Posted on 07/24/2002 2:46:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
By: Douglas Lorenz, RLC National Chairman (1)
There have recently been a number of significant changes in the national Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC). Among the more obvious changes, the National Committee picked a new chairman. Of course, most people haven't heard about this recent change yet, and that is largely because, over time, the national RLC has lost contact with some of its state and local activists. Starting now, that is changing.
The most important function of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to build an organization that helps Liberty-minded Republicans get active in politics. Our goal is to encourage Liberty minded folks to band together within their communities and their states to form RLC chapters. Which means, of course, that we need to make tools available to help people build an organization, recruit members, and get involved in their local campaigns. Towards that end, we plan to establish a communication network that will allow RLC members and chapters to discuss their successes and failures so that we can reach a future where success is commonplace.
The National Board of Directors of the Republican Liberty Caucus recognizes that the real work is done at the state and local levels. It is at the state and local levels where individuals work closely with campaigns, getting votes, influencing policy, and getting Liberty minded Republicans elected to office. Our members need to be involved closely and actively with current campaigns, and we will be encouraging some members to run for office themselves whenever possible. From our point of view, all elected political offices are significant because all elected offices can impact on our Liberty. A lot can be accomplished running for a school board or a city council seat. And, let's face it, today's local leaders are often tomorrow's state and national legislators.
Therefore, we must also be actively involved in Republican Party activities at the state and local level. Republican Party policy needs to be influenced by individuals who hold the real Reagan beliefs that "Government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem". In some states we actually have individuals who claim to be Republican who are fighting to implement state income taxes and other anti-Liberty laws. We have some of these "Republicans in Name Only" or "RINO's" who see nothing wrong in curtailing the very freedoms that make America great. Simply put, the Republican Liberty Caucus does not think that these individuals should be the standard bearers for the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
Simply by making it possible for Liberty minded people to get involved, the Republican Liberty Caucus can and should become the standard bearer of the Republican Party. And, that is where the organization of the national Republican Liberty Caucus becomes important.
While the state organizations are best at battling in the trenches and winning individual campaigns, the national organization can sometimes be better at getting recognition for our efforts. The national Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus can reach out to the media in ways that state chapters often cannot. And the national organization can connect with other Republican groups, issue groups and think tanks in ways that would be inefficient for 50 individual state organizations. With such recognition, other groups and individuals will see our quest to have Liberty minded candidates elected to office as a winning cause, and they will be willing to help us at the state level.
The primary goal of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to help Liberty minded candidates -- those who will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- get elected to office. Our secondary goal is to provide a viable organization that will help Liberty minded Republicans join together to succeed in our primary goal.
Douglas Lorenz is the National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which was formed in 1990 to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty within the Republican Party. He can be reached by e-mail at Doug@Lorenz.Net.
NOTE: The RLC is active in a few States. Most notably are Texas(2), California(3) and Kentucky(4).
According to Scott Jordan, the newly proposed California State Chairman, their chapter is quite active:
"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.
"Under its new leadership, the RLC is coming out swinging to ensure that Liberty principles and Constitutional fidelity prevail in this and future elections. These are the most exciting days yet for the RLC -- check it out."
Texas, of course, has the RLC's first Chairman, Rep. Ron Paul, and other office holders. They already have a slate of candidates ready for this election cycle.
Kentucky RLC helped six out of seven RLC candidates get elected in the last election cycle and is already working on a very impressive slate for this and the next cycle.
4. Mike Moreland at: mrm.bluegill1@insightbb.com
Sure it does. Is not our previous argument the very reason you pinged me here in the first place?
It's not an 'article', it is the official position of the RLC.
You obviously did not read it then, because it is clearly an article by the RLC chairman outlining the goals, successes, and strategies of the RLC to influence the GOP. Your literacy has been in doubt, so let's just say this doesn't help your case very much.
You loudly pass yourself off here as a conservative republican
Loudly? I don't recall myself going into threads anytime recently and randomly proclaiming myself a conservative while simultaneously belittling the conservative credentials of those who disagree with me...Oh wait...That was you who did that.
and I would like your position on their position.
If you were literate you would notice I already answered. The article posted above sets out goals on how the RLC can influence the GOP and especially the RINO problem. I already told you I agree completely and have been fighting the RINO problem in Texas for years.
- A simple enough request, which all your bafflegab bull to date has not answered.
To the contrary, as I did answer. Your low literacy level simply impeded you from reading it seeing as you appear to be plagued with an inability to read sentences that extend beyond about 4 words and that fail to have an abundance of misplaced dashes separating them.
If you are literate, read what I post. If not, learn to read and quit blaming me for your own communication problems.
