Free Republic

I don't support the gay agenda, but this "Rev." Louis Sheldon and the TVC are completely vacuous entities. Attempting to override the Constitution and institute a narrow religious agenda is fairly hostile to my concept of freedom.

-Rad

ReaganMan:
What I meant by "blind" flag-waving, was that in your rush to to show your patriotism, you're forgetting to ascertain that our liberties aren't trying to creep out the back door, with a little coaxing from Uncle Sam.
As for Reagan and the WoD...yes, I realize Reagan was anti-Drug. *I* am anti-drug. Reagan have every right to use the argument of moral suasion in order to prevent drug abuse. In that regard, I respect him, because he had the courage to lead.
However, I think you'll find that the WoD was just as much a Democrat brain child, especially since the Dems controlled the purse strings throughout the administration.
I abhor drug use. However, we're waging a losing fight and wasting vast amounts of tax dollars in the process. It really should be an issue of individual responsibility.

-Rad

Reagan Man:
Although I don't agree with Harry Browne's assessment of President Bush, you'll forgive me if I grow nauseous at your seemingly blinded flag-waving.
I find restricting civil liberties to be very unpatriotic. And so would any good conservative. I think Bush's FreedomCorps is complete socialism.
I am glad, however, that he's seeking to annihilate freedom's sworn enemies.
Pete Krembs

This is exactly why the LP will never be taken seriously...and why they simply will never elect anyone to a position higher than Dogcatcher.
I for one support the War on Terror (although not EVERY aspect...esp. the PATRIOT Act, etc.).
Browne makes some good points, though. Bush HAS been wobbly lately, and has been taken to task even by members of his own party, like Dick Armey and Rush Limbaugh.

Pete Krembs
RLC-GA

Once again, ReaganMan, you totally miss the point. Reagan opposed the draft, on principle. And, apparently, he had certain principled objections to the War on Drugs. You claim that Reagan actually increased funding on the War on Drugs by massive proportions. Yet the purse-strings during his administration were controlled by the Demonrats in the House. You can't give him all the credit!
Secondly, you've consistently failed to point out WHERE, exactly, the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to conduct the War on Drugs. Congressional statutes don't cut it, since most of them are unconstitutional anyway. Are we libertarians missing something here?
Finally, you, ReaganMan, aren't much of a conservative if you're willing to support the use of government edicts in our personal and private lives. The REAL conservative--being for less government-- is willing to adopt a strategy of moral suasion to combat perceived social ills. That's the view I hold on the subject...and it's by far the conservative one.

Peter Krembs
Chairman
RLC-GA
http://www.GOPLiberty.org

Reagan Man:
On what basis do you (and the rest of the mob) have in regulating what goes on in the privacy of my own home? Where does the Constitution authorize the federal War on Drugs?
Washington and Jefferson grew large amounts of hemp-- enough for them to be labeled as Drug Kingpins by today's standards. Were they criminals for doing so?

Peter Krembs
Chairman
RLC-GA

Mr Paulson
Agreed. The RLC is trying to do something about that.

Pete Krembs
Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia

Reagan Man wrote:
"Sorry to disappoint you. I'm a Reagan conservative and a life long Republican."

I find it hard to believe that Ronald Reagan would of supported a citizen-spy network (TIPs). My guess is, since he was such a staunch anti-communist, he would of recognized it as a totalitarian policy.
Can you show us, ReaganMan, where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to create a citizen-spy program? Maybe I missed something.

Pete Krembs
Chairman
RLC-GA
http://www.GOPLiberty.org

Reagan Man:
I have neither the time nor the desire to get into a long, extended debate with you over the merits and principles of the the RLC or Ronald Reagan. Suffice it to say that your interpretation of Reagan as some great "Biblical" Republican are unfounded. While he was Governor of California, Reagan revealed his civil libertarian side when he publicly opposed an anti-gay ballot proposition. Reagan was also a staunch supporter of free-market capitalism, much to the chagrin of liberals and Democrats. In my mind, Reagan's political qualities can be considered libertarian in nature. By the way-- libertarians have been accused of being anarchists, but these charges are completely unfounded. Reagan was correct: true libertarianism is essentially true conservativism. Of course, Religious Righters will disagree, and that is their perogative.

Regards,
Pete Krembs
State Chairman

Although I won't be attending the convention because of time conflicts, I have announced that I will be seeking election as an Alternate to the National Committee.
My best wishes to the convention attendees and the RLC!

Peter Krembs
State Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia
http://www.GOPLiberty.org

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.

I do not believe that an animal's life is more important than that of a human's (as the ecowhackjobs would have us believe), but that does not entitle us to mercilessly torture animals for our pleasure, as it seems to have been done here.
The aggravating factor here is that the animal belonged to someone else, which amounts to theft/destruction of property. The felony charges were justified.

Excellent post, Doug. It's a shame that many "conservatives" go around invoking Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers to support completely unconstitutional garbage like the PATRIOT Act and prohibiting flag burning.

-Pete Krembs

Excellent post, Doug. It's a shame that many "conservatives" go around invoking Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers to support completely unconstitutional garbage like the PATRIOT Act and prohibiting flag burning.

-Pete Krembs

toenail wrote: "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."

That's an excellent point, toenail. Of course, the RLC is adamantly opposed to any form of taxpayer subsidies for abortions.
-Pete Krembs

Reagan Man wrote:
"This is just more anti-government rhetoric from the hero of the libertarians."
He is a hero to many of us. Is there anything he's saying that is untruthful, though?
"These current attempts by Paul, to undermine the Bush administrations efforts to fight terrorism..."
If opposing the TIPs (aka, the Nazi on every corner program) indicates that one is attempting to "undermine" the Bush administration, I guess I am guilty. And so is Dick Armey. And so is the National Review.
"The Patriot Act was passed in non-partisan fashion and gives law enforcement agencies, the required latitude to hunt down and bring to justice criminals and terrorists who want to bring death and destruction to our great nation.
Very little of the PATRIOT Act could be considered patriotic. What's patriotic about eroding judicial checks on wiretapping?
"He would be better served if he became a Democrat."
Applying that statement accurately would require Dick Armey to become a Democrat as well. Can you handle freedom? Do you know that Reagan was essentially a libertarian?
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."-- Ronald Reagan

Although the RLC is officially neutral on the question of abortion, I would venture to say that the vast majority of RLCers are pro-life. I myself am very prolife, and I see no conflict or dichotomy with participating in an organization that is neutral on the issue.
I believe that abortion is not and should not be a litmus test for participation in the RLC. Our end goal here is smaller government, and more individual freedom.
For more info on the principled, libertarian position on abortion, visit Libertarians for Life:
http://www.L4L.org

Hal wrote
"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."
Why shouldn't individuals and groups of individuals (corporations) be free to give to whomever they wish, whenever they wish? Obviously, resident aliens and foreigners should be excluded.
-Pete