Skip to comments.REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Amen and amen!! I am, also, a strong an uncompromising advocate of Covenanted Communities, Friend RW. Some "Calvinists" try to "apologize" for Calvin's Republic of Geneva -- but not me. Frankly, I see almost nothing for which to "apologize". I will defend Calvin's Geneva to the wall, on every point, without reservation.
Because Calvin's Geneva was a Covenanted Community, just like Mosaic Israel. 20,000 Free Citizens unanimously acclaimed the Charter and Constitution of the Church and Government of Calvin's Geneva. I do not claim that every ordinance they instituted was "perfect", but I do know that it was unanimously covenanted, for better or for worse.
"Consent of the Governed means each and every one" -- old Libertarian axiom, and the teaching of Deuteronomy 27: 14-26. "ALL the men of Israel shall say...".
But let's be realistic here. John Calvin, the greatest Vessel of the Holy Spirit since the Apostles, was able AT BEST to secure the Unanimous Covenant of a mere 20,000 Christian Citizens.
Are you a greater man than John Calvin? Because I am NOT.
If we would follow in his foot-steps, if we would build Covenanted Communities on the Genevan Model, I am convinced that we must devolve the Powers of Government far lower than even "State Sovereignty". We are talking about County level Governance at this point.
Centralized Government is the ENEMY. If you truly desire Covenanted Communities, Federal Government must be opposed at nearly every level, and even State Government should be devolved to the Counties.
We are not Nationalists; we are not even Statists. We are home-schoolers and church-covenanters. We need Government to be as Limited and as Local as reasonably possible if we truly want to build a thousand little Genevas.
Another whining crybaby.
Like I told one of your fellow crybaby pals, get your own political forum. Then you can revoke posting privileges or ban anyone you want. Until then, you'll have to settle for moaning and groaning about what you don't like here on Jim Robinson's forum. Conservative politics is a tough business and isn't for weak stomachs like yours.
BTW, your disregard for freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights is obvious and quite revolting.
Gee, howzabout that -- We have one. The Republican LIBERTY Caucus Forum is now an official Forum of the FreeRepublic website. FreeRepublic.Com now recognizes the election of Liberty Constitutionalist Republicans as one of its official political goals.
If you don't like it -- suffer.
We contribute a lot more money to this Website than you, RM, and we shall continue to do so.
Either you are on the Train, or you are on the Tracks in front of us... fine by us, either way.
You've got that right. Neutral my arse. The RLC being noncommittal on this issue is very troubling. But not quite as troubling as the Libertarian Party agenda, which basically supports pro-choice abortion rights. That means the LP supports abortion on demand. What's so great about that? Both of these libertarian positions, have nothing in common with the pro-life position of respecting all human life. Supporting the killing of innocent and helpless human children, is in itself, an inhuman act and should be condemned at every opportunity.
I have a libertarian streak, I guess, but it ends at defense. Generally, I'm in favor of kicking the crap out enemies and asking about it later. I'm in favor of being in position to kick the crap out of any potential antagonist long before hostilities begin. Deterrence saves lives.
Not half as "troubling" as the Republican National Committee.
The Republican Liberty Caucus devotes itself to Capitalism, Gun Rights, and State Sovereignty. Since they do no take a position on Abortion, Pro-Lifers know that they must either spend their money elsewhere, or only devote their money to expressly pro-life Republican Libertarians, like my personal friend Murray Sabrin (National Vice-Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus).
The RLC is there for Capitalism, Gun Rights, and State Sovereignty -- that's what they do, and they are up-front about it.
By contrast, the Republican National Committee takes "conservative" money, and then spends millions of dollars a year on Pro-Abortion candidates.
I earned my Pro-Life scars with the front line shock-troops of Operation Rescue, unlike a do-nothing blowhard like yourself, "Reagan Man". And as someone who actually stood on the front lines, I have this to say -- at least the Republican Liberty Caucus is HONEST. To them, Abortion is a State Issue, as Murder Laws constitutionally should be.
At least the RLC does not spit in my Pro-Life face like the hypocritical Republican National Party.
You know something I don't know? Hey, give us all the facts and all the links while you're at it. Otherwise you're just lying through your teeth.
Jim Robinson's desire to support a libertarian forum on his website, is by his choice. And your desire to engage in debate on this libertarian forum, is by your choice. If I choose to engage on this the RLC forum, I will, by my choice.
