If the American intervention into Libya’s civil war was puzzling beforehand, the president’s inability to coherently explain it during his address to the nation only made things murkier.

But if there is one thing this entire situation has reinforced, it is that the foreign policy agenda erroneously passed off as conservatism during the Bush years was anything but. After all, the language used by Barack Obama to justify his attack on Libya was unmistakably similar to George Bush’s reasoning for going into Iraq.

Conservatives who dismissed criticism of Republican foreign policy during the mid-2000’s as dissent voiced only by disenchanted left-liberals might now be thinking there was more to these critiques than they were willing to admit. In fact, the foreign policy positions taken by many of the Bush Republicans resulted in the U.S. military’s role being viewed as one of “spreading democracy” around the globe, a notion not rooted in our history and an idea historically associated with the American Left. This idea had nothing to do with conservatism, but amazingly was passed off as such during the post 9/11 years. If more Republicans do not wake up from this mind set, the United States will ensure its bankruptcy and currency collapse sooner rather than later.

In years past, it became conventional wisdom that most liberals were rhetorically opposed to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while conservatives were expected to fully support them. This much was apparent.

Anyone questioning the cost or wisdom of two simultaneous Middle East occupations was written off as a “liberal” no matter how impressive their small government credentials. In hindsight, this simply made no sense; true, many on the Left did oppose Bush’s foreign policy, but that was based on the simple fact that it was Bush’s foreign policy. And the conservatives who unflinchingly supported the Iraq occupation and mission creep in Afghanistan largely did so out of a commitment to the administration, not because the installation of democracy in the Middle East was some longstanding goal of American conservatism or something they particularly were dogmatic about.

The degree to which so many otherwise intellectually curious conservatives were willing to dismiss facts and shut down critical thinking skills was truly disappointing. That they were so willing to do so was illustrative of a movement which had lost touch with its intellectual moorings, damaged largely by a blinding hatred of Bill Clinton in the 1990s which led to the embracing of a president ungrounded in his political philosophy in the 2000s.

Equating conservatism with ambitious nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan caused confusion over what the ideology even stood for. Attempting to install a democracy overseas and rebuild the fabric of a society from the top down are actions requiring an autocratic, centralized government to have any hope of success. Liberals would be the natural allies of such attempts due to their willingness to embrace Orwellian bureaucratic planning and the lack of aversion they show to using government for drastic societal change. Conservatives have generally understood that civil society must develop organically, naturally recoiling at ambitious projects with hefty price tags.

But the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush years, as both sides selected their positions based primarily on which party was in power. The relative silence of many anti-war groups after the election of Barack Obama showed their agenda had much more to do with electing a Democratic president than with ending any particular war; the only wars the Left seems to oppose are those started by a Republican or not given the U.N.’s stamp of approval.

And each side’s view of the particular war we happen to be involving ourselves in at the moment is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Evidence of this is ample: many of the same conservatives who denounced Bill Clinton’s humanitarian Kosovo operation were either silent on or vocally supportive of  intervention done largely on the same grounds in Iraq; before being opposed to such a policy once again when done in Libya.

These contradictions occur because the positions taken on so many foreign policy questions are not done out of any underlying principle, but simply result from partisan cheer-leading.

When Republicans passed the ruinous Medicare Part D expansion, the same ‘conservative’ commentators who would have been howling nonstop had it  been a Democratic initiative were comparatively silent. We heard warnings of “socialism” for a solid year during the debate over Obama’s health plan, but George Bush’s own foray into governmental health care involvement was treated with kid gloves.

Scenarios like this one paint a clear picture of how partisanship for sport creates an obvious and self-perpetuating double standard. After all, both sides can always finger point and decry the other side’s hypocrisy to justify their own hypocrisy; this vicious cycle, though financially lucrative for television and radio hosts, has been ruinous to conservatism and deleterious for the country at large.

