For Immediate Release: March 24, 2011

Republican Liberty Caucus Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya
Attacks Violate Constitutional Requirement to Obtain Approval from Congress

Contact: Dave Nalle, RLC Chairman

WASHINGTON, DC — The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) National Committee has voted unanimously to condemn the Obama Administration’s military action against Libya.

The RLC resolution notes that the situation in Libya does not constitute a direct threat to the United States and that military action has not been authorized by Congress as required by the War Powers Act and the United States Constitution.

“At a time when we should be cutting back our foreign military involvement, the president’s action is as irresponsible as it is unconstitutional.” said RLC National Chair Dave Nalle of Austin, Texas.

As RLC member and Congressman from Michigan’s Third District Justin
Amash recently noted, “It’s not enough for the President simply to explain military actions in Libya to the American people after the fact — as though we are serfs. When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from th American people, through elected Representatives in Congress. No United Nations resolution or congressional act permits the President to circumvent the Constitution.”

In an interview in the Boston Globe in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama shared his view on the matter, saying, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Why are those words any less true today than they were when he spoke them only four years ago?

“President Obama seems to have taken this action solely on the authorization of the United Nations without consideration of the best interests of the United States or the limits which the Constitution places on the power of the president,” said RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “The greatest threats to the safety of our citizens today are the reckless spending and dangerous fiscal policies of this administration. The President should do what he swore in his oath — uphold the Constitution. Instead, he continues to push a Big Government, freedom-crushing agenda that has not resulted in economic prosperity in our country.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus is working to raise awareness of the problems with United States intervention in Libya. As Congressman Amash observed, “The cost to American taxpayers will be substantial. We cannot spend money we don’t have on a war we don’t need.”

According to RLC Chairman Dave Nalle, “Our state chapters and our nationwide network of activists will be contacting their legislators to remind them of the traditional Republican foreign policy and the party’s historical commitment to constitutionally limited government. Our members demand an immediate end to military action by U.S. forces in Libya,” concluded Nalle.

-30-

WHEREAS Libya poses no imminent and clear threat to the United States; and

WHEREAS the Congress of the United States has not declared war against Libya, or in any other way authorized the use of military force against Libya; and

WHEREAS the President has exceeded his authority under the Constitution of the United States, which reserves to Congress the sole power to declare war;

We, the National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus, hereby RESOLVE;

THAT the President has violated the War Powers Act, which requires him to notify the Congress of the United States of the imminent use of military force, so as to receive the assent of Congress to the use of military force in a timely manner;

THAT we declare our solidarity with those members of the Congress and citizens of the United States who have sought to avert U.S. involvement in a war in the Libya;

THAT we do not believe the U.S. should be involved in Libya militarily;

AND we call on all those who believe in the Constitution and respect the rule of law to demand an end to U.S. military intervention in Libya.

(Adopted unanimously by the RLC National Committee, March 22, 2011.)

See also: RLC Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya; March 24, 2011

Obama’s political left, who thought they had a champion for their causes, is not only disgusted with the President’s recent authorization for the U.S. military to attack Libya, but continues to be dismayed regarding Obama’s War on Drugs policies.

Marijuana legalization advocates say the president should be taking a harder stance on the issue. And, if you believe his promises on the campaign trail, why wouldn’t he?

Barack Obama voiced support for medical marijuana access, harm reduction programs, and the reform of mandatory minimum drug sentences. He also spoke out in favor of marijuana decriminalization during his time in the Illinois Senate.

As Daily Caller reports, officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raided two medical marijuana dispensaries in West Hollywood, California on March 15, 2011. Similar DEA raids also swept through Montana and forced at least one business to close its doors.

Last year, DEA agents ignored a Mendocino County, California ordinance to regulate medical marijuana cultivation by raiding the very first grower to register with the sheriff. Joy Greenfield, age 70, had paid more than $1,000 for a permit to cultivate 99 plants in a collective garden that had been inspected and approved by the local sheriff.

These raids occurred despite that the Obama administration said it wouldn’t pursue cases against marijuana dispensaries that are legal under state law — which is the case in California, Montana, and 14 other states.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a 2009 memo guiding authorities not to arrest or prosecute users of suppliers who are not breaking local laws. On the campaign trail, President Obama repeatedly promised not to waste federal resources interfering in states with laws protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest on the campaign trail. On March 28, 2008, for example, he told Southern Oregon’s Mail Tribune editorial board, “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

At DailyKos, one left-wing activist says, “Obama is going to once again re-double the military/law-enforcement angle that maintains the status quo, that supports illegal drug prices, that support the profits for drug trafficking …”

In short, Obama appears quite far from the truth of his promises on the issues surrounding drug policy.