What's left of FR, belongs to conservatives, Republicans and independents.
Just remember, the Libertarian philosophy is DOA! And Libertarian politics is a total joke.
Libertarian presidential candidate harry browne received a whopping 390K votes in the last general election. Another joke! Live with it! The RLC forum will change nothing for the future of Libertarian politics.
Simply possessing Nuclear Weapons buys a whole lot of Deterrence.
Assume the following:
Given these conditions, do you see any country attacking us?
Honestly? Any at all?
Balderdash. "What's left" of FR is owned by Jim Robinson, the creator of the Republican Liberty Caucus Forum.
I couldn't care less about the Libertarian Party. I have cast more Republican votes than Libertarian votes in my life, and I expect I will continue to do so.
Why? Because I vote Republican whenever the Republican candidate is basically libertarian, and opposed to YOU, "Reagan Man".
And that is the official direction of this Forum, "Reagan Man". To elect Liberty Constitutionalist Republicans, who are opposed to YOU. You personally, "Reagan Man".
The Enemy is YOU.
You ain't the "rest of the Forum", RM. The enemy is YOU.
You're on the Train, or you're on the Tracks. Fine by me either way.
Don't try and fool me. You've got scars on your arse, from sitting on your butt, your whole life and whining about everything and everyone that's done you wrong. You're nothing but another BIG crybaby.
First off, you don't know anything about me and second, you're a big mouth nobody, who doesn't have an ounce of commonsense or intelligence in his entire body. I've not even responded to you today. Yet you've taken it upon yourself to personally attack with flat out lies and fabricated horses**t. Fair is fair, bucko. You're in my crosshairs from now on, boy.
Shove that crap right up your wazoo. Before you engage this conservative, get informed and get your facts straight. Otherwise you'll always look like the blithering idiot you really are.
You're bloviating, and emarassing yourself.
I can name the time, the place, and the Campaign Slogan of my Operation Rescue campaigns.
You, on the other hand, ain't nothing but a blow-hard liar.
You can't bluff with a 7-high, RM. You don't fool nobody.
Sit down and let the adults talk, child. When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.
The libertarian cat's out of the proverbial bag. You're another fringe wacko extremist --- misfit, malcontent, militant... take your choice --- bent on inflicting as much trouble for conservatives and Republicans as you possibly can. You're fooling no one. You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy of conservatism, that being the twin evils of liberalism and socialism.
You are the true enemy of conservatism.
You have nothing in common with the Republican Party, but you're convinced this new RLC forum will lead the way. I've got news for you, it won't.
If it wasn't for me, this thread would contain less then 50 replies. It may be JimRob's thread, but I gave it life.
I'll sit back and see what other incoherent and convoluted rants you can think of. Have fun!
Btw, the official direction of this forum, will not be determined by you.
My opinion is my own and your rhetoric is falling on deaf ears, boy. I see you haven't grown up yet. Well ten year olds are allowed on the forum, with their parents permission, in writing.
So bring it on! Let's see what you have, Mister Little Libertarian.
The official direction of FreeRepublic.Com will be determined by Jim Robinson, the owner of Free Republic and the deliberate creator of the Free Republic Liberty Caucus Forum.
This is his website, and he determines the official direction -- Ron Paul, Murray Sabrin, Republican Liberty Caucus... full steam ahead. You're either on the Train, or you're on the Tracks.
Ron Paul = a Libertarian, forced to run as a Republican. As a Libertarian he can't get elected. Hahahahahahaha
Murry Sabrin = Another Libertarian loser. This time from New Jersey. Hahahahahahaha
Republican Liberty Caucus = Dead On Arrival. Hahahahahahaha
The Train = Lionel, I suspect! Hahahahahahaha
But all the same, Republican Liberty Caucus = one of the official objectives of www.FreeRepublic.Com.
You can smile all you want. Like I said, it will make no diffrence and it will have no impact either. Remember the Libertarian philosophy is DOA! And Free Republic isn't a major force in American politics either. You really need to wake up and get with the program. FR is a great place for conservatives to come and get news and debate fringe extremists like you. This new forum will make it easy to find you Libertarian's, quickly.
