Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
RLC Website ^ | December 8, 2000 | Republican Liberty Caucus

Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-262 next last
The above is from the RLC.org website: http://www.rlc.org/repository/sites/8C1DE156-A0E3-11D4-9EF8-00D0B747343B/file/8C1DE156-A0E3-11D4-9EF8-00D0B747343B__2001510_00006.htm
1 posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Well done, thanks.
- I would vote for any republican that would swear to honor these positions, and who would vote against any legislation that would circumvent them. -
- Are there any in California?
2 posted on 07/24/2002 4:26:24 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
There is a chapter in CA, but I do not know what candidates they may have lined up (other than Simon).

Quoted from the Republican Liberty Caucus News thread posted earlier:

"In this election cycle, for example, California's Reagan-style Bill Simon was the come-from-behind landslide winner against the establishment-supported mainstream RINO favorite. This was no surprise to the RLC, which was the first national organization to endorse Simon's campaign -- about a year before the primary! And the RLC worked hard to ensure Simon's nomination, including telephone-bank efforts mounted in the Bay Area(3), which Simon amazingly carried, despite the region's well-known liberalism"

3 posted on 07/24/2002 4:42:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Ahhhh, but theres the rub.

RLC may endorse Simon, but would/will Simon endorse the RLC's positions? - I doubt it.
4 posted on 07/24/2002 4:49:09 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Wow, seems almost subversive when compared to the tripe fed to us from the national Republican Party. The disconnect betweent the elite and the grassroots has rarely been as pronounced as lately. I would dearly love to see these priciples espoused by the entire party.
5 posted on 07/24/2002 7:51:53 PM PDT by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Bump
6 posted on 07/24/2002 7:58:03 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79; Sir Gawain; christine11; eshu; FreedominJesusChrist; OWK; southern rock; ...
Ping
7 posted on 07/24/2002 7:59:12 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
They apparently feel Simon meets their requirements or I don't think they would have worked so hard for him. What little I have heard him on local radio, he seems to endorse the constitutional obligations that are posted by the RLC Caucus.

I was impressed by him before the primary after reading some threads posted here, although I was at the time leaning for a local man whom I admire very much, Bill Jones. After hearing him interviewed on talk radio in my area, I am enthused by his statements about States rights vs Federal government intervention.

He has a rough road ahead of him with the power and money machine of Davis, but with the help of organizations like RLC perhaps he has a better chance of getting his message out?
8 posted on 07/24/2002 8:13:17 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; OrthodoxPresbyterian; tpaine; antidisestablishment
Position statement says: 11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer AND 11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated..

I believe these are in conflict with the congressional power in the Constitution to call out the militia and the presidential power to command that militia. The militia, by law, is the armed citizenry. (An important issue in the gun debate.)

It might require an amendment removing the congressional and the presidential powers regarding the militia. (relevant also in the section on the draft.) Removing these from the Constitution would probably be a bad idea since they are provisions for extreme national emergency.

Art 1 (legislative), Sec 1: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Art 2 (executive), Sec 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

9 posted on 07/24/2002 9:59:22 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Right on!

(But sometimes feelin a little lonely here in the People's Republic of Seattle...)
10 posted on 07/24/2002 10:18:43 PM PDT by EternalHope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; toenail; Free the USA; Ernest_at_the_Beach
fyi
11 posted on 07/24/2002 10:42:04 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
That's an excellent platform. There is only one plank I would add in 7.0 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM -

- Financial contributions to candidates campaigns should be restricted to registered voters. -

This would be a Constitutional way to prohibit contributions from resident aliens, convicted felons, unions, corporations, etc. However, they would be free to make independent expenditures.

12 posted on 07/24/2002 11:10:31 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
11.4 U. S military personnel should always be under U. S. command.

I would clarify that the WWII type arrangement where Monty was under Eisenhower but also had U.S. units under himself in the Allied Effort in Europe would be acceptable. (I believe both D-Day and the Bulge saw Monty with US forces under his control.)

There are various words used: attached, operational control, etc., that need clarification in this kind of setting.

13 posted on 07/24/2002 11:45:22 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
So Jim, You advocate these positions?
14 posted on 07/25/2002 7:45:51 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
- Financial contributions to candidates campaigns should be restricted to registered voters. -

A serious idea which merits careful concideration. I haven't seen it proposed precisely that way before.

15 posted on 07/25/2002 7:47:43 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
It is very unusal that a thread posted by the site owner attracts so little attention.

The topic must be embarrassing to many people.

16 posted on 07/25/2002 8:34:30 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Will you be able to make our national convention? It would be great to meet some of our fellow minded republicans.
David Palmquist
Secretary RLC Texas
http://www.rlctexas.org
17 posted on 07/25/2002 8:48:17 AM PDT by asneditor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
What's up Jim?