Any impartial observer should have two eyebrows raised by Obama’s willingness to continue Bush’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric. This should make it clear there was never anything inherently conservative about it to begin with. In fact, liberal internationalism was what was on display during the foreign policy of the Bush years, not the non-interventionism fostered by true, prudent conservatism. Barack Obama genuinely believes the federal government can and should be used to help people in spite of how much debt it rings up or abysmal its track record. So of course he sees nothing odd about intervening in Libya; indeed, his entire philosophy is predicated on government action.

Frankly, Barack Obama’s public policies were more similar to that of his predecessor than those with partisan blinders on would care to admit, and, viewed through this lens, our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan actually repudiated the very centralization of government power conservatives are taught to abhor.

Those in the Tea Party confessing concern about our budget can no longer be intimidated into unquestioning acceptance of the foreign policy status quo. Americans have repeatedly rejected the ideology which demonized anyone who questioned our overseas policies, and the skittishness which greeted the Libyan intervention further underscored this. The same kind of thinking that gives birth to our costly welfare state at home only causes more difficulty for our country overseas when carried to fruition on an international scale.

It is always fascinating to hear a longing expressed for the American government to rekindle the sort of unity it displayed after 9/11. That this statement is often mouthed by self-described conservatives is disturbing to say the least. For years after the September 11th attacks, Republicans have cynically played the “national security” trump card to ensure their own version of raw government power was able to be unquestionably wielded.

Despite denouncing Democrats for instituting their nanny state measures and own version of draconian intervention by the State into our private lives, post-9/11 Republicans were more than happy to embrace drastic police state measures which torched constitutional protections as much as any handout promoted by a liberal politician. On domestic policy, Democrat politicians never failed to capitalize on each heart wrenching story of the uninsured to make the case for universal health coverage. But on foreign policy, Republicans, particularly those carrying the banner of the militaristic, post-9/11 brand, were just as willing to trot out some injustice needing correction by the federal government. But in their version of conservative statism, this manifested itself in the form of a select dictator that needed toppling or some country which needed the entire fabric of its society to be uprooted; to make it safe for “democracy,” of course. Even worse, the police state conservatism that reared its unwanted head following September 11th was not content to simply invade and socially engineer foreign lands; occupations which illustrated that many Republicans forgot that government intervention overseas ends with the same unpredictable results which intervention at home causes.

Ranking as one of its most heinous contributions, the state of apprehension that defined our daily lives in late 2001 and early 2002 produced its crowning domestic achievement with the Orwellian named “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” The Patriot Act, for us common folk.

If not for the fearful environment that understandably descended on America after the 9/11 attacks, such a behemoth piece of legislation would never have been accepted by American’s normally vigilant citizens. The same outrage which was shown towards the Obamacare health care monstrosity should have been meted out towards this bill, but, in typical Rahm Emanuel fashion, the previous administration was unwilling to let a crisis “go to waste.” Reflecting on an atmosphere where too many Americans were willing to accept massive government intrusions into their private lives in exchange for feeling “safe,” it is curious that so many conservatives often make positive statements when reflecting on this time in our history.

The recent uprising among House Republicans which temporarily blocked extension of several of the Patriot Act’s key provisions would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. But the mind set is changing, as our current Tea Party atmosphere has caused many conservatives to realize that battling unbridled government intervention is critical in both the domestic and overseas sphere. Simply attaching the word “terrorism” or “national security” to legislation is no longer enough to placate conservatives who were previously willing to excuse massive excesses when these phrases were included. No longer willing to be bullied by the GOP leadership into accepting restrictions on privacy for some imprecise promise of safety, insurgent constitutional conservatives are slowly taking back the definition of conservatism.

