I know that I am the odd man out when I say I could care less about the Jaguars. But given that, you must admit that professional football is a fantasy world where the players (Boselli and a few others noted exceptions) don’t care anything about the town where their team happens to be located. The Jaguars will play here, they will play in Detroit , they will play in Beijing if the money is right. And pro-football aficionados get all excited about it, like they were a college team from their Alma Mammy. This is also the problem with the Republican Party. Put on the uniform and we will cheer for you no matter who you are.

That has to stop. A republican is someone who believes in Liberty and a republican form of government. A republic is a form of government where the majority is constrained from doing things by a written constitution and where representatives (not leaders) are elected by the people, who retain all the power. People who do not ascribe to this philosophy are not Republicans and if they say they are they are lying to you. People who do not support this type of government are not Americans either, because their allegiance is not to the Republic as is constituted. They are the domestic enemies of our Republic referred to in the Constitution and need to be shunned and expelled (preferably bodily) from our party. This includes folks who do not act and vote as if they are Republicans.

Do not be confused if I tell you that the members of the Democratic Party also must support this type of government. We are all republicans because that is the type of government we have established, a republic. There are many issues that Republicans and Democrats can debate and disagree on, and many programs and policies that can be tried and judged on their merits. But the type of government we are going to have is not open to debate. That frankly is a non-negotiable issue for us, a life and death issue. The fact is that both our parties are filled with individuals who have over several decades attempted to transform our republic into a collectivist state. Now at last the call for Liberty is ascending and this will stop. Make no mistake, it’s still “Liberty or Death.”

A life of Liberty is not easy, but it is sweet. There is no Social Security with Liberty ; there is no health care with Liberty ; there are no government loans or bailouts with Liberty . It’s pull yourself up by your bootstraps boys, and oh yes, you get to keep your money if you can earn it. There are no seatbelt laws with Liberty, there are no cameras on every street corner with liberty, there is less crime with Liberty because everyone is heavily armed and the criminals are well…dead. Liberty means being the actual head of your household, and if you can’t hold it together, Liberty means looking to your family, and your neighbors, and your church, because the government is not in the business of being your mama. Liberty means being on your own to do what you want, and sometimes doing the wrong thing and having to pay for it. But in Liberty is also the motivation and the necessity to do great things and that is what makes it sweet.

The good ol’ boys and gals down at the Tea Party are not going to have the wool pulled over their eyes. They know what manure smells like. The GOP cannot go on supporting the socialist, big government buffoons like Peyton, Crist and McCain. Make no mistake, the list is much longer than that. When we say that we are a big tent, inclusive party, it means that we don’t care what religion, sex, or color you are as long as you are for people being left alone to live their lives. That goes for foreign policy too. We can no longer accept villains who want to tax every transaction, and regulate our every movement. The time has come for government to step off or be stepped on. The real republicans in this party are going make it happen, our ranks swelled by those who will not be lied to by power hungry elitists. Screw football. Let’s talk about the issues, let’s talk about what Liberty means and what lengths we are willing to go to for our children to enjoy its fruits.

Louis William Rose is a political philosopher, writer, and the parliamentarian of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida. You can contact him at louisrose@yahoo.com.

E TU REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS?

Mainstream Republicans are starting to notice the Republican Liberty Caucus, RLC. Founded in 1991, during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, the RLC took the stated principles of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft and made them the foundation of their movement. It bills itself as ‘The Conscience of the Republican Party.’

Nineteen ninety one was about the time I stopped my almost continuous 36 year subscription to National Review. It was also about the time I switched my registration to Libertarian after I started having doubts about exactly where the GOP was headed and increasing doubts about the elder Bush’s commitment to smaller government.

After all, the Berlin Wall had fallen and the Iron Curtain had lifted off Europe. So what was the purpose of the huge totalitarian bureaucracy that we’d have to tolerate to defeat international communism that William F. Buckley had told us about? I’d begun to think I’d missed something.

What I, and many like-minded people had missed was the fundamental flaw in the assumptions of the Cold War. We all knew that communism could never match the free market in production. We all knew the Soviet Union was falling far behind us, so how could such a system, mired in bureaucracy, ever truly be a threat to us? Of course, it couldn’t.

The second thing that never occurred to us was what would happen to the military-industrial complex when and if we did defeat international revolutionary socialism. We should have known that bureaucracies never simply folded up their tents and went away. There would always be other justifications for their perpetuation. The military-industrial complex found it in Islamic terrorism.