And what is all the better, it will make it easy for libertarian-minded Republicans (quite numerous on FR) to stop cutting their political checks to Establishment Republicans like yourself at the RNC, and only direct their contributions to the Liberty Constitutionalist Republicans supported by this website!!
No more blanket checks to the Republican National Committee; it's all about Liberty Republicans now, son. Anything that takes the Republicam Party away from anti-constitutionalists like YOU, and brings it towards pro-constitutionalists like US.. is a good thing.
Every little bit helps.
We can only gain, you can only lose. Which is all to the good!!
I've got more news for you. Get this through your thick skull. There's no such thing as a libertarian-minded Republican. You're either a Republican, or a Libertarian. If you're a Republican, you have a political party and a platform that offers assistence, support and every opportunity for you to win an election. If you're a Libertarian, you have a weak political party and no real chance of winning any election. Just ask harry browne. The RLC and this new forum will change nothing.
You're living in a delusional dream world.
The sooner you understand that the Libertarian philosophy isn't a major player or political force in American politics, the better off you'll be. But first you'll have to return from the outer limits of the twilight zone, were all good Libertarian's dwell. You're irrational exuberance will fade with the passing of time. Enjoy yourself, while it lasts. Which won't be too long.
ESPECIALLY if you are a Pro-Abortion, Pro-Federalist, Pro-Welfare, Anti-Gun, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Constitutional "moderate". The Republican National Committee loves those sorts of "Republicans". They give them tens of millions of dollars a year.
Of course, if you oppose a Covenant with Hell for the sake of "winning", then you'll ditch your support of the Republican National Committee and instead support FreeRepublic.Com's stated and official objective -- to elect Liberty Constitutionalist Republicans.
You can only lose, RM; and we can only gain. And that's all to the good!!
Now you're reverting to outright lies and pure distortions. Typical for a Libertarian loser. I would suggest you read the Republican Party platform and then eat that good portion of crow you've served for yourself.
Conservative Republican's are pro-life, pro-family, pro-military, pro-capitalism, pro second amendment rights and support the Constitution and the BoR.
OTOH, Libertarian's are anti-government, anti-society, anti-military, anti-criminal justice system and they support abortion on demand, prostitution, special rights for homosexuals, drug legalization, open borders and unlimited immigration. Libertarian's have more in common with liberals then they have with any other political philosophy.
Like I keep telling you, Libertarianism is DEAD. You're wasting your time, effort and money supporting this losing political philosophy. But it's you time, effort and money. After thirty years as a political party, the LP has gone absolutely nowhere. Libertarian's are the biggest fools in America. Truly, pathetic creatures.
Exactly why they should support the Republican Liberty Caucus.
After all, the Republican National Party spends tens of millions of dollars a year in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the "pro-life, pro-capitalism, pro-second amendment" agenda.
Sheesh -- Who needs 'em?
Apparently not www.FreeRepublic.Com, I'm happy to say.
We can only gain, you can only lose. Which is all to the good!!
Libertarians: The Enemy Within
by C.J. Carnacchio
When Napoleon was asked upon whom he would most like to wage war, the vertically-challenged dictator replied, My allies. With this in mind I would like to turn my intellectual guns on the libertarians the so-called allies of conservatives.While superficially conservatives and libertarians have a political alliance based on a mutual support of the free market and opposition to the omnipotent State, philosophically we are mortal enemies.
The philosophical war between conservatives and libertarians began two hundred years ago when the first aristocratic French head was placed on a pike as declaration of war to prescriptive society. Libertarians are the disciples of the Enlightenment and staunch supporters of the French Revolution. They are the bastard children of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are the disciples of the eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke. It was his fiery diatribe against the French Revolution, Reflections on the Revolution in France , that gave conservatives their philosophical substance for the next two centuries. Burke railed against the atrocities of the Jacobin revolutionaries as well as Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau, whom he viewed as responsible for the revolution.
Unfortunately, most modern-day conservatives and libertarians are ignorant about this 200 year old quarrel. Most believe the alliance based on superficial common interests is sound political practice. But the conservatives pact with the libertarians has been most harmful to the cause of true conservatism as expounded by Burke. More often than not you hear so-called conservatives constantly singing the praises of the free market and stressing individualism rather than speaking about tradition and the spirit of community. The libertarians have so polluted the intellectual waters of true conservatism with their ideological filth that many conservatives now have trouble distinguishing between the two. In light of this, I would like take this opportunity to remind my fellow conservatives of the extreme philosophical chasms which have always separated conservative man from libertarian beast.