This mantle was seized by a network of overtly militaristic Congressmen and Senators in the post-9/11 confusion, whose actions made many equate saber rattling and unproductive jingoism with being a “conservative.” But in the days of record debt and a born again interest in finding out what the government actually is and is not allowed to do, the authoritarian conservatism that arose after 9/11 is in its final throes. A return to a Barry Goldwater-style, traditional Republicanism that emphasis liberty over fear and freedom over falsehoods is emerging, and it could not come a moment too soon.

Restricting the national conversation to tax cuts effectively prevents any real fiscal reform from ever happening on Capitol Hill. That’s because cutting taxes without cutting spending isn’t really cutting taxes at all. It’s deferring taxes to the future.

Imagine yourself in financial trouble, worrying over how much of your expenses you should pay with cash and how much you should pay with credit cards, but you never even consider reducing your expenses. The “debate” over tax cuts in recent months is about that absurd.

Please find out why by reading the rest of my article at CAIVN.

Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Joe Wilson, and Other GOP “Heroes” are “Zeros” on Private Enterprise and Limited Government

According to Forbes, the United States racked up a $1.29 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2010. Generally speaking, the slight decline in 2010 is due to somewhat higher tax receipts (up 2.7%) and slightly less spending (down 1.8%).

The Government Accountability Office projects that by the end of this decade, the vast majority of all federal tax revenue will be swallowed up by just four things: Interest payments on the country’s debt, and the payment of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

Now Republicans are talking about the problem of the debt and the deficit. But who was it that voted for the Wall Street Bailout under the Bush Administration? Bush’s Wall Street Bailout passed both houses on October 4, 2008. Republican House members who voted for the bailout are as follows. Keep them in mind this November.

Rodney Alexander. R-La.
Spencer Bachus, R-La.
J. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C.
Judy Biggert, R-Ill.
Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
John Boehner, R-Ohio
Jo Bonner, R-Ala.
John Boozman, R-Ark.
Charles Boustany, R-La.
Kevin Brady, R-Texas
Henry Brown, R-S.C.
Vern Buchanan, Fla.
Ken Calvert, R-Calif.
Dave Camp, R-Mich.
John Campbell, R-Calif.
Chris Cannon, R-Utah
Eric Cantor, R-Va.
Mike Castle, R-D.E.
Howard Coble, R-N.C.
Tom Cole, R-Okla.
Mike Conaway, R-Texas
Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla.
Barbara Cubin, R-Wy.
Tom Davis, R-Va.
Charlie Dent, R-Pa.
David Dreier, R-Calif.
Vern Ehlers, R-Mich.
Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.
Terry Everett, R-Ala.
Mary Fallin, R-Okla.
Mike Ferguson, R-N.J.
Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.
Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.
Jim Gerlach, R-N.J.
Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.
Kay Granger, R-Texas
Wally Herger, R-Calif.
David Hobson, R-Ohio
Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Bob Inglis, R-S.C.
Peter King, R-NY
Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
John Kline, R-Minn.
Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich.
Randy Kuhl, R-N.Y
Ray LaHood, R-Ill.
Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
Ron Lewis, R-Ky.
Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.
Mary Mack, R-Calif.
Jim McCrery, R-La.
John McHugh, R-N.Y.
Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
Gary Miller, R-Calif.
Sue Myrick, R-N.C.
John Peterson, R-Pa.
Chip Pickering, R-Miss.
Jon Porter, R-Nev.
Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio
Adam Putnam, R-Fla.
George Radanovich, R-Calif.
Jim Ramstad, R-Minn.
Ralph Regula, R-Ohio
Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y.
Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
Hal Rogers, R-Ky.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
Jim Saxton, R-N.J.
Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio
Pete Sessions, R-Texas
John Shadegg, R-Ariz.
Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Bill Shuster, R-Pa.
Michael Simpson, R-Idaho
Lamar Smith, R-Texas
Mark Souder, R-Ind.
John Sullivan, R-Okla.
Tom Tancredo, R-Col.
Lee Terry, R-Neb.
Mac Thornberry, R-Texas
Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio
Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Greg Walden, R-Oregon
James Walsh, R-N.Y.
Zachary Wamp, R-Tenn.
Dave Weldon, R-Fla.
Jerry Weller, R-Ill.
Heather Wilson, R-N.M.
Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
Frank Wolf, R-Va.

