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 previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-262 next last
To: the irate magistrate
Well . . . Howdy Irate One! How are things in Bluegrass Country?

Wish I was there. Life is much too busy here -- too much traffic and way too many people. I'm ready to move down to that little Burg on the river we talked about. Just can't right now due to family matters.

Hope y'all keep us well informed about the great results of the Kentucky contingent of the RLC. You guys are what's happening! People need to know that.

151 posted on 07/26/2002 10:32:16 AM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: logos
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?


Generally speaking, yes. However, I fail to see how RLC -- as a club -- can do that. True, many of us would like to do it. But I see no means, method or opportunity here. Part of that will come after educating more people.

And, as part of the whole of that issue, I propose that we work towards making government schools stop teaching deviancy as acceptable behavior to our children. That is something that is doable within the next couple years and most definitely points to the core of the problem.

Meanwhile . . . so many issues, so little time. . . . .

152 posted on 07/26/2002 10:49:19 AM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: radical4capitalism
See the Life Dynamics links on my profile page. It's absolutely astounding that the abortion industry says, and I quote, "That's how they're going to win," and the "Culture of Life" Neville Chamberlains just retreat. Abortionists are scum, and there's no denying it. They're bottom of the barrel, and they're incompetent and manifestly unethical. It takes a vocal oddball (e.g. Brian "clit-flick" Finkel) for anyone to take action, but if the laws were enforced, most, if not all, abortionists would be in jail. Medicaid fraud, etc.,........ Keep your Roe v. Wade, build a shrine to butchery, have Babs Boxer ramble on about the joys of child decapitation.... Doesn't matter a bit, if abortionists are in jail for their recognized crimes, or if the facilities are bankrupted.
153 posted on 07/26/2002 10:58:20 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I am not saying Libertarians are immoral. I am saying they won't take a moral stand.
154 posted on 07/26/2002 11:06:31 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"I am not saying Libertarians are immoral. I am saying they won't take a moral stand."

Explain.

155 posted on 07/26/2002 11:17:41 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
RW wrote: "I am saying they won't take a moral stand."

Oh, I disagree. I am a libertarian and I take many moral positions-- including "Thou shalt not steal". I just happen to think that this commandment applies to the government (income taxes and welfare) and those in power as well.
156 posted on 07/26/2002 11:46:18 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
My intent is to vote out as many Democrats as possible. This means replacing them with Republicans.
157 posted on 07/26/2002 11:47:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I am saying they won't take a moral stand.

So you are saying I won't take a moral stand? You are saying that you are more moral than I am because you say YOU will take a moral stand and I won't?

158 posted on 07/26/2002 12:16:32 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor
Well, actually ...

My first priority would be to make it a requirement that the Federal government stop spending money when there is a budgetary shortfall instead of raising taxes to "cover" the new (and always excessive) spending.

In fact, I'd be willing to help start a movement. I receive a pension. If it would apply to everyone across the board - NO exceptions, NONE - I'd willingly take a 5% cut in my pension. IOW, cut all spending programs - ALL spending programs - 5%.

The only exception would have nothing to do with individuals or their needs, but would be solely contingent upon national defense. After all, war does seem to make a difference. Other than that one exception, cut every item on the federal budget by 5%.

How's that for a plan, eh?

[Of course, this has about as much chance of happening as me adding two inches in height and dropping another 25 pounds in weight...]

159 posted on 07/26/2002 12:25:54 PM PDT by logos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: toenail
You won't declare abortion wrong, etc.
160 posted on 07/26/2002 12:39:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: logos
You make a good point.

George Mason University Professor of Economics Walter Williams writes that the eighteen duties mandated to the federal government by our Constitution would account for approximately just one-third of the federal budget. The other two-thirds of the federal budget is, therefore, "extra-Constitutional" spending -- not authorized functions of the federal government. In other words, two-thirds of the hard earned money we are forced to send to Washington every year is spent by the federal government with no Constitutional authority.

Just as starters, I call for the federal government to display the same type of budgetary responsibility we would expect from a corporation and have a 15% across the board (except military) lay-off. Probably a 10% lay-off for each of the next five years thereafter would tend to bring the budget back in line. It would do a lot to promote Liberty and do a great deal for the economy, too.