The most fundamental difference between conservatism and libertarianism is one of ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology based upon abstract ideas and doctrines such as the free market, absolute liberty, and radical individualism. The libertarian foolishly believes that if his abstract ingredients are properly mixed within the social cauldron, an earthly utopia will bubble forth.
Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology. Ideology is founded upon abstract ideas which possess no relation to reality, whereas conservatism is founded upon history, tradition, custom, convention, and prescription. As Russell Kirk put it, [C]onservatism...is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at civil social order. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. The conservative puts his faith in the wisdom of his ancestors and the virtue of experience, rather than the abstract jargon of sophisters, calculators, and economists. He knows that there are no simple political formulas to solve all the worlds troubles.
Next, conservatives and libertarians disagree over what binds civil society. Libertarians view civil society as something artificial a dissoluble agreement made to furnish individual self-interest. In their repugnant view, society is a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. Society is merely a machine with interchangeable and separable parts, says the libertarian.
In contrast, the conservative declares that society is not a paltry economic agreement or a mechanical device, it is a spiritual and organic entity. The conservative, imbued with the spirit of Burke, sees society as a partnership between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born a community of souls. Each social contract in each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower and higher natures...
It is not true that the legitimacy of the state is dependent solely upon tacit consent, as the libertarians would have us believe. The social contracts legitimacy is the work of history and traditions which go far beyond any single generation. The present is not free, as political rationalists tell us, to redesign society according to abstract doctrines or theoretical dogma. As Russell Kirk put it, Society is immeasurably more than a political device ... If society is treated as a simple contraption to be managed on mathematical lines, then man will be degraded into something much less than a partner in the immortal contract that unites the dead, the living, and those yet to be born, the bond between God and man.
The next philosophical issue at which conservatives and libertarians cross swords is the concept of liberty. Libertarians believe that liberty is the first priority of any society. But the liberty they value so highly is solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty. Theirs is an abstract liberty divorced from order and virtue. The libertarian views liberty as a good thing in and of itself and constantly strives to maximize it, no matter the cost.
The conservative believes that order is the first priority of society, for it is only within the framework of an enduring social order that a true and lasting liberty may be attained. To the conservative, the only liberty is a liberty connected with order: that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them. When considering the effects of liberty, the conservative hears Burkes words ringing in his ears: The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints.
Individualism is the next battlefield on which conservatives and libertarians slip the dogs of war. Libertarians possess an ideology of individualism which denies that life has any meaning other than the gratification of the ego. They envision a utopia of individualism where man exists for his own sake and human beings are reduced to social atoms. Selfishness is a virtue, says the libertarian.
Conservatives recognize that that basic social unit is not the individual but the group autonomous groups such as family, church, local community, neighborhood, college, the trade union or guild, etc. These groups intermediate between the individual and State and help preserve social order. As Robert Nisbet pointed out, Release man from the context of community and you get not freedom and rights but intolerable aloneness and subjection to demoniac fears and passions. The conservative values the spirit of community and agrees with Marcus Aurelius that, We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet.
Both conservatives and libertarians support the free market economy, but they differ in the degree of their devotion. Many libertarians worship the free market as if it were a religion indeed many have no trouble replacing the cross with a dollar sign. But libertarians do not confine their zeal for the market to the economic arena. They believe the market is an abstract doctrine to be applied to all facets of life and social problems. The libertarians are really just inverted Marxists, who substitute the free market for socialism as not only the dominant economic system but also the overriding social and political influence. Indeed, they are guilty of the same dialectical materialism as Marx.
Conservatives know that society is too complex to be reconstructed according to abstract economic doctrines. They think too highly of man and society to distill everything in existence down to the production and consumption of material goods the nexus of the cash payment is indeed a weak social link. The laws of commerce are no substitute for the laws of convention and the Divine.
In conclusion, libertarianism is as much an anathema to true Burkean conservatism as Marxism and it should be fought against equally as hard. As Russel Kirk once said, Adversity sometimes makes strange bedfellows, but the present successes of conservatives disincline them to lie down, lamblike, with the libertarian lions.
>>>Exactly why they should support the Republican Liberty Caucus.