Eighty percent of Americans support medical marijuana access, 75 percent believe that the War on Drugs has failed and cannot be won, and 75 percent also say that adults should be fined (but not jailed) for using marijuana recreationally.

President Obama continues his change agenda with a complete lack of change and — instead — a whole lot more of the same.

The President of Bolivia and a political leader in Russia have launched a campaign to revoke Obama’s 2009 peace prize honor after the U.S. attack on Libya.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honor bestowed on President Barack Obama in 2009.

Zhirinovsky said the attacks were “another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States,” and that the attacks demonstrated a “colonial policy” with “one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime.” He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result.

Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: “How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination.” Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006.

Obama is also administering wars in two other nations, Iraq and Afghanistan. In his most recent attack on a foreign nation — Libya — he failed to present his plan to the United States Congress.

The patently unconstitutional “REAL ID” implementation has been delayed for the third time. Passed in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security has extended state implementation of the law to January 2013.

Homeland Security officials said the deadline was extended because most states would not be able to meet all the federal requirements of the so-called Real ID Act by May 11, 2011.

Twenty-four states are refusing to comply with the regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Sixteen of them — including Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Utah — have passed laws prohibiting compliance with Real ID, citing privacy and funding issues. The other eight — including Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois and Nevada — have passed resolutions opposing the law.

Republican Reps. Darrell Issa, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Lamar Smith were outraged at the delay on implementation. “The administration should not prolong Real ID implementation. By doing so, they disregard the law of the land. Delaying Real ID unnecessarily places Americans’ lives at risk and threatens national security,” said Smith, of Texas.

There is no evidence that REAL ID — a national ID card — is constitutional. If implemented, it would prohibit freedom of movement and violate individual privacy like no other law in American history.

One of the primary reasons so many conservatives were willing to suspend disbelief during the Bush years and support our overseas wars was as a reaction against the rhetoric on the Left. Overseas occupations are things conservatives would traditionally oppose due to the exorbitant government spending and strong-armed central government planning required to carry them out. Conservative support seems to make even less sense when one considers that America has attempted to simultaneously carry out two large-scale occupations in a part of the world without a history of democracy. A traditional conservative foreign policy was demonstrated by men like former Ohio senator and “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft, who only favored intervening overseas when a direct threat to America was present. Sadly, many conservative stalwarts of the past would be erroneously labeled by today’s Republican Party as “liberals” for insufficiently militant rhetoric.

Of a matter of fact, liberals, who have a soft spot for utopian schemes, humanitarian nation building, and the notion that governments can force massive social change, would actually have been the natural backers of our projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the modern day Left has no real aversion to meddling in other country’s affairs is clearly demonstrated by Barack Obama’s willingness to intervene in Libya. The modern day, mainstream “anti-war Left” has little philosophical objection to overseas operations: just ones undertaken by a Republican or those not approved by the United Nations.

But for a decade both sides have switched roles, and this has everything to do with our country’s increasingly senseless partisanship. Upon sober self-reflection, many Republicans showed themselves willing to abandon their small government principles out of a need to cheer on the “R” team regarding the manner in which the War on Terror was carried out. Traditional conservatives should have been disgusted by our efforts at societal transformation in Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead they were its biggest fans. Meanwhile, groups like Code Pink felt required to oppose our wars out of a feeling of loyalty to the “D” team. Partisanship when done out of principle is part of the American tradition, but supporting or opposing policy based simply on the political party pushing it is bound to destroy any nation.

The relative silence of so-called “anti-war groups”, aside from a few genuine liberals such as Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, upon Obama’s taking the oath of office revealed their agenda had little to do with opposing war. Sure, they hated it when it was Bush’s war, but were willing to acquiesce if not outright support it once their true objective, electing a Democratic president, was accomplished. The same sort of hypocrisy is found on the Republican side of the aisle where, for example, Republicans did everything they could to pass the costly Medicare Part D expansion when they were in power, only to yell about “socialism” when the other side attempted to impose their even more costly government health care scheme.

Contemporary conservatives and liberals largely support the positions they do much like a fan of Auburn would feel compelled to root against LSU. They are willing to overlook massive infractions on their side while calling out every mistake on the other; this is great in football, but leads to a nation-destroying cycle when done in politics. Most of the political positions both sides of the aisle take are not guided by any underlying principle, but instead by some sense of party loyalty and opportunism.