161 posted on 07/26/2002 12:47:12 PM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
This means replacing them with Republicans.

That is where you always get hung up Jim. Replacing them with Republicans who are precisely the same (or worse) than the Democrats you are replacing.

Everything you stand for in the RLC info you posted above, is totally undermined by that ONE statement. They will NEVER, EVER do the things that you want in the RLC plan. NEVER, EVER.

Voting for Republicans instead of Democrats even if they are the same, is the most illogical thing you could possibly do. Your hopes are never to be realized with that strategy.

It seems hopeless to get you to change your mind. You are stuck, and they know it. They win, you lose, the country loses. GWB and his ilk are laughing at you. (So are Gephart, Clinton and Dashle) Sad as hell. Regards TJ

162 posted on 07/26/2002 12:49:08 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"You won't declare abortion wrong, etc."

Are you, by the remotest possibility, confusing me with another toenail?

163 posted on 07/26/2002 12:49:33 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Well, it's my choice.
164 posted on 07/26/2002 12:54:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: toenail
I am talking about the Libertarian party, not individual libertarians.
165 posted on 07/26/2002 12:56:05 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Everything you stand for in the RLC info you posted above, is totally undermined by that ONE statement. They will NEVER, EVER do the things that you want in the RLC plan. NEVER, EVER.

I can demonstrate how wrong you are with four simple words about the RLC and its ironclad commitment to the Constitution and liberty:

Ron Paul, Founding Chair
166 posted on 07/26/2002 1:12:20 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Well, it's my choice.

You're right Jim, for now.

If you stay with your strategy, you will wake up one morning, and you won't have any choices left. It's inevitable, your only hope is that it will occur after we are gone. Which of course leaves our kids and grandkids in slavery.

167 posted on 07/26/2002 1:24:53 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
Clearly, you missed my point entirely. You must have missed the context or who I was referring to.

Please reread the whole exchange between JR and myself if you want to understand what I said.

168 posted on 07/26/2002 1:27:14 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor
What a fabulous summation of the RLC's foundational principles. They are, indeed, 100% aligned with the nation's foundational principles as a federation of sovereign states with very limited central powers (e.g. only as allowed by the Constitution). The Federal Government did not create the states-- it was the other way around. This point is lost on probably 90% of Americans today, and that sad fact is fundamental to the steady erosion of our liberty and why it is tolerated by the citizenry.

One thing we must keep in mind is that the march of socialism has benefited greatly from the patience and discipline brought to Marxism by its Fabian and Gramscian believers and their useful tools. Their spirit of patient incrementalism is a strategy that we are well-advised to emulate. The single-issue voters among us should think carefully about that.
169 posted on 07/26/2002 1:45:06 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Well, we'll just have to disagree on this point and let it go at that.
Thanks, Jim
170 posted on 07/26/2002 1:56:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson; Jim Robinson; Doug Fiedor
Clearly, you missed my point entirely. You must have missed the context or who I was referring to. Please reread the whole exchange between JR and myself if you want to understand what I said.

Sorry. Seems to me you specifically stated that the Republicans would not accomplish any of the RLC's goals. In rebuttal, I gave an example of an exemplar of the RLC who is also one of the most vocal Republican Congressmen today. He's the lone voice of the Constitution now, but there are more coming thanks to the RLC's growing influence among patriotic voters who until now have had no voice and no leverage in the latter-day Republican party. The RLC's effectiveness in electing liberty-minded individuals at all levels is detailed in several other examples in this thread. It's exciting stuff!

The key thing to realize is that we are not working to "convert" the RINOs but to wrench the Party towards its foundational small-government, Constitution-respecting original principles by attracting and giving a voice to disaffected voters who are sitting out elections or escaping to third parties. Because when they do so, they either impotently toss their vote away or--worse--elect a Clinton (as in 1992) or give the Senate to a Daschle by squeaking socialists into office by the narrowest of margins (as happened in Washington and New Mexico in 2000).

Meanwhile, RINOs are the way they are because they crave political success. They will adapt as "our side" gains its voice. I hold out little hope that some of the politicians you reference will suddenly sprout credible Constitutional credentials, but they're smart enough to sing along as we steer the chorus.

