Wisconsin State Representative Steve Nass, who was endorsed by the RLC in 2006, has a great column at WisOpinion.com about the proposed economic stimulus package.

Says Nass:

It is true that the country faces the greatest economic challenge in nearly 100 years. It is true that greed and wasteful government spending are fundamental reasons fueling the financial inferno.

If you believe that greed is a serious part of the problem, do you then offer solutions that reward both individual and corporate greed?

If you believe wasteful government spending helped sap the strength of the economy, do you then offer proposals that will require some of the largest tax increases in U.S. and world history?

Read more.

Barrack Obama has created change.gov, ‘The Official Web Site of the U.S. Presidential Transition.’ The site lays out his agenda for what he is going to change in the country. The site has been reworked since it originally launched; all that remains is:

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.”

PoliticalLore.com has documented that the original wording on Change.gov says: “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

In a column entitled “Why would a black President want slavery?” libertarian author Gerry Reed examines how President-elect Obama and his chief advisor Rahm Emmanuel both support involuntary servitude in the form of mandatory community service for college students, parents, for grandparents, engineers, and scientists.

Similarly, Chris Brown documents how Obama’s proposed program, the Classroom Corps, uses the terms enlist and draft. Finally, libertarian J.D. Tuccille was one of the first to point out that Rahm Emanuel co-authored a book that calls for compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. The Thirteenth Amendment makes it illegal, except as punishment for a crime.

Will Obama get away with his plan to draft Americans into the ranks of community service? FDR got away with a military draft. From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, Americans were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.

However, even since the end of the draft in 1973, the Selective Service System still exists, should our politicians decide a draft is necessary to fight their unconstitutional wars. The RLC’s Statement of Principles has explicitly opposed a draft and conscription.

The up side of being a liberty Republican is that when either party gets elected there’s always some reason to be hopeful. When the Republicans get elected we can hope for fiscal responsibility, smaller government and robust capitalism. When the Democrats get elected we can hope for some progress on civil liberties and social issues. The downside is that this also means we can be disappointed when the parties don’t follow through on the more positive parts of their agendas.

For the last eight years the Republicans let us down pretty consistently, failing to live up to their promise of smaller government and fiscal responsibility and giving only a few small victories on issues like gun rights and taxes. Now it looks like the Obama administration is setting us up for another round of disappointments as they move to the center and pass up the opportunity to take genuinely tolerant positions on social issues.

The Clinton administration was certainly known for its weakness on social issues and civil liberties outrages. Clinton escalated the drug war and established the farcical “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, oversaw a bumper crop of civil rights abuses including the Mt. Carmel massacre, the suppression of the Freemen in Montana, the return of Elian Gonzales to Cuba and the erroneous leak of Richard Jewell’s name as the Olympic bomber. The fact that Obama has chosen to bring so many Clinton appointees into his administration raises the concern that he will follow the same pattern and has little interest in protecting civil rights or making progress on social issues.

Most troubling is his recent choice of DC lawyer Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder held the second position at the Justice Department under Reno and later under John Aschcroft. Before that, he was U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In those two jobs, his record on civil liberties issues was truly abominable.

Holder was one of the lead figures in the midnight military-style assault and forced deportation of little Elian Gonzalez. It was a long time ago, but the images of a little kid being dragged off by force to the dictatorial darkness of Castro’s Cuba by agents of the U.S. government was one of the first things that began to open our eyes to the fact that something has gone very wrong with justice and law enforcement in our country. He also defended a company accused of paying for the support of death squads in Colombia and other human rights violations. At the end of the Clinton administration, he even promoted Clinton’s pardons for 16 FALN terrorists and politically connected megacriminal Mark Rich. Hard though it is to believe, these are just footnotes; there are much worse things on his record.

Holder has been a rampaging drug warrior, advocating much harsher drug laws for the District of Columbia, including making simple possession of marijuana a felony, and harsh minimum sentences for drug users. In one interview, he said, “We really have to concentrate on the – drug users that continue to use drugs, continue to have negative impacts on the communities in which they live, and so we have to redouble our efforts I think in that regard.” His choice to focus on punishing users over dealers or importers is the kind of inhumane policy which has uselessly filled our jails with minor drug offenders.

Throughout his career, Holder has adamantly opposed gun rights, supporting the Clinton efforts to restrict gun sales, enthusiastically enforcing the DC gun ban and even filing a brief to try to stop the Supreme Court from striking down the ban in DC vs. Heller, which said, “The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that Is unrelated to participation In a well-regulated militia.” He also proposed a new law providing “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale,” and has advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on gun sales, limiting handgun sales to no more than one per month and even totally banning possession of handguns.

Perhaps worst of all, Holder has advocated laws restricting freedom of speech on the internet, saying:

“It seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions…reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something which the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.”

Holder’s record on free speech and dissent is bad in other areas as well. After 9/11 he condemned those who might try to obstruct government power in pursuit of terrorists on the grounds of civil rights; he was even part of the legal team which looked at ways to get the PATRIOT Act reauthorized in 2005. It turns out he also wants to take away internet , as indicated in a 1998 Justice Department memo:

“In particular, priority also should be given to large-scale distributors of obscenity over the Internet. Because of the nature of the Internet and the availability of agents trained in conducting criminal investigations in cyberspace, investigation and prosecution of Internet obscenity is particularly suitable for federal resources.”

With such a terrible record on so many issues, I was surprised to find that Holder had never taken a position opposing gay rights and gay marriage. I guess that issue never crossed his desk. It can be argued that Holder was following the policies given to him by bosses from successive administrations, but he certainly made no effort to question or challenge any of the abusive and unconstitutional programs which he has spearheaded.