The same Republicans who opposed Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Kosovo conflict on humanitarian grounds were more than willing to support an invasion of Iraq a few short years later on, you guessed it, humanitarian grounds. As hard as it is for some to admit, had the Obama administration started the nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans would have been the biggest opponents of the war and Democrats the biggest backers.

Republicans have a chance to break this cycle with the incoming Tea Party freshman. Anyone with actual intentions about cutting government cannot back the excursion into Libya, nor can they no longer be silent on the increasingly bleak Afghanistan situation. With a national debt approaching 15 trillion dollars and the lessons learned from two Middle East nation building operations, it would be the ultimate height of hypocrisy to speak of limited, constitutional government while having no qualms about sticking our noses into another Middle Eastern war.

There is something about the federalization of police authority that causes discomfort among those who adore America’s traditions. Whether it is from the perspective of such Hollywood films as “The Good Shepherd” and “Syriana” or the sort of critiques emanating from organizations like the John Birch Society, both ends of the ideological spectrum are wary to one degree or another of secretive federal organizations.

Unfortunately, the ultimate outcome of a threat like terrorism is, without fail, the enhancing of police powers wielded by central governments. Though the devastation caused by loss of human life as a result of terrorist acts is without equal, its second undesirable contribution to society is the mind set of surrendered liberty engendered among the broader population. Most of us recognize that we are far more likely to fork over freedoms to the government during times of crisis than times of tranquility.

All one needs to do is look at what happened to Russia after the 2004 Beslan School Crisis in North Ossetia. Although freedoms in the country were nothing to write home about beforehand, skirmishes with Chechen separatists have given birth to the sort of police state mentality terrorism fosters and men like Vladimir Putin have little ideological disposition to limit.

Looking at the United States after September 11th demonstrates the aftershocks destructive acts of terrorism generate. Since that day, such massive intrusions as the Patriot Act, invasive TSA pat downs, the introduction of pricey bureaucracies such as the Department of Homeland Security (a $40 billion plus annual budget and north of 200,000 employees), and the floating of such ideas as the Orwellian 2005 REAL ID Act have alarmed those who take personal privacy seriously.

Many senators and congressman have been puzzled as to why any citizen might balk at the notion of a national ID card. “It is disappointing to me that the Obama administration has chosen to put Americans at risk by having another delay in implementing Real ID,” Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner noted. Apparently forgetting to update his circa-2004 Republican National Convention talking points, Mr. Sensenbrenner appears intent on emerging victorious on “Survivor: Police State Conservative.” Surely he must recognize such fear based rhetoric, post-Tea Party, no longer works like a charm at getting conservatives to fall into line.

This act, which would have amounted to a federalization of national identification cards and storage of personal information, has been met with vigorous opposition in many states. States as politically diverse as South Carolina and Oregon have rejected it, and my home state of Louisiana became the 11th state to pass anti-REAL ID legislation in 2008. Americans feel something is a little off about even more centralization of power by an institution not immune from abusing it.

But one of the few good things about REAL ID has been this opposition shown by state legislatures and governors. Additionally, the revulsion toward it by groups on the left and right has been encouraging; some strange bedfellows were made during the course of advocating against its passage. We see the wisdom of our Constitution and Founding Fathers demonstrated when such steps are taken; citizens of an entirely consolidated nation (which we are not quite as of this writing) would have had little recourse to turn back what the central planners were bent on getting through. But, by utilizing de facto nullification of federal laws, enough resistance has been generated to throw a wrench in the implementation of this act.

The most recent extension of its compliance date to 2013 is an example of the government kicking the can down the road. Unwilling to tackle this issue now, they will simply delay the fight for a later date. Surely it is no coincidence that 2013 is just after a presidential election and happens to be the off year for congressional elections. Maybe we can hear more promises from allegedly civil libertarian Democrats to fight invasions of privacy, only to watch them fall into statist line afterward (see Obama-Guantanamo as well as Obama-Patriot Act. Case settled.)

Up to this point, this specific measure of statism has proven a bridge to far. Sadly, it likely would now be in effect had the states rolled over and refused to push back (this same willingness to fight is now producing hope for those of us who want to see Obama’s health plan overturned). Apparently Washington will do whatever it can get away with in the absence of sufficient protest; not exactly a glaring endorsement of our public officials’ integrity. Apparently they can produce a million regulations for us while simultaneously having zero regulation on their own appetites.