Then why did you keep telling me to read the article at the top of the thread? You see - it is this kind of thing I am talking about when I say you seem to have a problem with simple communication.
Anyway, on that platform here are my responses and positions:
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
Agree.
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
Agree.
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
Agree, so long as this is taken in the non-marxist LT of V sense.
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
I agree, noting that the Constitution is the supreme doctrine of the government of the land.
1.0 FEDERALISM 1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
Agreed.
2.0 EDUCATION 2.1 The U. S. Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
Agreed and in fact would go so far as to suggest that education should not be provided at public expense on any level.
2.2 Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
Agreed so long as it is their money and not some government handout disguised as a "rebate" etc.
3.0 HEALTH CARE 3.1 Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.
Agreed.
3.2 The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.
Agreed and further support the end of all entitlements.
4.0 TAXATION 4.1 The tax system of the United States should be overhauled.
Agreed.
4.2 There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.
I agree with the last two options. Flat tax is just a softer version of the income tax.
4.3 The capital gains tax should be *eliminated*. 4.4 The inheritance tax should be *eliminated*. 4.5 The new tax system should be implemented *promptly*.
Agreed on all.
5.0 WELFARE 5.1 The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.
Agreed and further believe entitlements should not be given at any level.
5.2 All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families.
Agreed.
6.0 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 6.1 Every American has the right to keep and bear arms. We affirm our support for the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
Strongly agree with.
6.2 All people, regardless of position in the public or private sector, should be held equally accountable under the law. 6.3 The *only* litmus test for Supreme Court or other judges should be their determination to accurately interpret, not amend, the Constitution. Judges have *no* authority to make new law.
Agreed on both.
7.0 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM 7.1 Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers. 7.2 No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members' expressed consent. 7.3 All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated. 7.4 There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.
Agreed on all.
8.0 FEDERAL BUDGET 8.1 There should be an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, provided it includes a supermajority requirement to raise taxes and provided it does not empower the judiciary to unilaterally raise taxes. 8.2 Honest accounting dictates that all federal expenditures should be on budget. 8.3 Each budget should be derived based upon the justification for and needs of each program, with no program being either budgeted for or increased automatically.
Agreed on all
9.0 GOVERNMENT REFORM 9.1 The U. S. Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution. 9.2 The National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution. 9.3 The National Endowment for the Humanities should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution. 9.4 The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution. 9.5 Subsidies to agricultural and other businesses should be eliminated. 9.6 Corporate taxes should be eliminated simultaneously and proportionally with the elimination of subsidies to businesses. 9.7 Recommendations by the Grace Commission and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) should be reviewed and implemented, where possible, beginning immediately. 9.8 Privatization of government assets, management and services should be implemented for cost-effectiveness wherever applicable.
Yes on all.
10.0 TRADE 10.1 The U. S. government should inhibit neither the exportation of U. S. goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
Yes on exports, no on imports as I believe tariffs, though undesirable and though I am in favor of free trade, are nevertheless a legitimate constitutional exercise.
10.2 The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
yes.
11.0 DEFENSE 11.1 U. S. military should be deployed only where there is a clear threat to vital U. S. interests and only with the consent of the U. S. Congress. 11.2 It is the duty of the federal government to provide a system to defend against missile attacks. 11.3 No branch of the military should be put in harm's way without a clear entrance and exit strategy and a goal, which when achieved, constitutes victory. 11.4 U. S military personnel should always be under U. S. command. 11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer. 11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated. 11.7 Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.
Yes on all.
12.0 PROPERTY RIGHTS 12.1 The government should not take private property without just compensation. 12.2 All unconstitutional regulation of private property should be repealed.
Agreed.
13.0 DRUGS 13.1 While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs. 13.2 Per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level. 13.3 All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.
I agree with the stuff about conducting the war on drugs, but strongly oppose legalization of drugs themselves.
The following issue was elsewhere on that link as the RLC position:
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.
I believe very very strongly in the pro-life stance and do not believe it is a position that can be compromised or accomodated to appease the pro-aborts.
Then why did you keep telling me to read the article at the top of the thread? You see - it is this kind of thing I am talking about when I say you seem to have a problem with simple communication.
I didn't write for you to 'read the article'. Follow your own advice and reread my original post. The 'problem' here is you, and always has been.
------------------------
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
I agree, noting that the Constitution is the supreme doctrine of the government of the land.
Weird 'note'.
The constitution is the 'doctrine' of the government?
I doubt you can explain this bizarro distinction, but please, - do try.
Just did and the record of this thread shows you are fibbing.
"Tell me, do you support the RLC 'position', as was posted here by JR?" - tpaine, post 31
Posted "here" by JR is obviously a reference to THIS THREAD which was posted by JR in which appears the article at the top of the page, NOT the platform you were talking about.