Republicans in the Senate who voted for the bailout:

Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
Bob Bennett, R-Utah
Christopher Bond, R-Mo.
Richard Burr, R-N.C.
Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Susan Collins, R-Maine
Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
John Cornyn, R-Texas
Larry Craig, R-Idaho
Pete Domenici, R-N.M.
John Ensign, R-Nev.
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
Judd Gregg, R-N.H
Charles Hagel, R-Neb.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Kay Hutchison, R-Texas
John Isakson, R-Ga.
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Mel Martinez, R-Fla.
John McCain, R-Ariz.
Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
John Sununu, R-N.H.
John Thune, R-S.D.
George Voinovich, R-Ohio
John Warner, R-Va.

Many Ron Paul supporters find themselves at odds with the Republican Party over the issue of American involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ron Paul they believe that wars of occupation and nation building are unconstitutional and they cannot understand why Republicans who claim to share their belief in the Constitution support those wars.

They make the same mistake that Ron Paul himself did when he attacked Rudy Giuliani over this issue in the first presidential debate of 2008. They make themselves look anti-Republican and even anti-American because they do not understand the perspective of many traditional Republicans or the basis on which those Republicans find themselves supporting these wars.

Then the battle-lines are drawn up and both sides become entrenched in their ideology without trying to understand each others’ perspective. The Ron Paul supporters become convinced that traditional Republicans are a bunch of pro-war “neocons” and more mainstream Republicans get the idea that Ron Paul supporters are radical, anti-American peaceniks, when the truth is that neither perception is even close to accurate.

While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason.

They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government.

Despite its inherently irrational nature, this would be an understandable and even excusable position for them to take if the government of the United States were, in fact, the government which we are supposed to have under the Constitution and if the government still followed the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers. If that were the case and the government entered into a war, then it would be impossible for that war not to be undertaken justly and it would be traitorous to oppose it.

Most Republicans act on the assumption that we still live under a government which operates legitimately and constitutionally and that is the basis for their outrage with those who oppose the government’s actions. They are not awakened to how far we have drifted from legitimate, American-style, constitutional government and they are still acting on the mistaken assumption that we have the government which we ought to have and that its actions are legitimate on that basis.

So if you are a Ron Paul style constitutionalist, don’t make the mistake of calling other Republicans “neocons” or warmongers just because they defend the nation’s actions even when you believe those actions are wrong. From their perspective that makes you a traitor and an enemy of the Constitution, because all they see is that you are attacking the Republic, not the reasoning behind your actions.

You can’t change the perception that the government is good by attacking the government because those who still believe the government is good will turn against you. It’s kind of a catch-22 situation.

You need to convince them not that our government is bad, but that the government we have is effectively not our government at all. You can do this by laying out for them what government ought to be under the Constitution and then let them see for themselves the shortcomings of government as it is compared to government as it should be.

The fact that the Democrats are in power also presents a valuable opportunity, because Republicans of all varieties are willing to believe that Democrats and their policies are evil. So if you go after big government and its excesses as products of Democrat policy you can get your foot in the door very easily.

It’s a short trip from condemning the actions of Obama and the Democrats to realizing that those actions are wrong even when they are the actions of Republicans. Patriotic Republicans who would never question the actions of their government under other circumstances will quickly change their tune when they are perceived to be the actions of Democrats or even of Republicans who are acting like Democrats.

Before you can even begin to discuss the war with them you need to lay this sort of groundwork and make them aware that our government is no longer operating on Constitutional principles. That is where you really disagree and once you resolve that disagreement by educating them, then the secondary issues of war and nation building and the tyranny of the security state will become ones on which you will soon find common ground.