Frankly, I think you and I agree on at least 90% of the issues. What we seem to not agree-on is the viability of the GOP as a vehicle for liberty-minded candidates who respect the Constitution and foundational principles of the nation. I say emphatically yes to the idea of molding the GOP back to its little-l libertarian roots, and in the thread I just referenced there's abundant evidence supporting that position.
171 posted on 07/26/2002 2:19:50 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I want to thank Jim Robinson for allowiing this partnership with the rlc. I hope that as time goes on, we can both work together in a coalition. Perhaps even we can hold joint conventions. Here in Florida we have the RLC in regional groups. We have the South Florida Regional Group and now the Central Florida regional group. As chair of the Florida RLC I plan to help start a North Florida regional group. I am proud to be in the RLC and work with Free Republic. He philosophy of the RLC is consistent with my own. I came to this country seeking freedom back in 1961 when Castro took over Cuba and I have seen what it is like to lose your rights, property and so on Thanks again for this partnership Jim. Al Gutierrez Chairman Florida RLC .
172 posted on 07/26/2002 3:00:29 PM PDT by alfons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I want to thank Jim Robinson for allowiing this partnership with the rlc. I hope that as time goes on, we can both work together in a coalition. Perhaps even we can hold joint conventions. Here in Florida we have the RLC in regional groups. We have the South Florida Regional Group and now the Central Florida regional group. As chair of the Florida RLC I plan to help start a North Florida regional group. I am proud to be in the RLC and work with Free Republic. He philosophy of the RLC is consistent with my own. I came to this country seeking freedom back in 1961 when Castro took over Cuba and I have seen what it is like to lose your rights, property and so on Thanks again for this partnership Jim. Al Gutierrez Chairman Florida RLC .
173 posted on 07/26/2002 3:03:01 PM PDT by alfons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
One thing we must keep in mind is that the march of socialism has benefited greatly from the patience and discipline brought to Marxism by its Fabian and Gramscian believers and their useful tools. Their spirit of patient incrementalism is a strategy that we are well-advised to emulate. The single-issue voters among us should think carefully about that.


Wow, I haven't even seen the name Gramsci written since I wrote a paper on Italian fascism in high school. Such things were still fresh in people's minds way back then and at least part of the class knew who he was.

Not so anymore, eh? Most people today don't even know what fascism was -- except to know that it wasn't good and they probably don't want any here. That's why they do not recognize that we already have strong tendencies in that direction. Very strong!

Same with socialism. Few Americans realize that there are different types of socialism. In the communist type, government outwardly owns all of the means of production. In the present type, government uses licensing and regulation to tightly control all of the means of production, agriculture, service, and sales. Government regulation, then, becomes the de facto standard for quality and performance and free market competition is greatly diminished. Look to medial care and the automobile industry as prime examples.

Of course, we all know about that part of socialism that concerns the redistribution of wealth. Yet, we tend to accept that simply because most of the nation grew up under that system and cannot imagine how life would be without big government as the nanny.

We have even given up our God to the alter of politically correct socialism. Today's "Christians" sit back in near silence as those on the far left continually defame our most personal beliefs. We have also become so complacent we now allow the socialist controlled government schools to teach our children the acceptance and practice of all sorts of deviant behaviors we know in our hearts to be improper.

The point is, they are winning. They keep the black population in a constant state of agitation against the white. They pit the Jews against the Christians. They protect the belligerents in society, explain away the terrorist helpers and disgrace all of our national heroes.

Most Americans, in turn, sit back and grumble a little, but say protesting is useless. Worse, when some others actually try to make a difference, instead of joining in to help, they make fun of the attempt -- calling it futile and impossible.

Except, it is far from impossible. Give me ten good political activists in each State and I will elect you a president. If we have three or four active RLC groups in each State -- active being the operative word here -- we will have significant change by the next presidential election.

Or, we can just sit back like many people are doing and accept our fate, as determined by that small group that is the socialist controlling force in this society.

Two points are indisputable: The socialists can be stopped by just a handful of good political activists simply because this Liberty thing gets infectious when presented to people properly. And, because the Republican Liberty Caucus is a club, we can also have fun while doing something constructive.