So I migrated to the Libertarian Party, the Constitutionalists, back to the Libertarians and finally back to the GOP with the candidacy of Ron Paul. In the meantime, I did a lot of thinking and reading. I think there are a lot of people like me.

Now, John McCain, as the 2008 nominee is the head of the Republican Party but that offers no solace. But, I am sticking with the GOP because of the disastrous results of 2008. The Libertarian nominee, Bob Barr, Constitutionalist nominee Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes didn’t even combine for 1% of the vote despite widespread disillusionment with the two main candidates.

So now what do we do? The Barack Obama administration is far more radical that of Bill Clinton, who despite the radicals in his, had a strong commitment to free market principles for new proposals, although he was at least as committed to the perpetuation of the existing bureaucracy. There is no doubt that Barack Obama wants to expand the bureaucracy exponentially. He is far and away, the worst news for individual freedom in American history.

Elections are looming and the RLC has been growing and is flexing its muscles. We are being noticed. When Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, Frank Rich and Ben Stein start criticizing the movement and its titular head, Ron Paul, you know it is scoring some big points.

The RLC was instrumental in toppling Jim Greer, the autocratic Florida Republican State Chairman. Candidates are noticing and currying our support. In Texas, the RLC has endorsed 16 candidates and it has extended its endorsement in 16 others.

For candidates for United States Senate and House, I suggest that we draw up a series of planks that any candidate seeking our endorsement pledge and sign a commitment to work for. Further, every candidate should be made aware that we will be grading them on their performance very frequently during their terms, if elected.

I can see no room for variation in this. They must be held accountable for their actions, once in office and be aware that we are watching them. As M. Stanton Evans, one of the original staffers of National Review said, once elected, an office holder should be viewed as the enemy. Any office holder should be viewed as an enemy of freedom!

I suggest the following list of positions:

• To sponsor legislation to repeal of all the Federal Reserve Acts,
• To sponsor legislation to repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment,
• To sponsor legislation to repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment,
• To sponsor legislation limiting military commitments to 90 days without a declaration of war,
• Irrespective of the outcome of the recently heard, McDonald vs. City of Chicago case, to sponsor legislation defining the Second Amendment as giving the people the right to keep and bear arms and removing the Amendment from the purview of the courts.

These five positions I submit should be regarded as nonnegotiable. Between them, they will help choke out the life of the Washington behemoth and will help bring it to heel. The first two choke it at its trachea. Without money, Washington can’t continue its assault upon the states and citizens.

Numerous observers have noted that the Seventeenth Amendment deprived the states of representation to the federal government. Unmentioned is that it also deprived the states of a mechanism to order the proposal of additional amendments. With state power thus restricted, it helped spawn the unbridled power that is Washington tyranny today.

The fifth is self-explanatory.

To sponsor legislation to either the repeal of the 1947 act that established the Central Intelligence Agency or to transfer its function to the Congress where Congress can reassert its authority over foreign policy as it is supposed to. The President does Congress’ bidding, not the other way around,

To sponsor legislation to end all foreign military involvement within 2 years and the closing of all foreign American military bases within 10 years,

To sponsor legislation reasserting Congress’ authority over the courts by removing certain issues, such as abortion, from court purview and letting them devolve to the individual state,

To sponsor legislation to end every cabinet level position other than Defense, Justice, Treasury and State and to transfer the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to the Department of Defense and to end all of sub-departments of every one of the eliminated department.

Barack Obama is shaping up for the Democrats as worse than a combination of Herbert Hoover, James Carter and George H. W. Bush combined. He is a one-termer for sure.

This is an opportunity to make these next two elections referenda on The Constitution; to force it, front and center, into the debate. In the process, hundreds of thousands of bureaucratic leeches should be sent packing back to their homes.

Everyone displays interest. Even liberal Democrats respond with interest when The Constitution is invoked. This is an educational opportunity of a lifetime.

The vilified Glenn Beck is one of the few, if the only, national radio or TV host who has seen fit to criticize both Democrats and Republicans for their excesses. I have seen him blasted by both conservatives and liberals, which to me means he’s doing something right.

Just last week he featured the World’s Smallest Political Quiz on his program. The quiz gets away from the liberal-conservative, left-right, Democrat-Republican paradigm that has been at the base of just about all political discussion in this country. It was this quiz that showed so many people that they were libertarians, at heart. Libertarian ideas are ascendant.

In a nutshell, I think that if you want to destroy yourself with alcohol, drugs, sex or gambling, you should be free to do it. Just don’t try to turn around and force me to subsidize the disasters that result.