When they understand that you are defending the Republic as it ought to be rather than attacking the Republic as it is they will understand that you are allies, not enemies.

by Aaron Biterman

A headline in this week’s Tampa Tribune is titled “GOP infighting shakes party”. The article talks about a familiar 2009 theme: “An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status,” says author William March.

No state has more of a fight on its hands than Florida, where Republican Party Chair Jim Greer has, no doubt, acted illegally to prop up his favorite candidates and help his friends defeat his enemies.  This was already clear when Greer had his cronies boot Republican Liberty Caucus members from the party in September. Now there are increasingly vocal calls for Greer to resign as party boss.

In Florida, State Senator Paula Dockery is challenging Attorney General Bill McCollum for the Republican nomination for Governor and Senator Carey Baker is challenging U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam in the primary for Florida Agriculture Commissioner. Both Dockery and Baker are more conservative than their moderate and establishment opponents. RLC members are supporting Dockery and Baker.

The reason that governorship is open, of course, is that Charlie Crist is running to become Florida’s junior U.S. Senator. Crist faces opposition from Marco Rubio — who has been endorsed by Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund — and former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith.

But, never fear, the National Republican Senator Committee (NRSC) has plans to come to the rescue. As has been standard practice since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, the NRSC has already coronated its top-tier candidates for Senate in 2010 — without any regard for the opinions of GOP primary voters.

Those candidates include Crist, Carly Fiorina in California, and Trey Grayson in Kentucky.  All three have more conservative and credible opponents: former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, and Kentucky taxpayer advocate Dr. Rand Paul.

Whatsmore, the NRSC is now encouraging its readers to take advice from Karl Rove. In an e-mail the NRSC sent out yesterday, its Communications team forwarded an article from Karl Rove to all NRSC subscribers. Rove’s article was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the NRSC team said it’s a “WSJ Editorial You Should See”.

I saw it, and — shock! — I am not impressed.

Why is the NRSC encouraging its members to listen to Karl Rove? Rove’s name has come up in many political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Moreover, his strategy of “compassionate conservatism” along with his support of the Bush Doctrine are among the main reasons why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.

In the article, Rove says, “In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.” Rove does not acknowledge that two other Republican candidates also poll ahead of Chris Dodd: Linda McMahon and RLC-endorsed candidate Peter Schiff. This “ignore at all costs” strategy has been something that Republican establishment candidates have been very skilled at, but has not yielded successful results.

The strategy, a familiar Rove tactic, was employed masterfully by George W. Bush throughout both terms as President, and trickled down to candidates that the NRSC and NRCC supported (mostly unsuccessfully) in 2006 and 2008 such as John Gard in Wisconsin and Darren White in New Mexico. Both Gard and White — unfamiliar names to most readers — had primary challengers that were more conservative, but simply relied on the Bush Administration and the NRCC to “ignore at all costs” these opponents. Both Gard and White went on to lose their general election contests in conservative-leaning districts.  The result was Democrat pickups.

The title of Rove’s article is, “Can Republicans take back the Senate in 2010?”

The answer is yes, but not if they listen to Karl Rove or the NRSC.

The NRSC cannot be allowed to select Republican Senate candidates for GOP primary voters.

Registered Republicans in CA, CT, FL, IL, KY, and other states should select the best candidate to represent the state — without NRSC interference.

I have recently blogged about the ongoing tensions between liberty-minded Republicans and social conservatives:

• the post “Is it time for liberty to shine in the GOP?” discusses how some social conservatives — like Cal Thomas — are calling on his movement to ‘turn the other cheek’ on the issue of gay marriage. Mr. Thomas thinks the battle has already been lost;

• the post “Are Republicans shifting on gay marriage and the war on drugs?” discusses how we’re seeing a shift in Republican positions on gay marriage and the failed War on Drugs take place before our very eyes; and

• the post “Why must some social conservatives use government to enact their agenda?” calls on social conservatives to practice more tolerance in their interactions with those who don’t agree with them. (After all, it was Thomas Jefferson himself who said “I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance.)