174 posted on 07/26/2002 3:03:48 PM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
There are liobertarians who are Christian who oppose abortion like I do. Look at the Lord Acton Institute for example. That is a Catholic libertarian group. Heck, even in the Libertarian Party you have Libertarian For Life lead by Doris Gordon. Libertarians come from different philosophies or factions but one thing that we have in common is limited government, property rights, strict construction of the Constitution the Supreme Law Of the Land, we are pro second ammendment. There are other Christian Libertarian Groups also.
175 posted on 07/26/2002 3:09:37 PM PDT by alfons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
good stuff
176 posted on 07/26/2002 3:13:12 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
no tom... most of us are just tired of being slammed as "libertines" and "drug addicts" or "smut lovers" over anything that leans towards individualism, self reliance and the like as we see it, under the constitution...

STATISM is a powerful drug to those who dream of utopia made in the likeness of their own ideologies... and INDIVIDUALISM has become anathema to what used to be called conservatism...

177 posted on 07/26/2002 3:18:42 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives"

That is probably true, but who cares? Not me. As soon as you moved that word "social" to the front of any list of qualities, you negated any references to "conservative" that follow. SOCIALISTS will adapt ANY ideology that they can use to move into governing a utopian society ir their UNIQUE and twisted view of it. Even so-called "christians".

The same authority that folks surrender to the feds for one area are WITHOUT exception, used in unexpected ways to our detriment. Abortion should return to being a state regulated issue, as there were far less abortions then, than there are now.

We need to get FEDERAL government out of EVERYTHING but its enumerated powers. It is time to end the illicit affair our residents have had with federalism. It has adulterated the fiduciary rights and responsibilities between sovereign states and their residents.

First degree murder and it's corollaries, are still all defined under regional and state laws. It should be the same for MOST items that have now been federalized... drugs, sex, guns, alcohol, abortion, and so on... WE need to keep them regulated at state and local levels where special interests cannot concentrate their efforts so easily and the electorate lives within driving distance of the legislatures... and leave the big guns of federalism for INTERNATIONAL issues of security, economics and trade...

The founders never envisioned the "interstate commerce" clause being used to regulate such wide ranges of issues as medical proceedures... they were right in that LACK of vision. They just couldn't see it then, and we shouldn't now.




178 posted on 07/26/2002 3:33:57 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
there are a lot of folks that want to see their version of biblical christianity imposed on the rest of us... at a federal level....

THEY say they are socially conservatives... I think what begins with "social" is a socialist world view regardless of what noun or words follow.

The taliban were social conservatives who managed to get THEIR view of the KORAN instituted as laws against their fellow man... It's evil no matter who does it though... and we need to return to such thinking in america.
179 posted on 07/26/2002 3:40:57 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Please cut down on the vitriol...
180 posted on 07/26/2002 4:04:51 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"... it will have no impact either"

I dunno, it seems to be impacting you pretty hard... better watch it, your head might explode, if you get your blood pressure up any higher..

181 posted on 07/26/2002 4:10:23 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor
Good point Doug. The principles of marxism and fascism have been diguised by distorting the language. We use the terms progressive or neoconservative to avoid the stigma associated with the classic titles.
182 posted on 07/27/2002 10:12:03 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

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

The topic must be embarrassing to many people.

Of course it is. Refuting this party's stances requires logic and thought. Something that is in very short supply nowadays.

183 posted on 07/27/2002 10:24:25 AM PDT by riley1992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
God Bless you, JimRob. I remember something in the Bible about a class of people who deigned themselves fit to rule above the people, they called themselves Pharoahs.

Keep up the good work, we love ya!

184 posted on 07/27/2002 5:53:47 PM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
The key thing to realize is that we are not working to "convert" the RINOs but to wrench the Party towards its foundational small-government, Constitution-respecting original principles by attracting and giving a voice to disaffected voters who are sitting out elections or escaping to third parties. Because when they do so, they either impotently toss their vote away or--worse--elect a Clinton (as in 1992) or give the Senate to a Daschle by squeaking socialists into office by the narrowest of margins (as happened in Washington and New Mexico in 2000). Meanwhile, RINOs are the way they are because they crave political success. They will adapt as "our side" gains its voice. I hold out little hope that some of the politicians you reference will suddenly sprout credible Constitutional credentials, but they're smart enough to sing along as we steer the chorus.

Well said!