BS!!! True Conservatism has very little in common with true Libertarianism. See my post at RE:#125. True Conservatives don't support the craven agenda of Libertarianism. You can shout at the top of your lungs, boy, no one is listening to you.
anti-criminal justice system
and they support abortion on demand,
special rights for homosexuals,
open borders and unlimited immigration.
Are you sure that you are, like, an American and stuff? You sure don't sound like one... judging by the Founders of Americanism, anyway.
If your sympathies tend towards the Authoritarianism of King George, why celebrate July 4th?
July 4th is a Worldwide Libertarian Holiday. Every Libertarian Party in the World celebrates July 4th. Why do you celebrate July 4th, hmmm?
Gimme Five reasons. Go. Give it your best shot.
Fine. I challenge you to a "Negation of Ideology" duel.
The first one to advocate forcible control of individuals to accomplish a specific Ideology... LOSES.
"Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology". Your own quote. Your own citation. I am taking up your challenge. The first one to advocate forcible control of individuals to accomplish a specific Ideology... LOSES.
I promise you in advance that, by your own so-called "authorities", I am vastly more Conservative than you.
"Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology". You ready to play, or do you want to just admit Defeat now and make it easy on yourself?
"I, _____, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____ and to the American people, that as their elected representative I will work to: Restore liberty, not restrict it; shrink government, not expand it; reduce taxes, not raise them; abolish programs, not create them; promote the freedom and independence of citizens, not the interference of government in their lives; and observe the limited, enumerated powers of our Constitution, not ignore them."
So far only only 5 congressmen have signed it since March.
Rep. Todd Akin of (R-Missouri)
Rep. Bob Barr of (R-Georgia)
Rep. Jack Kingston of (R-Georgia)
Rep. Pat Toomey of (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tennessee)
You are asking the military question: "What are the risks of a totally conus (continental U.S.) based military with the exception of naval power on the open seas?"
1. Annihilation if an adversary also develops nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Mutual destruction is no solace to me. It's still destruction. Were an enemy to gain a technological or strategic edge, then first strike risks increase. Our presence in other countries enables us to deter through influence and intrigue.
2. Economic disruption.
3. Operations other than open warfare....espionage, industrial espionage, computer attack, civil destabilization, etc.
All of these are enhanced by armies of influence and agents of influence/intrigue on the ground in other locations of the world.
My .05 worth, for what it's worth.
I agree in so many other areas. My disagreements in areas other than defense are more questions on new procedures than they are disagreements with the ideas.
For example, you have Medicare becoming a state program instead of a federal program. Why not get government entirely out of the business EXCEPT FOR QUALITY CONTROL LAWS to see what happens in the market place when providers have to deal directly with consumers.
Um, actually, most of the people you are screaming at and namecalling here have expressed an interest in, and appreciating for, the very topic that Jim Robinson has posted - The RLC. You, on the other hand, have been doing nothing but "moaning and groaning" throughout this thread about the very topic this thread addresses. Are you sure you aren't a Democrat? They are very good at accusing others of the very thing they are doing themselves.
Why don't you stop whining and crying about it ReaganMan, instead of accusing those you are whining and crying to of being whiners and crybabies?
Here, let me insert your response for you:
Oh yeah? Well you are a loser crybaby. Hah hah!! I win the argument, end of debate. Hah hah! If you hate this forum so much, leave! You little man you! You must love abortion. It is so obviously clear from your illogical post above. Politics is a tough game, boy so don't whine and cry. The RLC is full of a bunch of Satanists because I said so. Hah hah, you can't overcome that bit of superior logic boy, so don't even try little man. The debate is over and I won it, crybaby little man!! - Reagan Man
There, I have done a nice ReaganMan post for you to save you some time. Wasn't that nice of me?
Thank you very much for providing this forum.
Are you saying that libertarians are immoral? Or that conservatives are moral? Or both?
We need a little input from you on this thread.
I guess the question then becomes what you think about an organisation who certainly does not support the VAST majority of Republicans in office today. Up to and including GWB. The elected officials and party leaders are completely opposed to almost all of what is in the RLC info which you posted.
Not need to answer, I'm not trying to pick a fight or turn this into a Bush bash session. I'm just making a point and I hope you take my point in the spirit in which it was given.
If our country is to be saved, it won't be saved by the current Republican party. And we will never turn it into a party which will as long as we are scared that by actively opposing them means that Democrats will be elected.