The tensions continue to persist.

But, as far as I can tell, the “Campaign for Liberty” organization (founded by RLC Adviser Ron Paul) is still pretending that there is no tension between social conservatives and libertarian-minded Republicans.

In fact, a search of the Campaign for Liberty website finds only 68 mentions of the word ‘libertarian’. Most of those references talk about the Libertarian Party or its candidates; none of those listings are from official Campaign for Liberty staff members.  Additionally, no official literature of the Campaign for Liberty uses the word libertarian.

A key problem with the Campaign for Liberty is even more fundamental: they appear to be allied with social conservatives rather than libertarian Republicans.

The evidence: I recently received an invitation from the Campaign for Liberty in Virginia to attend an event in conjunction with the Republican Party of Virginia Convention called “Restore the Founders’ Vision.” The event took place a week ago Friday in Richmond.  I did not attend it because I don’t attend events intended to prop up social conservatism.

The problem with “Restore the Founders’ Vision” is that it is run by known social conservative (and former Republican Party of Virginia Chair) Patrick McSweeney, who discusses in a recent letter to the editor that Bush won Ohio in 2004 because he “attracted social conservatives by taking strong positions on their issues”. Bush took the proper positions on social issues in 2004, according to McSweeney. Why he uses the word ‘their’ is unclear to me.

In a letter of endorsement written by McSweeney in the race between Patrick Muldoon and Bill Bolling in the recent Lt. Governor’s race at the Virginia GOP Convention, McSweeney says: “Bill Bolling has decided that Republicans should either hide or compromise their positions on social issues. He never consulted the grassroots about that. We want candidates who will unapologetically defend those [social conservative] positions, not act as if they are afraid of them.”

“Those positions” (of course, the right positions in the eyes of the author) for social conservatives like McSweeney (who was promoted by Ron Paul’s C4L org.) include: NO exceptions on the abortion issue; consistent opposition to “the homosexual agenda”; opposition to embryonic stem cell research; government censorship of pornography and other TV or Internet “indecencies” (as determined by government rather than families); government intervention on a plethora of issues relating to family values, including many “nanny state” provisions; and government intervention on drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia.

So much for preservation of individual liberty!

Of course, there are some social conservatives who understand the problem with using government as a tool of coercion.  The best type of social conservative, to be sure.  I give these social conservatives all the credit in the world.

So, is the Campaign for Liberty an organization intended to woo social conservatives, or is their target audience true blue libertarian Republicans?  I wrote to the Campaign for Liberty’s senior staff members more than a month ago explaining that they would have to choose one of these two groups (rather than both) to work with.

I also informed them of the Republican Liberty Caucus event at Republican Party of Virginia Convention.  I told them that they could inform their members of our event and we would be delighted to have their members at our RLC annual meeting.  The RLCVA meeting was a huge success, but C4L senior staff chose not to inform their members of our meeting and instead chose to promote McSweeney’s event aimed at the religious right.

I never received any e-mail acknowledgment or reply from the Campaign for Liberty.

I am not the only one who has noticed these discrepancies in the C4L.  In a recent Forbes Magazine article, libertarian Republican author Bruce Bartlett talks about how the Campaign for Liberty “pays lip service to the libertarian philosophy on foreign and social policy, but says little about them.”  Says Bartlett, “The discussion of economic policy, however, is much greater.” He concludes, “Whoever wrote these [C4L] talking points is simply pandering to the stupid, the ignorant, and the unsophisticated.”

Fortunately, the Republican Liberty Caucus still maintains a fervent belief in defending both social and economic liberty.  And our members are intelligent, sophisticated, and able to make inroads at the grassroots level of the Republican Party, as evidenced by our showing at the recent Republican Party Convention in Virginia.

