work act for the last six years of his career in Congress.

Now it looks like the legislation is gaining new life.

Check out the latest eblast I received from the National Right to Work Foundation:

Dear Arthur,

I wanted to be the first to tell you about some big news out of Capitol Hill.

Since my last update about our cosponsor blitz to pick up new cosponsors to the National Right to Work Act (H.R. 785) and (S. 545) nine new cosponsors have been added!

Nine lawmakers that have pledged to stand with the nearly 80% of Americans that think it is wrong to force workers to pay dues or fees to a union boss just to get or keep a job. 

The hard lesson of politics--just because a proposal is popular does not guarantee its passage or implementation in law.

The power of small groups, special interests, and large donation campaigns from labor unions and corporate donors can undermine the freedom-loving will of the people time and again.

It's time for us to stand up to these corrupt, corrosive influences in our political culture.

And that is why ... associations like the National Right to Work Foundation exist.

You see Arthur, the National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to Federal Law. 

It would simply repeal sections of the National Labor Relations Act that permit forced unionism. 

Repealing bad law is better than passing good laws, and stopping bad laws from passage and enactment is the best of all.

Your generous support has allowed the Committee to implement and continue its cutting edge program of email, direct mail, telephone campaigns, targeted internet ads, and personal lobbying of lawmakers to get them on board. 

But as you know, union bosses are still reeling from the passage of six new State Right to Work bills in only the last five years, and are determined to kill the bills before they see the light of day in Congress. 

Which states when right to work in the last five years?

1. Indiana
2. Michigan
3. Wisconsin
4. Kentucky
5. West Virginia
6. Missouri

Wisconsin Scott Walker signing off on right-to-work in 2015

We are still hoping and waiting for New Hampshire, but Republicans will need to win more seats in the 400 seat state House, since they lost numbers in Election 2016, and before that the state legislature barely--just barely--passed a right-to-work bill, only to watch former Governor Maggie Hassan veto it.

That is why your continued support is needed so the Committee can continue pushing for votes on the National Right to Work Act. 

Thank you for all you do for worker freedom. 

Sincerely, 
 
Mark Mix

P.S. Nine new cosponsors have signed on to the National Right to Work Act. Please chip in with a contribution of $10 or more today to ensure the Committee can continue its cosponsor program. 

---

The National Right to Work Committee is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to combating compulsory unionism through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to compulsory unionism and, at the same time, enlist public support for Right to Work legislation. The Committee's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. The Committee can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-325-7892. Its web address is http://nrtwc.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense. 

To help the National Right to Work Committee grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view as a web page, please click this link: view online.