And, you should be free to be a bigot or racist in your own affairs, just so long as you don’t hurt someone else’s physical well being or his property but once more, you’d better be ready to suffer the economic consequences of your actions. If you don’t want to associate with me or anyone else for whatever reason, you will pay a price, directly or indirectly.

And don’t come knocking on my door to send me or my children off to fight your battles. I’ll be ready to defend this country, when an enemy comes here.

Personally, I would be very reluctant to vote for any candidate who wouldn’t sign on to, at least, the first four planks. Washington, D.C. is a hydra-headed monster. The people and Congress must guard their power jealously so that this doesn’t happen again.

These would just be for starters. I am sure that any libertarian could come up with a whole group of others. So, put on your thinking caps, guys. I don’t think we’ll have another chance to save this country.

Several members of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) attended the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) annual meeting January 8th and 9th.  With factors such as the recently announced resignation of RPOF Chair Jim Greer, the growth of the RLC, the emergence of Tea Party movements and the influence of the “We Surround Them” (912) groups, we had high hopes for a new direction for the RPOF.

New opportunities were opened as a result of the anger and energy of these activist groups, and the RPOF state committee recognized this with a resolution to encourage county executive committees to reach out to “Tea Party people.”  This would have given the RPOF a solid boost heading into the 2010 elections.  But they failed to understand that those “Tea Party people” want principled leadership and bottom-up representation, not the party-first top-down mentality currently in place.

At the annual meeting, the RPOF leadership demonstrated that they still don’t get it.  Chairman Greer received a standing ovation from party leadership when he exclaimed at the conclusion of his speech, “It’s about the party, party, party”. The cries heard at a Tea Party or grassroots function, however, are for “principles, principles, principles.”

Rank-and-file Republicans are clearly angry over the unprecedented growth of the federal government in 2009.  They are also disgusted at our Governor Charlie Crist’s display of support for Obama’s stimulus package. Yet, when Crist addressed the RPOF at the meeting, he stated that “Florida needs to get her fair share,” and added that he would “not apologize for supporting the stimulus.” Such a statement would be met with scorn from the majority of voters of the Republican Party and Tea Party attendees, but was met with a standing ovation by party leadership.

The first person to speak on policy was Jeff Kottkamp, candidate for Attorney General. Kottkamp did not talk about reducing the size and scope of government, cutting spending, or removing regulations and encouraging free enterprise.  Instead, he focused his remarks on expanding the Defense and Space industries in Florida.  Grassroots Republicans are pleading for leadership that understands the core issues of fiscal responsibility and limiting the size and scope of government, but RPOF leadership offers only promises to protect special interests.

Most discouraging of all, however, was the apparent coronation of Senator John Thrasher to replace Jim Greer as Chair of the RPOF. In much the same fashion Jim Greer was chosen, the word is that Thrasher had been chosen before the conference call announcing Greer’s resignation had even ended. Many in leadership have rallied around Thrasher because of his ability to raise large sums of money, something the RPOF is in need of. What the RPOF needs more than money, however, is to discover its principles and to get candidates who truly understand those principles elected to office.

A Sign of Hope

In spite of the leadership’s general disconnect with the grassroots, there was a significant sign of hope.  There appears to be some serious resistance to the leadership-led coronation of John Thrasher as the new RPOF Chair. Sharon Day, who currently serves as national committeewoman for Florida, stated that she too is running for RPOF Chair in the election that will take place at the February 20th special meeting in Orlando. “I’m running to give the RPOF members a choice, because there should always be a choice,” Day said when she addressed the state committee Saturday morning.

The RLC applauds those in the RPOF that are supporting the courage of Sharon Day and others that seek to offer a voice to the rank-and-file Republicans. We hope that more in party leadership will stand against the top-down approach taken by many in the RPOF.

-Republican Liberty Caucus Leadership

What is the Big Tent Philosophy that many in politics are espousing today?

With the looming 2010 elections and the recent outcomes of races such as the New York, District 23 congressional race, many are considering what our big tent philosophy should be.

It seem that the “Big Tent” philosophy is a notion that is usually advanced by Democrats and other John McCain types, that Republicans must forsake their conservative and foundational principles, to embrace moderates views, because after all, the moderate can win elections. It seems these types think that this is the only way to be a viable party.

And of course establishment Republicans like Michael Steele, Charlie Crist and others, buy into this argument hook, line and sinker. Steele, for example, constantly feels the need to play down conservative values whenever they begin to define the direction of the party. Often assuring the liberal media that Republicans embrace diversity. In so doing, he allows his opponents to set the terms of the debate.