Additionally, on Saturday, Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida Chair Will Pitts and Secretary Sarah Lovett participated in a “Drive the Discussion” forum in Live Oak, Florida.  The event also featured Senate challengers Gov. Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio.  The fact that RLC members were invited shows the type of influence they have in the Sunshine State.

According to an analysis of the event by a blogger for an organization called “Faith is the Foundation for Freedom” that is based in Florida, the RLC is “appalling” because of “the manner and language which the Republican Liberty Caucus attacked Traditional Republicans [sic] and the values that we hold near and dear.”

Traditional Republicans, in my estimation, are those Republicans that helped Barry Goldwater receive the Republican Party nomination in 1964.  By that definition, the RLC is ‘traditional[ly] Republican’.  Ronald Reagan said, “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”  Again, by Reagan’s standard, the RLC is ‘traditional[ly] Republican’.

Additionally, as is expected, the Republican Liberty Caucus firmly upholds freedom of religion.  What RLC members attack is the assumption by social conservatives like Mr. McSweeney or the “Faith is the Foundation for Freedom” blogger that they can use government to legislate morality or make choices traditionally meant for individuals or family units.

And we attack those notions with vigor.

At the Florida forum, the “Faith is the Foundation for Freedom” blogger maintains that he asked RLC Florida Secretary Sarah Lovett, “Why aren’t the Libertarians advancing their agenda in the Libertarian Party rather than the Republican Party?”  Lovett and Will Pitts addressed the issue at the forum.

The RLC strategy — outlined throughout our website — is to work within the Republican Party, as we believe the two party system (however flawed it may be and however hard we work to change it) will always win out.  Since we want liberty to win, we work to establish liberty via the two-party system.

The agitation that this social conservative blogger has with our group is to be expected because the Republican Liberty Caucus is having a real impact at the grassroots level — and those who have ruined the Republican Party brand with their RINO and neo-con policies may be running scared.

According to an article from The Associated Press, “Guantanamo [is] a political win GOP needed.” The story is referencing the vote in the Senate that occurred earlier today. In a vote of 90 to 6, the Senate overwhelmingly opposed President Obama’s effort to close the prison that harbors accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Every Republican member of the Senate passed on the opportunity to recognize that terrorist combatants do have Constitutional rights and that protections of the Bill of Rights apply to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S. regardless of where in the world that jurisdiction prevails.

As you know, one of Barack Obama’s first acts as president was to order the closing of the controversial prison for terrorist suspects within a year. Obama had campaigned on the issue, but Republicans pounced on what they correctly asserted to be a critical flaw: the lack of detailed plans for where the roughly 240 detainees would go if the Cuban prison were shut down.

On that point, the town of Hardin, Montana (pop. 3,400) has volunteered to house 40% of the detainees (about 100 of them) in a state prison facility that is vacant.

Greg Smith, Economic Development Director in Hardin, says that there are 464 beds in the facility and over 120 jobs could be created by moving those prisoners to Hardin.  With flat land, a state-of-the-art corrections facility, and a Mayor (and City Council) willing to house the suspects, all it would have taken was a simple Senate vote in favor of closing Gitmo.

That vote, however, would require Senators to have a backbone and LEAD the country — something foreign to them.  Only six Senators, all from the far left wing of the Democrat Party, had the courage to vote in favor of the funding to move the captives to U.S. soil.

Why should we house these accused terrorists in the U.S.? The fact is that housing them in Gitmo has denied the terrorist suspects their constitutional rights and there is simply no possibility that piecemeal changes in law could create a legal system at Guantanamo equal to the U.S. criminal justice or courts martial systems.