185 posted on 07/27/2002 7:53:29 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: xzins
At best, then, it's an issue for State Law as to whether or not Militias should be Compulsory, not a Federal prerogative (in fact, it seems to me this would be closer to Original Intent by far). The Federals can call out the "Militia", but the definition thereof is left to the States. ~~~ I agree strongly with the statement in bold. 81 posted on 7/25/02 7:23 PM Pacific by xzins

Fine by me. On Constitutional questions, I am an Anti-Federalist first and foremost; a Libertarian only secondarily.

186 posted on 07/27/2002 9:16:38 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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.

No, no... you misunderstood my question. "Annihilation if an adversary also develops nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction". WHAT Adversary?

If we are not meddling in Foreign Nations' domestic politics, are not basing US Troopse on Foreign Soil, and are not attempting to play "winners and losers" via Foreign Aid policy... then WHAT Nation intends to attack us?

I am all for National Missile Defense as opposed to MAD, but I see that as a simple matter of Principle... always have a Good Defense.

But Principle aside... If we are not basing US Troopse on Foreign Soil, and are not attempting to play "winners and losers" via Foreign Aid policy... then WHAT Nation intends to attack us??

Details, please. Thanks.

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.

Actually, I agree totally; but as an incrementalist political tactic, the RLC favors turning these programs over to the States first (they can then be abolished by those States which are Smart enough and Capitalist enough to recognize the drain on the State Economy).

As I said, Anti-Federalist first, Libertarian second.

187 posted on 07/27/2002 9:27:25 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
But Principle aside... If we are not basing US Troopse on Foreign Soil, and are not attempting to play "winners and losers" via Foreign Aid policy... then WHAT Nation intends to attack us??

I believe it was BenGurion or Meir who said something like, "nations don't have friends; nations have interests."

That nation intends to attack us that has an interest that is advanced by attacking us.

Currently, China is at the top of my list as most lethal. Second is Islam. Third is Russia for its remaining nuclear attack capability. Fourth is N. Korea. The monetary unit, the Euro, signals a new power group that has a huge combined miliatary and extensive nuclear capacity.

Nations have interests. When their interests coincide with a military attack, they WILL attack. Dec 7, 1941.

As you can see, I'm simply not a non-interventionist. I'm a 20+ year career military retiree. Contingency planning is conducted for contingencies.

188 posted on 07/27/2002 9:40:28 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Holy Cow Jim! Your Back! We've missed you - better warn you about some changes have occurred here at FR in your absence. This type of dangerous thought is frowned upon by the Republicans here at FR - might elect a Democrat don'tcha know.

Better put the asbestos underwear on now, 'cause there are a bunch of newbies that will immolate you for this post....

;^)

189 posted on 07/28/2002 4:52:37 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
HAL-

How would that impact upon corporate contributions? Just curious.

190 posted on 07/29/2002 5:53:52 AM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor; logos
The Republican platform contains social directions they wish to see government tend toward. The RLC planks Jim has listed mainly address pure issues of government.

That being evident we need to look to see how the Life Issue applies to the Federal Government and where the current political process went wrong and gave us this unsettled area of great conflict. During the Primary while there was discussion of the planks possible withdrawal, I posted the following Thread/Vanity lead comment:


HERE IS THE PROBLEM AS I SEE IT HOWEVER.

Judge Bork, after losing the nomination for the Supreme Court, wrote a fine short book about the experience and also about the issues that caused the Liberals to rally to his opposition.  That book, The Tempting of America, exhibited the manner in which conservatives should explain their constitutional opposition against Roe v. Wade.  I bring this up because it appears that this issue will be the rally cry of the opposition to Bush (or Pat in the Reform Party) in a way it never was with Reagan.  We must remember that as conservatives of various stripe, we rarely hear the voices of the, so called, moderates.  We listen over their heads, hearing the rabid Pro-Choice activists and gain false confidence that they sound to the electorate as hollow as they do to us.  They don’t; they’ve had their ear on this issue for forty years.

 

Reagan ran in a time where the left and middle voters had no idea that the activist court tradition could ever be reversed.  Their entire concept of legal scholarship at work in our largest law schools had convinced them that the lie of the Living Constitution had been adopted universally.  Hence, little fear of fatherly Reagan on that issue. 

