How is being pro national security and strong police/intelligence a "RINO" position? That's a very traditional Republican position, dating back at least to the early 1950s and cold-war conservatism, and hardening in the 1960s/70s with conservatives' worries about the Vietnam protests, hippies, Black Panthers, and other groups they felt needed to be suppressed. Most Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have tended to be pro-military and pro-police-power along those lines— Rehnquist, Burger, and Alito being three of the harder-line examples.

Perhaps you're thinking of an alternate history where the Republicans were a primarily libertarian rather than a primarily conservative party?

The Tea Party faction of the GOP is a pretty vigorous libertarian movement-- Rand Paul is the most libertarian elected official of either party.

You must be thinking of a different "tea party faction" than the one I know. Because the one I know has been doing its damnedest to to elect "social conservatives" who support "traditional family values".

But yeah, they're pretty libertarian with respect to the liberties they like. Everything else can go.

That's my impression of the Tea Party in my area (southeast Texas) as well, although the conservatism goes beyond social issues like abortion or gay marriage, and into things more relevant to this discussion, too. On security issues they actually seem rather pro-police and pro-military rather than the opposite. There's a lot of support among local tea-party activists for ideas like having drones patrol the Texas-Mexico border, or even nutty stuff like having roving police ID checks to catch illegal immigrants (Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio is something of a hero). There are some libertarian views as well, but mostly limited to guns and taxes. On security issues, nativist views seem to override suspicion of government.