A reasonable person cannot help but ask if 95% of those in Washington are even familiar with the notion of state sovereignty or Jeffersonian republicanism. Watching CSPAN, it appears they might not be. Fortunately, at least a few in state legislatures and governorships still are.

(Editor’s Note: The RLC is helping you fight back against REAL ID; see this post.)

Wisconsin RLC Praises Governor Scott Walker’s Budget Repair Bill
State RLC Congratulates Endorsed Legislators, Governor

Yesterday, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, which has made state and national news as a result of several prominent events in their state over the past year, issued a statement supporting Governor Scott Walker’s budget repair bill.

Wisconsin RLC Chairman Michael S. Murphy of Milwaukee spoke in strong support of the repair bill. “The RLC-WI supports Governor Scott Walker and the Republican Legislation in their efforts to curtail runaway government spending. We also want to commend these brave lawmakers for standing strong against oppositional union forces, which have resulted in numerous threats to their safety already. The RLC-WI stands behind this effort 100% and we hope that not one Republican Legislator waivers in their decision to support this bill before it is made into law.”

Murphy continued, “We are especially proud of the seven RLC-WI endorsed State Representatives, who recently took office after winning their respective elections in November. They are truly upholding the RLC standard and keeping their committed promises to reduce government spending.” (Note: Wisconsin RLC Vice Chair Terri McCormick, who recently spoke at the RLC National Convention in DC, is herself a former three-term State Representative.)

The Wisconsin RLC continues to be the only voice for limited government and individual liberty in the Republican Party in Wisconsin. Governor Scott Walker has exceeded the Wisconsin RLC’s expectations and wishes the Governor well in the coming weeks.

Photo above: Wisconsin RLC members gathered in 2009 to form their state chapter.

Florida RLC Applauds Governor Rick Scott’s High Speed Rail Decision
State RLC Issues Press Release and Congratulatory Letter

Florida Governor Rick Scott’s decision not to accept a $2.4 billion federal grant for a high speed rail project was a “courageous choice”, according to a congratulatory letter sent today from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida.

In the letter, Florida RLC Chairman Matthew Nye told the governor, “When you spoke an RLC event back in September, you promised you would be making the tough decisions to get Florida back in fiscal order. With this decision, you are doing just that — and we commend you.”

The letter cites the recent Reason Foundation study titled “The Tampa to Orlando High Speed Rail Project: A Florida Taxpayer Risk Assessment,” which suggests the ultimate cost of the project could exceed expectations by $3 billion and these overruns would be borne by Florida taxpayers.

As noted by Florida RLC Vice Chairman John Stevens, the other issue at stake is our responsibility to demand fiscal responsibility at the federal level of government. “With a $13 trillion dollar national debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, state governors and legislators must send an unequivocal message to Washington DC that spending beyond our means — even if it would benefit their state — is no longer acceptable.”

A thank you letter was also mailed to Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who announced today he would stand by the governor’s decision. The press release was sent to about 90 media outlets across the state.

To let your legislators know how you feel on this issue, go here.

Florida RLC members gathered in 2009 to protest tax-increasing High Speed Rail. They just obtained a victory when Governor Rick Scott, an ally of the Florida RLC, blocked the rail plan.

Well, Barack Obama has officially unveiled the White House’s latest budget proposal. Despite being released on Valentine’s Day, it has been met with minimal love thus far by anyone possessing even an inkling of respect for fiscal restraint. The USA Today editorial board stated that “It’s becoming hard not to conclude that Obama doesn’t much care about the debt threat or has decided to wait until after the 2012 elections. Either would be a shame, and economically risky.” They closed a scathing critique by concluding that “At some point, the shadowboxing has to stop.”

Consisting of a record $3.7 trillion dollars in federal spending, one might conclude that this statement from the centrist newspaper might be an understatement. As tough as these numbers are to swallow, it does not even begin to state the perilous condition America is being put in due to government expenditures. Most know the government reports its debt surpasses 14 trillion dollars, but what many do not know is that this does not even include the crush of unfunded liabilities represented by Medicare and Social Security. Even the illusory balanced budget of the late Clinton years was just that; a mirage fostered by a slew of accounting tricks that would land the average Joe in prison. This $14 trillion debt, as large as it is, does not even take these two costly entitlement programs into account. And why does the 14 trillion range sound so familiar? Well, the entire U.S. GDP was 14.6 trillion in 2010.