What does it mean to be a diverse party? Does it mean that in the interest of “diversity” Republicans should nominate candidates who would go to Washington and join the opposition on important legislation? What is the sense of even existing as a political party if you have such lax requirements regarding first principles?

How would you ever differentiate yourself from the opposition? No one expects to agree with any particular candidate on everything.

The question we must answer is where is the line? What issues do conservatives say are their ‘deal breakers’ when it comes to supporting a candidate or staying behind the “party line”?

Reagan had once famously articulated an inclusive philosophy that welcomed all to his party and he was fond of saying things like “somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.” But, even in this case, his inclusiveness had its limitations. Reagan’s contempt for the Rockefeller wing (what would today be called moderate or liberal Republicans) of the GOP was legendary.

So what should the GOP learn from Reagan’s big tent philosophy?

First, he did indeed have a big tent, especially in 1984, which allowed 59% of the electorate to vote for him, but it was a tent of Reagan’s design in which those who disagreed with him had little say about how the tent was constructed, but were welcome to stay anyway.

In Reagan’s big tent, the likes of Arlen Specter would always have been welcomed, so long as they were willing to go along with Reagan, but the moment they stood in the way, and sought to assert their policies on his vision for the party, they were quickly reminded of the underlying philosophy upon which the Reagan Revolution was born. “In politics it is always wise to construct the largest tent possible so long as the foundation of the tent is not compromised”.

Today, the big tent that Reagan stitched together is in disarray, but if its leaders are to return from political oblivion, they’d do well to remember how Reagan went about constructing the tent and the philosophy that swept him, and two weak Republican successors who rode his political coattails into the White House, and built a tent which stands for key principles, yet never fails to welcome those who disagree, as honored guests.

If Republicans want to hold themselves up as a truly viable party then they must not be afraid to heartily embrace some basic principles, as Reagan did. Namely a return to Constitutional values, individual liberties, property rights, low taxation, sound money, sound borders, equal opportunity through hard work and self determination and of course free market principles.

These are not just conservative principles, they are America’s founding principles and there is no bigger tent! When properly articulated these principles are a proven strategy for electoral victory. Those who would try to reinvent the wheel or seek to embrace progressive policies have given up, and accepted the idea of diminishing liberty and the ever expanding administrative state.

The American people have awoken to the fact that there can be no choice between liberty and the incremental destruction of that liberty as offered by so-called moderates who would compromise first principles for political expediency.

Sources:

www. Salon.com

http://www.liberallyconservative.com

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

The concept of voting for the lesser of two evils is prevalent in American politics. This is the philosophy that when given two poor choices for elected office, the people vote for a candidate that they think will do the least amount of damage.

After years of supporting the candidate that always seemed to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, I have started to study this philosophy.

A few questions come to mind when thinking about the best way to cast your vote:

Is a vote for the right candidate, which may in the end, not be able to win, a wasted vote?

Or is a wasted vote one that is cast for someone that you do not believe in, and will not be the right leader for the country or state?

I have found that the ‘lesser of two evils’ philosophy is fundamentally flawed. When a voter chooses to vote for ‘evil’ it is still evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for- they are still choosing a candidate that is inadequate for the job

When one of the options is considered the lesser or the greater evil, either choice will be to the detriment of the Country.

When we as citizens cast our vote for the lesser of two evils, what we are basically saying to the candidates is that we support them. The politicians know this, and the parties know this. They do not need to offer other alternatives because the majority will make the choice for the lesser evil, and they can then continue with business as usual.

The ultimate conclusion that I have reached is that when I am presented with two bad choices, I am not going to vote for the choice I think is “less bad”. Evil is evil, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought – that there is a lesser evil – I would be giving into a false dichotomy.

A common response to this conclusion is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate and therefore at the end of the day pragmatism should win out to idealism. Political pragmatism has its merit as long as decisions are always made from a fundamental set of core principles that are never compromised. Everyone must have a line that cannot be crossed. For example, if you believe that an elected official who supports/votes for authority outside that which is authorized in the Constitution should never be elected, then that is a line that cannot be crossed even in the name of pragmatism.   Each voter needs to know where their line is before determining who they will or will not vote for.

Another common counter argument to not voting for the lesser of two evils is that you have to make a choice when given two poor options, because third party candidates are simply not viable. But as I began to study this philosophy I had a realization: The reality is if all the Americans that felt that they were choosing between two evils, refused to vote for the lesser evil choice, and instead voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election.

With this in mind, in the future, I will encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country and slows progress.  If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo!

By: Kristi Dunn

mskristidunn@gmail.com