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

Skip to comments.

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

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-262 next last
The above is from the RLC.org website: http://www.rlc.org/repository/sites/8C1DE156-A0E3-11D4-9EF8-00D0B747343B/file/8C1DE156-A0E3-11D4-9EF8-00D0B747343B__2001510_00006.htm
1 posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

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

Quoted from the Republican Liberty Caucus News thread posted earlier:

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

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

To: Jim Robinson
Ahhhh, but theres the rub.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: Jim Robinson
Right on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The topic must be embarrassing to many people.

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

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

To: Jim Robinson
What's up Jim?

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

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

What is the RLC's position on abortion?

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

Neutral?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-262 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