The Republican Liberty Caucus makes some excellent points. In fact, many of their political positions, mirror the positions conservatives, like myself, have championed for many years now.

However, there are some downsides to the RLC and they should be discussed openly. First off, the RLC website specifically states the following, on the issue of abortion.

What is the RLC's position on abortion?

Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Neutral?

That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives. That's a big black mark against the RLC. This is a political position taken by most Libertarians.

In addition, without removing a portion of #13 off its agenda, the RLC will never appeal to law and order conservatives, in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan. Leaving in that certain portion of #13 as part of its position statement, which promotes alternatives to America's current national drug control strategy, gives its agenda a stench of libertarian-lite.

Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't expect you to answer these questions, but I continue to respect your right to follow the political philosophy of your choice, even if that may include, basic agreement on a neutral position on abortion. Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy. Even if that means joining forces with individuals who consider themselves libertarian-Republicans. There's an oxymoron for ya!

Having a separate forum on FR, that promotes a libertarian-lite website, won't make you any political allies among conservatives. But with you being an ex-Democrat, I can appreciate your desire to return to a political philosophy more in tune with your personal desires.

18 posted on 07/25/2002 8:48:24 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Bump.
19 posted on 07/25/2002 8:59:32 AM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; 2Jedismom; Carry_Okie; Fish out of Water; AAABEST; A. Pole; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; ...
ping
20 posted on 07/25/2002 9:10:53 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I hope someday to become a Republican, if the RLC can gain influence. There's little hope for the L.P., IMO, but I can't support the GOP as it stands.

I would definately vote for any Republican who supports the above position.
21 posted on 07/25/2002 9:18:16 AM PDT by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
BUMP
>/center>
22 posted on 07/25/2002 9:19:21 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
And foreign powers.

"No dollar vote without a ballot vote." - Allen Keyes
23 posted on 07/25/2002 9:20:34 AM PDT by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope
Not much fun here in Ohio either. We get marxists, neocons and RINOs as our options. I'm left with a couple libertarians to punch for or leave em balnk.
24 posted on 07/25/2002 9:20:41 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madfly; Jim Robinson; AAABEST
Quite sobering to read this and realize how diametrically opposed to these statements the Republicans are in actual practice. It's like a cruel joke. On us.


25 posted on 07/25/2002 9:22:40 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I think he generally advocates a lot more of it then he'll admit these days...

But he wouldn't want to upset some of the facists that have become FR's bread and butter as of late.
26 posted on 07/25/2002 9:23:58 AM PDT by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: asneditor
Sorry, I'm not a Republican, but thanks.
27 posted on 07/25/2002 9:26:08 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I think it is utterly and completely UN-libertarian to support unrestricted abortion. There's no right more fundamental then the right to live. It's unfortunate that the RLC has taken that position.
28 posted on 07/25/2002 9:27:40 AM PDT by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
- Are there any in California?

That was my next question...

29 posted on 07/25/2002 9:32:48 AM PDT by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NC_Libertarian
I think he generally advocates a lot more of it then he'll admit these days...

Not possible for me to ascertain. I received no response. He might be busy.

But he wouldn't want to upset some of the facists that have become FR's bread and butter as of late.

I couldn't make an educated guess about the first part, but I can say from personal experience that infinite amounts of lying, flame baiting and other site degradation is allowed to an organized cadre of authoritarians.

I'll leave the speculation about why to others, but it sure is confounding when the exact same behavior is met with post deletions and suspensions when practiced by others. Hard to figure.

30 posted on 07/25/2002 9:35:38 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NC_Libertarian
There's no right more fundamental then the right to live. It's unfortunate that the RLC has taken that position.

I missed that part, where can it be found?

31 posted on 07/25/2002 9:38:07 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Right here.
32 posted on 07/25/2002 9:41:40 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
To understand JR you must realize that he's a tactician first, idealogue second. He a tech guy and an ex-military man, so he often takes a scientific problem solving approach to things such as forum integrity and how to affect politics.

He has a huge balancing act going on. I assure you he's a lot closer to your outlook on life and further from any "bushbot" than you think.

33 posted on 07/25/2002 9:42:37 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I remember in the past Mr. Robinson chimeing in on pro-liberty threads. That stopped some time ago.
34 posted on 07/25/2002 9:44:23 AM PDT by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
There does seem to be an organized attempt to control discussion since about April, doesn't there.

It's going to be hard to run a RLC page if certain sources continue to be banned
35 posted on 07/25/2002 9:44:48 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
According to Reagen Man, it was from the RLC website?
36 posted on 07/25/2002 9:44:54 AM PDT by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy.

The mean the "successful" drug control policy that classifies bottled water and glowsticks as "drug paraphenalia"?