It was not until post 42 that you even gave the slightest hint you wanted me to comment on that platform that was on an entirely different thread. I further have not figured out why you would ping me to come here when you wanted me to see another thread. Why not just ping over there? Then again you are not of sound mind so erratic and downright foolish behavior is to be expected as commonplace from you.
The 'problem' here is you, and always has been.
Project all you want, but it still doesn't get you around the serious problem you have with interacting and communicating among other people. Weird 'note'. The constitution is the 'doctrine' of the government? I doubt you can explain this bizarro distinction, but please, - do try.
Only an illiterate such as yourself, or perhaps a leftist, would find such an assertion weird, but since your education is obviously lacking, I do not mind providing you with information on our government system.
The Constitution is the central doctrine of the American government as it was designed to exist, doctrine meaning a body of rules or principlesfor something As the central doctrine of our government it is the main body of rules for our government. It establishes that government's structure, sets out its operation, and provides the limits in which it is to operate.
I agree, noting that the Constitution is the supreme doctrine of the government of the land.
Weird 'note'. The constitution is the 'doctrine' of the government? I doubt you can explain this bizarro distinction, but please, - do try.
I do not mind providing you with information on our government system.
The Constitution is the central doctrine of the American government as it was designed to exist, doctrine meaning a body of rules or principles for something
As the central doctrine of our government it is the main body of rules for our government.
It establishes that government's structure, sets out its operation, and provides the limits in which it is to operate.
-- Thanks.
I must admit, you tried to explain.
And quite laughably failed. I'll give you a 'D' minus, for effort.
Made my day. G'nite.
No you didn't. Here's your exact quote with my emphasis added:
"Tell me, do you support the RLC 'position', as was posted here by JR?" - tpaine, post 31
There's no use hiding from the record of the thread itself, tpaine. So why do you lie about it?
Nah, I simply stated something rational and coherent. You being the irrational, incoherent, and barely literate creature you are simply found yourself unable to handle it, so you responded the only way you know how to do without conceding your own idiocy: you arbitrarily declared it invalid as if your judgment actually meant something.
Then again, you judging my post is something akin to a drunk administering a driving test - only the drunk and you would believe the judgment administered in either to be valid.
No, and I apologize for any inference that it was. The previous post was made in a hurry and I assumed you were referring to 31.
Nevertheless your post #13 was to A.J.Armitage, not me. You made that post after you pinged me in post #11. You did not direct me to that post at any time, nor did you ever indicate that you wished me to respond to the RLC platform. To suggest otherwise would be fibbing.
Now, if reading the RLC platform is what you intended to ask me, you did not communicate it when you first made your request. If it is not what you intended to ask me, you are fibbing now when you claim that it was. Either way the problem remains with you.
Now you're simply in denial. Oh well. Can't say I didn't try to help you.
Go away.
You're the one who pinged me here in the first place.
Now you're simply in denial. Oh well. Can't say I didn't try to help you.
Go away.
You're the one who pinged me here in the first place.
Hot damn! A very elegant solution to the problem you and I have been fussing at for years. As long as the system doesn't co-opt them from the inside, and we can keep the RNC from screwing them over (no funding, no support, etc...) this should work. All it will take is hard work on the part of real conservatives/liberty-minded individuals to hold the RNC party hacks' feet to the fire....
You are arguing with him like a pre-pubescent school girl.
I was surprised to read his responses - and damn if I wasn't happy with them since I saw the rest of your original ping list...
Now, on to the WOD - the biggest destroyer of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
13.0 DRUGS 13.1 While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs. 13.2 Per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level. 13.3 All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.I agree with the stuff about conducting the war on drugs, but strongly oppose legalization of drugs themselves.
Seems to me there is a happy medium where L's, l's and Conservatives can agree. A suggestion for the structure of the drug laws:
Drugs themselves are legal to possess in one's home, and it is legal to sell them, transport them, etc...
- What is illegal is to operate a vehicle while under the influence of the drugs;
- distribute them to anyone under 18;
- commit any crime while under the influence or in possession of the drugs;
- provide health care and medical treatment on the government dime to addicts and those injured by their use of drugs;
- create government-funded treatment programs for dopers
Feel free to add your own - basically the concept is we would all be free to dope ourselves into oblivion as long as we don't commit crimes/injure other people due to our use of drugs and we don't get government money (which is actually OUR money) for drug treatment.
Immediately there would be no need for a WOD and the secret search warrants, asset seizure, roving wiretaps, etc that come with them...
For the record I don't use drugs (except Guiness) and wouldn't if they were legal...
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.