Meanwhile, things appear to be snowballing. A look at the raw numbers is staggering, revealing just how quickly the Keynesian idea of using government funds to top off private spending has run amok. The last budget submitted by former President Clinton for fiscal year 2001 was a paltry 1.9 trillion; yes that is correct, the federal budget has seen a 100% increase in just the last decade. By comparison, the last budget signed into law by that fiscal hawk George W. Bush for FY 2009 was 3.1 trillion, a stunning number at the time. But that was so 2009. If this current budget goes through as written, federal expenditures will have shot up 18% during Obama’s first two years in office.

Even if tax revenues were sufficient enough to cover this spending (if the government were taking in 3.7 trillion from taxpayers annually) it would still be inexcusable. The fact that the government is doing many things not constitutionally authorized and which could be better done by private actors in the economy is reason enough to shudder at it. The wealth destruction that occurs from their inefficiencies should produce the incentive to avoid such a massive blitz of outlays.

But even a balanced budget cannot pare down the debt.

It would only succeed in keeping us in a 14 trillion plus dollar hole. Unfortunately, government receipts are nowhere near enough to cover this. Depending on the economy’s strength, it collects between 2 and 2.5 trillion in a given year, the end result of this being annual trillion plus dollar deficits. This has resulted in a near tripling of our debt over the last ten years.

Okay, so most of us do have a general idea that public debt is out of control and has been for quite some time. But the appearance of normalcy has been maintained for the time being, so the majority of our citizens take this outward veneer as evidence that things are fine. Not ideal, but manageable.

Considering most Americans are buried in student loan and credit card debt, this kind of behavior might actually appear marginally acceptable. A country that used to pride itself as a worldwide creditor while cringing at the concept of debt has become tacitly accepting of these two concepts being turned upside down by Washington. The temptation of succumbing to easy, short term pleasure at the expense of a mortgaged future has proven too much for our government to resist. This terrible virus has now spread to the everyday lifestyles of many of our citizens, infecting the way we live and interact. The rapid inflation caused by our monetary policy in 1970s started this mind set, as dangerous borrowing became the only way for many to keep pace.

Until enough Americans are determined to put up with the short term pain required to reverse this governmental trend, things will continue unabated. Cutting a program or two does not turn the clock back on the concept of the federal government acting as a paternal figure. As French free market economist Frederic Bastiat said: “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” Thus far this fiction has manifested itself in only numbers and academic debates. But what happens when the reality hits, and the U.S. is overtaken by massive price inflation and an inability to meet its obligations? Would it not be better to take some pain for now in order to get things right in the long term?

Apparently Barack Obama and the geniuses crafting his budget do not think so.

Many of the egocentric economists who missed seeing the entire 2008 crisis coming are now trying to say things are not so bad, that there could be a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps all this government spending might work after all, they say. But as author and historian Thomas Woods recently noted, this light at the end of the tunnel is nothing but the headlights of an oncoming train.

With no advocate for government restraint and constitutional limitations in the White House, all we can do is hope that this prediction is wrong. Come to think of it, we were all asked to vote for Hope and Change in 2008, were we not? Since we did not get any fundamental Change, all we have left now is baseless Hope.

Today the U.S. Senate voted on legislation that will allow for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar version of the bill and President Obama has said that he will sign DADT repeal into law.

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the stand-alone repeal bill in the Senate. DADT was made a law seventeen years ago and is the only U.S. law that punishes people for simply telling the truth. Since the law went into effect, over 14,000 gay and lesbian service members have been discharged from our nation’s military simply because they were gay or lesbian. An estimated 66,000 gays and lesbians are currently on active-duty. Twenty-three studies over the past fifty years, including most recently a comprehensive study by the Pentagon, have concluded the same thing: that there would be no to minimal impact on force cohesion or unit readiness by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military. Thirty-countries currently allow gays and lesbians to serve in their nation’s armed forces.

The repeal of DADT will happen only after certification by the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that policies have been written to implement repeal and compliance with these polices is consistent with military readiness. According to the Human Rights Campaign, DADT is not effective immediately and service members are still at risk of being discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation until certification occurs and an additional 60 days have passed.

Of the sitting Senators, the only past RLC-endorsed Senator who cast a vote in favor of repealing DADT was Senator John Ensign of Nevada. (Other moderate Republican Senators like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe also supported the repeal.)

On behalf of basic fairness and equal rights under the law, I applaud Congress for taking this important step.