 

Knowledge of the continuation of a fine tradition of Original Intent and a non-activist judiciary was not even on the radar screen of the media and the voters outside the conservative tradition.  Also remember that this was the time of the rising of the Neo-Conservative faction, many of whom, at that time, were laissez faire about the abortion issue, much as many Libertarians are today.  With Bush and the 2000 election, main-stream electorate voter’s now see the Republicans as ready, willing and able to do away with this touchstone decision in a way they never feared that Reagan would, or could.  They will be galvanized with fear by this prospect in a way we are choosing to ignore.

 

As conservatives, wanting to communicate with and convince our fellow citizens, we must understand the context of the moderates’ allegiance to this decision.  It certainly isn’t, in their minds, the support of the ungodly path, the love of the abortionist agenda or the thought of the unborn as worthless.  Arguments and appeals that do not understand their internal context for this decision will never sway them. 

 

Much of our rhetoric is too like Alan Keyes’s sound ethical argument against this vile procedure, and not enough like Judge Bork’s judicial and constitutional opposition.  The ethical and moral battles will be won in peoples’ hearts, not in their elections.  We Conservatives have lost patience too early with the judicial and constitutional arguments and have taken up the ethical and moral cudgel that divides rather than persuades.  With a good group of conservatives on the court and in the legislative offices, that judicial and constitutional argument is the appeal we should be making to the moderates, citizens no less than we, and citizens who are not craven to the issues of our nation’s founding and heritage as embodied in those principles.

 

What then is their internal context for support of the Roe v. Wade decision?  I believe I have the answer.

 

Remember back to the sixties and early seventies; remember when this issue was captured by the activist judges.  Remember that the liberal-left could not win this issue legislatively and so saw their open path to win by the judicial fiat of a court decision, what they could not win in State or Federal legislatures.  Judicial fiat, lacking the legitimacy of legislative compromise, left a festering divide on this issue in a way that the Civil Rights Act and other such issues of the Sixties never did.  How was the appeal made by the liberal-left to the electorate of that day?  What was the context?  I’ll refresh your memory.

 

Unformed reform tradition, of a good and valid conservative context, did not exist and was not given a voice in the major parties.  The sixties were a time when all citizens recognized the injustices that were contextual within our social, business and governmental institutions.  Women, in particular, achieving higher education as never before, began to realize that the vestiges of old cultural traditions were being used to unjustly subjugate them in many ways. 

 

1.)    They did not have equal pay for equal work.  They were of lesser worth.

2.)    They were subjugated by good Judeo-Christian doctrine to a subservient role in marriage that often put them at the mercy of spouses unchecked by the same Judeo-Christian community.

3.)    The paternal medical community, predominately male, held one set of standards for male contraception, disease and behavior, and another for female options.  Women, accepted into the electorate and property holding class were still not “in charge” of their own bodies in a way that any male took for granted.

4.)    Church, social and governmental arguments all tried to free mankind to be “self-actualized” but continued to define and limit the options open to women due to the child-bearing function of their sex.  Well you might be able to practice the rhythm method for avoidance of children this year, if you are married, if your husband goes along, and if you realize that when (not if) it fails you are going to be pregnant and then all society, medicine, spousal and parental forces have an over-riding say in your pregnancy.

 

That is a poorly worded, but memory invoking, context of the world where women and men found the plight of women-kind  in the sixties.  The advent of easy birth control, equal pay provisions and access to fair treatment under marital laws was then all bound up in the last Trump Card condition of pregnancy that spoke its way to the condition of every women and many men of that day.  The activist liberal-left took advantage of that open fear and with the seemingly benign “first trimester” wording of the Roe v. Wade rationalization following the addition of privacy rights into the federal constitution what was never there before.

 

Doing away with the Roe v. Wade decision on the ethical grounds, so clear to many of we conservatives who have thought of this question for decades, will be a terrible uphill fight we may lose, and losing may lose all.  As you can see above, in the moderates’ mind the Roe v. Wade “freedom” (though false) is inexorably tied up in all the reform that moderates feel women have achieved in the last forty years.  Should we not make the fight?  Certainly, we should, but on the legal, constitutional and judicial grounds that Bork used so well.

 

The only appeal that can sway the moderate voter is to our common heritage and respect for the principles we hold in common.

 

1.)    The Constitution has been trivialized by the activist court. They have manufactured false “rights” and remedies that were never intended.