My opinion is that the Republican party has been successfully (and purposely) infiltrated by Democrats and to a large degree they now set the agenda.
If you asked GWB to support even half of what is in the document you provided, he would dismiss you like a school child. Regards, TJ
If the abortion industry weren't tax-subsidized, and if they weren't de facto exempted from criminal investigations, they'd fall on their own. Neutrality doesn't bother me as much as it used to. No funding. And their crimes (which they can't help but commit, by their very nature) aren't ignored. That's a has-teeth combo.
This has been an interesting thread. And, it goes to prove a point I have been trying to make these past few years: There are a lot of people out there who do not understand the concept of Liberty or what the Founding Father's original intent was when they wrote our Constitution -- and they do not know that they do not know. Unfortunately, some of these people also feel that the freedom of others can and should be curtailed by government at the point of a gun.
Part of the problem is they were never taught that the federal government was intended to be one of limited powers. That is, those powers not specifically tasked to the federal government by the Constitution are to be left to the individual States, or to the people collectively. So, for instance, when the federal government wanted to prohibit alcohol consumption, Congress realized that the Constitution gave them no such power. Therefore, they needed to pass a Constitutional amendment first.
There was no such amendment passed for the misdirected war on drugs. Yet, we allow this unconstitutional malfeasance to continue unabated. Sixty or seventy years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told the federal government that it ordinarily may not even try a perpetrator for murder. Except in a very few cases, law enforcement functions belong to the States.
Today, the federal government is so corrupt that it actually takes some law enforcement cases away from the States because federal law provided harsher penalties. Even worse, the federal government sometimes even puts citizens in double jeopardy for the same crime.
And can anyone point to Constructional authorization for those 114 independent federal regulatory agencies that write 50 times more law (rules and regulations) every year than Congress? Of course not! The Constitution states just the opposite, in fact. Read the very first sentence.
In other words, today's federal government has mutated into a government that does pretty much anything it wants, with absolutely no restraints by common sense, the common law or the Constitution.
The fact is, most RLC members believe this is wrong. Totally wrong! And, our goal is to change it.
Our marching orders were written over 200 years ago by folks like Washington, Madison and Jefferson. Along with the Federalist Papers, there are reams of documents explaining how the central government was intended to be operated.
Back then, all of the Founding Fathers supported individual Liberty. The members of the Republican Liberty Caucus do today. That some misguided American citizens do not is neither here nor there. We do and we are banding together to work towards that end.
That debating society known as the Libertarian Party makes some excellent points. To say that many of the Founding Fathers would tend towards libertarian were they alive today is an understatement. The whole concept of our Constitutional form of government is to support individual Liberty and to institute that form of government that would "secure the Blessings of Liberty."
Clearly, we have our work set out for us if we are to educate the people on Liberty. And, this thread tends to demonstrate that perfectly.
There will always be Johnny-One-Note nit-pickers around, of course. Some of that is expected. Our problem, then, is to educate them on where their criticism is best placed.
Unfortunately, there are also so called Republicans who use the Party structure for their own gains and care nothing about Liberty. Obviously, these people are not suitable RLC candidates and need not be advised of our activities.
We are, after all, also working for great changes within the Republican Party. Therefore, as RLC members, one important function is that we also stay active within the Republican Party and make our voices heard in all policy issues.
I shall not get into the abortion debate, except to say that I am in general agreement. However, I find those arguments misplaced here. And, if anyone has not yet realized why, they should return to the top and read this again.
...I shall not get into the abortion debate, except to say that I am in general agreement. However, I find those arguments misplaced here. And, if anyone has not yet realized why, they should return to the top and read this again.
I certainly understand why you think the abortion debate is misplaced in this thread; however, for the very same reason I believe it to be germane. Here's why:
Roe vs. Wade and subsequent supporting decisions from the USSC, as wrongly as they were decided, did make abortion a de facto federal matter, if not de jure. Those sophists in long, black robes turned what was (and still is, by any legal logic) a State issue into a Federal issue by finding a non-existent "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.
There are many reasons to oppose abortion more important than its patent illegallity, all based on morality and ethics, but because the USSC put abortion into the Constitution, the Republican Liberty Caucus [IMO] should have some concern about taking it out, don't you think?
And Jim, thanks for offering this discussion.