For years, Eric Holder has worked to degrade our civil liberties and weaken the Constitution and the values which on which our nation was founded. That Obama should have picked him for Attorney General is a very discouraging sign for those of us who had hoped to see liberal policies on social issues and more respect for human rights and individual liberty from this administration. It’s past time to see a liberalization of marijuana laws and the basic rights to free speech and self-defense should never be abridged. Holder is one of the bad guys. He’s not the kind of change people were looking for from this administration.

If you didn’t like Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, or Janet Reno and their oppressive and draconian policies, you ought to be really worried about Eric Holder, who seems to be their most gung-ho ideological successor.

In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s uninspiring choice of Joe Biden as his running mate, I have to face the question of whether John McCain will do any better with his Vice Presidential selection.

For Obama Biden was a safe, relatively non-controversial and uninspiring choice. He’s not remarkable enough to challenge Obama’s legitimacy and he was clearly willing to grovel for the job. He probably won’t stir up much controversy or much excitement either. He’s a low risk surrogate for Hillary Clinton, with a similar stand on the issues, perfect for balancing Obama’s radicalism and inexperience while not being threatening as Clinton would have been. He was such a perfectly bland choice that in the latest Gallup poll, despite the hoopla of the Democratic convention, Obama dropped behind McCain for the first time since the election started, trailing 44% to 46%.

For McCain the equivalent to Obama’s choice of Biden would be to pick Mitt Romney. Romney has led the race in groveling and fawning and is clearly desperate for the job. He also balances McCain’s perceived lack of executive and economic experience. He’s a seemingly obvious, safe choice. He’s also even more of a potential liability for McCain than Biden is for Obama. Hard though it may be to believe to outsiders, bland and well-coifed Romney is a divisive figure for many in the GOP. He’s seen as an opportunist who changes his views with the wind, and who has advocated relatively moderate positions on key issues like abortion and gay marriage which trouble the religious elements within the party who already suspect McCain of having similar leanings. He’s also seen as a big business and big government politician with elitist roots which make the more populist and reactionary elements of the party enraged.

Worse than his negative perception within the party is Romney’s blandness and obviousness. He doesn’t bring with him a core constituency which McCain doesn’t already have well in hand. He appeals to the same moderates, independents and crossover Democrats who McCain has relied on as his constituency. He doesn’t do anything to add energy or ‘wow factor’ to the ticket. The most exciting things about him are his hair and his noble chin. McCain might be comfortable with Romney’s politics, but if you want to run a really effective campaign you need something more than comfort. You need excitement.

McCain ought to be considering candidates who are unexpected. He ought to look to the example of William McKinley who wiser heads in the party forced to take on a young and unexpected running mate. McKinley was boring and McCain is boring. McCain needs a Teddy Roosevelt as much as McKinley did. Rather than showing weakness as Obama did by picking Biden, McCain should show strength by picking someone exciting and dynamic, demonstrating confidence that his own stature and substance cannot be challenged by a younger and more interesting running mate.

McCain also ought to be looking at people who will draw in elements of the party who are looking for a greater role. There is an impending struggle in the party between the small but vocal factions of religious conservatives and liberty republicans and McCain should reach out to one of those factions to expand his base within the party. Picking the right Vice President is an easy way to do that.

Obviously I’m not going to advocate picking some troglodytic religious fanatic, though I admit it might be a good strategy. I’m with the other guys. McCain could win a lot of support in the liberty-oriented part of the GOP by picking someone like South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford or Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. They also carry the benefit of being governors rather than legislators, adding a component of executive and state government experience to the Republican ticket with Obama/Biden lacks. He could even win a lot of approval by picking Jeff Flake, the most libertarian member of Congress. Some might even argue that failed paleoconservative candidate Ron Paul might fit the bill. Of these choices Mark Sanford is probably the best. He has the most experience and the most established reputation. He even has some crossover popularity with religious conservatives.

These are the kinds of candidates McCain ought to be looking at. They’re young and dynamic leaders who would give his ticket a burst of energy which tired old Joe Biden certainly can’t match. Is McCain brave enough to consider them? His campaign has been very good at muddying the waters around their VP choice, so it might actually be a possibility. McCain’s reputation as a ‘maverick’ would certainly be reinforced by such a creative choice, just as it would suffer from a pedestrian choice like Romney. It’s time for McCain and the GOP to have some balls and do something unexpected. That’s the only way they’re going to win this election. This choice is a make or break test for McCain to see if he can do soemthing clever and gutsy or if he’s just another hack who plays it safe. A lot of Republicans are waiting to be inspired. Let’s hope he doesn’t let us down.

Rather than have a principled libertarian Republican representing them against incumbent Congressman David Wu (D), Republican voters in Oregon’s first Congressional district instead decided to nominate Joel Haugen, a supporter of Democrat Barack Obama.

As Oregon Politicker reports, Haugen, who defeated RLC-endorsed William Chappell in the May primary, believes he is “a traditional Republican” who “looks at Obama in a greater context.”

William Chappell, the RLC-endorsed candidate, supports
balanced budgets, reduced spending, school choice, and
less foreign meddling. Joel Haugen supports nationalized
health care and efforts to control world population growth.

Haugen’s endorsement of Obama wasn’t a secret. It was published in The Willamette Week at the end of April. Despite Haugen’s support for Obama, local Republicans let him continue his candidacy.

From my perspective, Haugen is entitled to support Obama or any other candidate. The problem here is that a better candidate more in line with GOP values was defeated by the voters as a result of the county party’s inaction.

Republican officials in Oregon’s first district need to re-evaluate their beliefs. Platform and principles should matter in deciding which candidates are endorsed to represent the party.