2.)    The nation wrenching division on this issue is due to the status quo being defined by judicial fiat and without the working of our laboratories of democracy, the state governments.

3.)    The first trimester sales job of the proponents of Roe v. Wade is not the test that laws its supported have been held to: Abortion-on-Demand and abortion by tax payer and abortion as contraception have been the goals of the proponents.

4.)    Legitimacy is the goal of all citizens for all of our laws and institutions and that will only be won through legislative prudence at the proper level of government designed to deal with complex issues.  There the issues of rape, incest, abuse and subjugation that lurk in the back of the mind of all moderates can be put to rest, just as the absolutism on our side must be held out for the ethical and moral context and not the complex civil society.

 

Fellow Conservatives, we wanted this context to our campaign and plank in our party(s) we support, but we must wage the fight on the political and legal issues or we will not deserve to win.  Our moral and religious standards, and rigor, we must hold for our own actions or we will never be entrusted with the confidence of the broad electorate.I apologize on the length of the comment required to make my point and while I know there are those who agree and disagree, I would appreciate thoughtful comments.


Now, I think that the Judical Activism aversion of the RLC plays right into this. Legitamacy could have been attained if the Constitutional Process was adhered to-- and it wasn't.

The RLC could have a unity of Pro Life libertarians and conservatives if the issue of the Judicary writing law through Judicial Activism was properly addressed.

191 posted on 07/29/2002 10:22:03 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
OrthodoxPresbyterian writes, "The Commandment is, 'Thou Shalt Not Murder'. Bad Translations do not Good Theology make."

If the translation was "bad," it was by someone who probably knew a h@lluva lot more about ancient Hebrew than you do. (Since the translation, "Thou shalt not kill" apparently first came about circa 420 AD.)

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

From that website:

"Viewed from this perspective, we may appreciate that the translation 'thou shalt not kill' was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root."

"As usual, careful study teaches us that what initially appeared ridiculously obvious is really much more complex than it seemed at first glance. We should be very cautious before passing hasty judgement on apparent bloopers."

OrthodoxPresbyterian also writes: "Defense of Family is not Murder, it is Duty."

Yes, and if and when Quakers ever have the opportunity to fight for "defense of family," we'll see what they do. (Please don't insult post readers' intelligences, by claiming Korea, Vietam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, etc., were wars involving "defense of family"...unless you mean Korean, Vietnamese, Kuwaiti, and Kosovar families.)
192 posted on 07/29/2002 2:33:07 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"I nearly voted Constitution in 2000."

I don't see how anyone who cares about the Constitution, and who saw the "Ethics in Government" debate, could vote for Howard Phillips.

Howard Phillips made the absolutely ridiculous claim that the federal government should be involved in abortion, because of the 5th amendment. His completely ignorant interpretation on that amendment was that it was a restriction on individual actions...rather than a restriction only on federal government actions. His reasoning was that the 5th amendment prohibition on federal government denial of "life...without due process of law," actually constituted a federal prohibition on abortion.

No man so ignorant of the Constitution should be allowed to be President. (But, of course, that would mean that our current President wouldn't qualify.)



193 posted on 07/29/2002 2:43:04 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
"I nearly voted Constitution in 2000." ~~ I don't see how anyone who cares about the Constitution, and who saw the "Ethics in Government" debate, could vote for Howard Phillips.

Because he is neither Bush nor Gore nor Nader nor Buchanan, of course. ;-)

But, in the end, I decided to be intellectually consistent. I am opposed to Abortion because Abortion is Murder; Murder Law is administered by the States; Murder Law is not administered by the Feds. This was Harry Browne's argument, and I found it to be logically sound.

194 posted on 07/29/2002 3:06:32 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
"I say emphatically yes to the idea of molding the GOP back to its little-l libertarian roots,..."

The GOP doesn't have any "little-l libertarian roots!" From its founding with Abraham Lincoln, the GOP has ALWAYS been a party of Big Government. (And don't give me any cr@p about Ronald Reagan being a "little-l libertarian." He was a Big Government conservative.)
195 posted on 07/29/2002 3:12:25 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
I'll go ahead and respect your advice to defer the "thou shalt not kill" debate to the authority of the Hebrew experts, but I am going to reserve in advance that any "expert" who imagines "kill" is used in a universal sense here is obviously wrong -- no matter how many linguistic PhDs on his wall.