The "successful" drug control policy that drove the price of MDMA in the US up to $30 a tab, wheras in the Netherlands, where MDMA is produced, it only costs $3 a tab?

Oh yeah, that "successful" drug control policy... Prohibition I mean, the "War on Drugs"...

37 posted on 07/25/2002 9:45:44 AM PDT by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I have no connection to this group, and I am anti-abortion.

Having said that, taking no position is not a pro-abortion postion, except in the eyes of a very small minority.

38 posted on 07/25/2002 9:48:30 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NC_Libertarian
Hear, hear. -- And the silence of the B&B facists we've flagged is quite telling.
39 posted on 07/25/2002 9:51:05 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
I assure you he's a lot closer to your outlook on life and further from any "bushbot" than you think.

I have not attempted to characterize Mr. Robinson's postions one way or the other.

40 posted on 07/25/2002 9:51:06 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
>>>Having said that, taking no position is not a pro-abortion postion, except in the eyes of a very small minority.

I'm glad you're anti abortion. Most members of the Constitution Party are also anti abortion, at least the ones I know here in Colorado. But when people take a neutral stand on the killing of innocent human life, especially at these early developmental stages in the woman's womb, that is tantamount to directly supporting abortion on demand and the pro choice position, or at the very least enabling this horrific procedure to continue.

41 posted on 07/25/2002 9:59:56 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
 Even if that means opposition to America's successful
national drug control policy.

Please elaborate.  What is the successful nature
of the War on Drugs?  How has it reduced drug
use, kept drugs out of the country, and maintained
our constitutional rights?  How has the constitutional separation of powers
between federal government and the states been impacted by the War on Drugs?

42 posted on 07/25/2002 10:00:25 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
But when people take a neutral stand on the killing of innocent human life, especially at these early developmental stages in the woman's womb, that is tantamount to directly supporting abortion on demand and the pro choice position, or at the very least enabling this horrific procedure to continue.

In your mind. But not in mine.

What you are saying is that no group can organize to work toward certain goals if they take no position on abortion. I disagree.

43 posted on 07/25/2002 10:04:35 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: eshu; JR; All
And as I noted, I doubt we'll see any.
The usual RINO candidates will mouth some platitudes about 'support' for RLC positions, then renege on them if elected.
- Samo, - same old bull.

Someone, anyone, tell me, show me it isn't so.
44 posted on 07/25/2002 10:05:31 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Well, you're entitled to hold any belief on the issue of abortion you may choose. I happen to think its the greatest issue of our time. Imagine, so-called intelligent, God fearing creatures, chucking this ultimate and critical responsibility aspect of life, in favor of killing one of their own kind. There has been roughly 40,000,000 innocent human lifes taken since 1973 through the abortion procedure and most of them came about, in the name of life style choices. I find that totally immoral and repugnant. In all actuality, abortion is a crime against humanity and mankind.
45 posted on 07/25/2002 10:14:29 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NC_Libertarian
It's unfortunate that the RLC has taken that position.


Read it again, - they are neutral, and did not take that 'unrestricted' position.
46 posted on 07/25/2002 10:17:01 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Well, you're entitled to hold any belief on the issue of abortion you may choose.

And you as well. But this thread isn't about abortion. Then again, from what you have said, EVERYTHING seems to be about abortion to you.

The question is, can groups have no position on abortion while they focus on other things, or not. You seem to think not. Oh well.

PS, I used to be in a bowling league which took no position on abortion, I guess they were pro-abortion.

47 posted on 07/25/2002 10:22:16 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Put a sock in it. - This is not an abortion thread, or forum. - The RLC position is neutral.
48 posted on 07/25/2002 10:23:07 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
 God fearing creatures, chucking this ultimate
and critical responsibility aspect of life

That's an interesting thought.  How ironic, then,
that priests, bishops, and popes are called to celibacy,
denying the births of countless humans in the name
of God.

49 posted on 07/25/2002 10:32:54 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
>>>And you as well. But this thread isn't about abortion. Then again, from what you have said, EVERYTHING seems to be about abortion to you.

I've attempted to be civil with you, but that seems to be an effort in futilty on my part. The critical aspects of political positions taken by the Republican Liberty Caucus is exactly what's at issue on this thread and to deny that is the case, is to run from the truth. I don't expect you'll stop huffing-n-puffing, anytime soon.

If you want to compare you're bowling league with the Libertarian Party, I offer no resistence. Look, abortion is supported by Libertarian's in general. I'm a strong pro-lifer and am opposed to the libertarian philosophy in general. Your basic argument over abortion is intelliectually bankrupt. This is the political, social and cultural issue of our time. If you're too blind to see that, that's not my fault. You're pathetic.

50 posted on 07/25/2002 10:36:28 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-262 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson