The problem with National (Principles)
It was glaring.
But who would notice? The problem with the RLC, I mean.
When “the Belz” began to barnstorm, in the summer of 2012, on the stump for the Washington Chapter of the RLC, I specifically attended a Ron Paul reunion event at Lil’ Erickson’s to listen to her and ask what “the program” would be. Not what the RLC would stand for, but what it would DO. Sandi Belzer Brendale was articulate about a “two pronged” approach: 1, “education” for which she would tap the John Birch Society and 2, “literature distribution” for which she would tap the John Birch Society. So far, so good. Sandi was – like Lil’ – a member of the John Birch Society.
Both JBS and the Ron Paul Movement know, from direct personal experience, the depths of the corruption and dishonesty of the GOP Establishment, something a good portion of the GOP base still does not know.
So a growing state-wide organization recruiting PCOs from a base already seasoned by being cheated, lied to, and lied about by the worst of GOP leadership (who do it to elect worthless oath-violators) was clearly an idea whose time (we hoped) had come.
That’s all Ron Paul’s grass roots needed to know; well, most of them. The organization took off, on Sandi’s coattails, fueled by the JBS-researched conservative red meat and her energy.
But some of us looked into the national RLC and were less encouraged. The Organization’s Statement of Principles, was, in short, diabolical. It held the potential to Undo what Ron Paul’s 30 years in Congress and Presidential campaigns had accomplished in uniting “libertarians” and “conservatives” to restore America.
The obstruction Ron Paul overcame is a wall that once stood as firm as the Berlin Wall separating true conservatives in “the West” from classical libertarians in “the East”: the social issues wall. The classical Libertarian is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and pro-drug legalization… and other stuff. The true Conservative is on the opposite end of those issues. (I use the word “true” because many Republicans claim to be “conservative” or are called “conservative” by the media and they clearly are not; and the word “classical” because there are many who call themselves “libertarians” who are not pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, despite the Libertarian Party’s platform.) But the mechanism Ron Paul used to unite them was the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that violates anything Conservatives OR Libertarians believe in. All of the things that Conservatives oppose and classical Libertarians want to see permitted, are prohibited, to the federal government’s jurisdiction by the Constitution (repeatedly).
Restoring Constitutional government is the most important political task before America and something true Conservatives and all Libertarians agree on.
Modern libertarians, moreover, are largely unaware of the existence of true conservatives (as can be observed in Matt Dubin’s “Let’s Party!” speech) because they have been co-opted by Republican Party leadership and, hence, most “Republican” public officials they’ve elected who routinely violate their oaths of office at every level. Libertarians who came to political adulthood after Reagan also tend to think (falsely) that social conservatism (which GOP leadership does NOT represent) is a symptom of the GOP’s divergence from “liberty.” The reverse is true. The GOP’s RINO leadership has diverged from ALL morality and agree more on social issues with libertarians.
Social liberalism is the NEOCONSERVATIVE view.
If Libertarians do like Ron Paul did, and sacrifice debauchery for a moment, they can unite with conservatives, change the Republican Party, save the economy, restore the Constitution, and restore America.
But The RLC’s Statement of Principles”(SOP), left to stand, in just two sentences, makes that impossible.
The first sentence of the RLC’s SOP is:
“The Republican Liberty Caucus supports individual rights, limited government and free enterprise.”
The second sentence of the SOP mimics the Declaration of Independence, but replaces the “Creator” as the source of rights, with “nature.” No big deal, He’s just a Creator and he’s not hypersensitive.
But the third sentence of the SOP, coupled with the fourth sentence of section 9, undo virtually everything Ron Paul accomplished on both sides: his rescue of the libertarian philosophy from moral reprobation and his holding the GOP accountable to its own Constitutional and fiscal principles. Here are those two destructive sentences:
- The third sentence of the SOP: We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- the fourth sentence of SOP section 9: We favor civil discussion of this [abortion] question, but take no position on the merits of conflicting legal, ethical, and religious viewpoints on either side.
The words “expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct” means that the RLC is not content that the Federal Government is prohibited from making laws with regard to those things, it wants the classical libertarian’s views on social issues to become Constitutionally protected “rights.” But those “rights” do not extend to All persons. As was once true with slavery, the RLC wants to allow some persons (including, but not limited to living, prenatal children) to be exempt from protection under the Constitution.
Because, like slavery, it is an “emotional” issue.
The message is clear. The RLC, on the national level supports ALL VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL CONDUCT as a “right” but does NOT support the Inalienable Right to Life of all persons.
So when push comes to shove what “rights” does the RLC Statement assert?
RLC “Rights” (things no one can stop you from doing)
- Speaking your mind
- Assembling with others to organize politically
- Keeping and bearing Arms
- Engaging in Sodomy
- Being, hiring or pimping a Prostitute
- Having consensual sexual relations with a child
- Having sexual relations with an animal
- Producing, and marketing heroin, crack cocaine, or cream-filled cupcakes.
Items the RLC will not construe as “rights”(things that can legally be done to you without objection by the RLC):
- Being Dismembered, alive; your arms, legs and head cut off
- Being slowly devoured by acidic fluid over 18 hours
- Being punctured, at the base of your skull, living, conscious, and having your brains scooped out
- Being thrown, living, struggling for breath, into a bag of bleach, smothered with wet towels on a stainless steel table or
- Being held without water until you die of thirst.
In short, the RLC will take no stand on innocent human beings being tortured and literally butchered, unless the proper agency of government decides to give them a protected classification.
When approached about the RLC’s Statement of Principles, Sandi Belzer Brendale universally responded to conservatives: “I know what the problems are and we can fix them [at National]. And the national chair agrees with me. We [Washington] can do what we want.” **
Sandi exuded sincerity. We trusted her. And we joined, on the way to the State Convention, with great hope and trepidation.
** [It is worth noting that at the time of these confident pronouncements, Washington's chapter of the RLC, through an oversight by the national RLC when the original chartering documents were accepted, was operating without bylaws, enabling Sandi to become its ad hoc chair and appoint ad hoc board members.]