Additionally, the detentions of the terrorist suspects are only temporary expedients that apply only in the field of combat according to U.S. law. Since we’re not at war with Cuba, the legitimate idea of temporarily detaining combatants in a war zone does not apply.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the abuses at Guantanamo Bay carried out at the beckon call of high-level government officials include widespread abuse:

• solitary confinement of detainees for periods exceeding a year;
• sleep deprivation of detainees for days, weeks, or months;
• exposure of detainees to prolonged temperature extremes;
• beatings of detainees;
• threats of transfer to a foreign country for torture;
• torture in foreign countries or at U.S. military bases abroad before transfer to Guantánamo;
• sexual harassment and rape or threat of rape against detainees;
• deprivation of medical treatment for serious conditions, or treatment granted only for “cooperating”; and
• “short-shackling,” where wrists and ankles are bound together and to the floor for hours or day.

I realize these suspects are accused of being terrorists and several of them were involved in the 911 attacks. I have tremendous sympathy for victims (and their families) of these accused terrorists and am quite convinced that the detainees at Gitmo are quite literally the scum of the earth.

That said, those accused of crimes in a nation governed by the rule of law are entitled to equal treatment under the law and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as well as protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives are entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment includes “… nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”.  Further, the Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from “cruel and unusual punishment” by government.

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote that “[t]here are … four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.” They include:

- The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
- “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
- “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
- “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”

The torture procedures that the Bush Administration, the Republicans in Congress, and the spineless Democrats who purport to be civil libertarians have gone along with violate constitutional protections and are clearly ‘cruel and unusual’ tactics under the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The types of torture that have been used against suspected terrorists also violate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (both signed by the U.S.).

Moreover, the techniques are not effective. According to the U.S. Army Interrogation Field Manuel 34-52 (1992), “Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

And according to the Center for Constitutional Rights,

“If someone has information, they are just as likely, if not more so, to disclose the information after non-abusive interrogation tactics. Second, many who are interrogated do not have information to give. Third, whether or not a person has information, he or she will likely confess to anything to stop torture; thus the information obtained is never reliable.”

Quoth the AP article: “Republicans have searched mightily for a good political issue this year as their traditional three Gs — gays, guns and God — have lost some steam. Now a fourth G — Guantanamo Bay — is handing them big boost.”

The issue of Guantanamo may be giving Republicans a boost in popular support, but it is at the sacrifice of the U.S. Constitution and a respect for the rule of law.

Over the last eight years, the Bush Administration has systematically dismantled some of the most important rights and protections of the United States Constitution.

The time to stand up for the Constitution is NOW.  Americans oppose the Bush-Cheney torture policies and a free nation based on the rule of law requires more of its government and its elected officials.

I have been a Republican opposed to George W. Bush from almost the instant he became a national figure. I was not impressed with his tenure as Texas Governor, his academic credentials, or his promises as candidate Bush in campaign 2000. In short, I did not trust him. For those reasons, I voted Libertarian in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, while often voting Republican for other offices.

At Creative Loafing, Wayne Garcia blogs about how GOP operative Roger Stone, who says he has libertarian leanings, regrets helping George W. Bush win Florida in 2000.

Of course, Stone is not the first to abandon Bush, just the latest. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and former Press Secretary Scott McClellan also have distanced themselves from the President.

According to Stone, “I think across the board he’s led the party to its current position, which means losing both houses of congress and now the White House. How can you be conservative and justify wiretapping people without a warrant?” asked Stone.

“We’re supposed to be the party of personal freedom and civil liberties. Big brother listening in on your phone calls—I got a problem with that.”

Roger Stone, did you really ever believe George W. Bush had solid philosophical grounding?

GOP political operative Roger Stone has regrets.

Mark Knoller of CBS News writes, “With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.”

“On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.”

“The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt -– though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, “much if not all” of the bailout money “will be paid back.””

“But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.”

“A couple of weeks after he took office, President Bush addressed the Republican Congressional Retreat in Williamsburg and declared that his budget ‘pays down the national debt’. In recent years, President Bush almost never mentions the national debt.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus has issued a strong press release AGAINST the bailout.