The same would apply to thieves (plural), including entire National Armies of marauding thieves. It is Moral for a defender to smite them.

Please don't insult post readers' intelligences, by claiming Korea, Vietam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, etc., were wars involving "defense of family"...

I wouldn't dream of it. On what conceivable theonomic basis do you imagine I could possibly see those Wars as being Biblically justified?

196 posted on 07/29/2002 3:17:50 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Funny. The new HTML architecture saw your "cr@p" and assumed it to be an Email address, helpfully providing you with an Outlook Email link therefrom.

Probably better to just write "crap". ;-) It's a pretty minor curse word by any measure.

197 posted on 07/29/2002 3:19:56 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"But, in the end, I decided to be intellectually consistent. I am opposed to Abortion because Abortion is Murder; Murder Law is administered by the States; Murder Law is not administered by the Feds. This was Harry Browne's argument, and I found it to be logically sound."

That's just it. In every case (that I know of) where Constitution Party positions don't coincide with Libertarian Party positions (and the two parties DO agree, much more than any others)...the Constitution Party positions are...unconstitutional!

As mentioned, the Constitution Party would get the federal government involved in criminalizing abortion (in violation of the 10th amendment).

They'd "help" states keep illegal drugs out of their borders, if the states so desired. (Presumably, they'd allow states that didn't have laws against drugs to get drugs in from across their borders? This wasn't very clear to me...) But the federal government's enforcing prohibitions on drugs going into only those states that have laws against drugs is hardly for the "general welfare". (Why would a state that doesn't have laws against drugs want to pay to protect another state's borders from drugs?)

They'd "take back" the Panama Canal...but that's federal land outside of the District of Columbia and federal "forts"...so it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own that land.

I'm sure--although I never heard it mentioned--that they'd support a FEDERAL ban on RU-486...again, in violation of the 10th amendment.

Don't get me wrong: I strongly encourage everyone to vote Constitution, in preference to Republicans (except if they're in Ron Paul's district, of course). But, at least at the federal level, the Constitution Party doesn't follow the Constitution the way Libertarians do.
198 posted on 07/29/2002 3:27:08 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"I'll go ahead and respect your advice to defer the 'thou shalt not kill' debate to the authority of the Hebrew experts, but I am going to reserve in advance that any "expert" who imagines "kill" is used in a universal sense here is obviously wrong -- no matter how many linguistic PhDs on his wall."

Looks like you're basically not deferring anything, then. :-) But not being a Christian myself, I personally don't care what y'all (Southern expression ;-)) decide.

My basic point was to take the edge off of your criticism. "Thou shalt not kill," as opposed to, "Thou shalt not murder," is apparently a matter worthy of scholarly debate. I don't think it's appropriate for you to ridicule the Quakers if they agree with other scholars. (You can, obviously, disagree. But I don't think you should ridicule.) But then again, I'm not obviously not a Quaker, so...make all the fun you want. ;-)

"I wouldn't dream of it. On what conceivable theonomic basis do you imagine I could possibly see those Wars as being Biblically justified?"

Again, not being a Christian, I have no idea how y'all justify things. But I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who could come up with *some* explanation why those wars were Biblically justified. Heck of a lot of Christians fought in them. (Not many Quakers, though. ;-))

Gotta go. Nice chatting with you. (But lay off the Quakers. ;-))
199 posted on 07/29/2002 3:39:14 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Reagan represented a "step in the right direction" and a thorough repudiation of the impotent weakness of 1980's alternative, Jimmy Carter.

As I commented earlier in the thread, the socialists have a very effective model in their patient incrementalism. It's taken them a few decades, but inch-by-inch they've achieved just about every vision in the socio-fascist dream.

We pro-liberty/Constitution-respecting voters are wise to adopt a similar stepwise approach, ratcheting the nation back towards the Constitution stepwise as we can and by leaps when circumstances allow. The RLC is the fulcrum which can make this happen--hell, is making this happen--by attracting disaffected non-voters to a Party which at least nominally stands for small government and individual liberty.

We aim to make that a reality. And in this thread we have presented numerous examples of how that is proving out in the real world, with RLC-supported candidates getting nominated and earning election across the nation. There's more where that came from.
200 posted on 07/29/2002 4:49:03 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-262 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