Duval County residents, commercial property owners and small businesses owners are being choked by the cords of excessive taxation and regulation to support excessive government spending and the mayor’s office is proposing an additional property tax increase. Currently tens of thousands of Duval County residents have had their hours at work reduced or are unemployed as a result of the recession, and many small business and property owners are struggling to keep their businesses afloat. Commercial property tax increases and storm water fees are making it nearly impossible for small shops to operate in retail centers and commercial property vacancies are on the rise. A new property tax increase is unbearable for those barely or unable to make ends meet. Rather than a property tax increase, government should be looking for ways to decrease this burden on its citizens.

The current issue of excessive taxation, debt and spending at the federal, state and local level is a multi -pronged problem created by the government. The first problem is the amount government is currently spending with an extending question of what they are spending our money on. The second problem is the manner in which taxes and fees are collected and municipal debt is incurred. Mayor Peyton and others are proposing an additional property tax increase while assuring us they have cut every possible expenditure out of their budget.

While examining their budgets it is a good time for our leaders to ask the fundamental question “What is the necessary function of local government?” In a free society, government is created to provide for the security and protection of the property and rights of its citizens, through armed forces, state National Guard or a police force and fire department; to provide infrastructure for commerce and free trade; to provide a court system to settle disputes and to prosecute criminals; and, to provide for a currency to allow for free trade.

The converse to this question is “What business is the government in that should be handled by the free market?” In Florida and in Duval County, these businesses include among other things: schools, medicine, welfare, entertainment, agriculture, insurance, land development, ports, libaries and charities. In Florida, there are numerous primary, secondary and higher education schools that educate more effectively and efficiently than their current government school competitors. Simply compare the cost of education per student. The government should get out of the education business. Public education should be there to provide the minimum required education program. Government schools should be a program of last resort similar to the public defender’s office. The government’s goal should be to get our residents out of the government school system and to promote the expansion and growth of private and parochial schools; not to increase the size and burden of the government school system.

As compared to government businesses, there are numerous private hospitals that operate more efficiently and effectively. The government should get out of the medical business. There are numerous non-profits and charities that operate more effectively and distribute the money voluntarily given to them. The government should get out of the charity, welfare, recreation, entertainment, land development and library business. The free market has, and always will, do a better job at regulating itself and providing goods and services more efficiently and economically. But the real question is not who can do the job better − it is a matter of what is right and wrong. When the government takes money from a citizen to support individuals or programs that the citizen, whose money they are involuntarily spending, does not agree with, it is simply wrong.

At the state and local level, governments should work to have essential government services be paid for directly by those who use these services. These services should be paid for in the form of local sales taxes and user fees. For example, 100% of the cost of the stadium should be shouldered by the users of the stadium. If this can not be done, the stadium or facility should be sold or leased to someone who can operate and manage it profitably.

However, cutting the budgets of programs that are necessary functions of government such as fire, police, courts and roads are not necessarily the answer. The budgets of these necessary agencies and departments should be increased if necessary while those agencies providing services that should be handled by the marketplace should be phased out and eliminated.

Utilizing Property taxes to pay for these services is fundamentally abhorrent. In a free society no individual should ever lose their property for failure to act or pay a tax. All taxes should be avoidable and connected to specific use or consumption. If someone gets power they pay a tax, if the purchase fuel they pay a tax, if they purchase water they pay a tax. When they purchased their property they paid a tax, once they purchased the materials to build their home they paid a tax. Once an individual purchases a good or service and pays the associated fee or tax it becomes their property. The state should have no further claim against their property.

Our government was not created to do things for people, corporations or for states; to take from some to give to others. Unfortunately the un-American expanded federal, state and local social, welfare and entitlement system represents the gradual creep of a socialist redistribution of wealth mentality that is slowly undermining the fabric of the American dream. Every individual has the right to the fruits of their own labor and the responsibility to support themselves and their families. Under the US Constitution, the federal government cannot legitimately redistribute the wealth and assume power over people’s lives and dominate mans existence with oppressive taxation, regulations and government controls. Our leaders need to send those calling back to the charities and use the bully pulpit to rally the business leaders, churches and non-profits to the cause of individual and community responsibility to solve these problems.

If you agree with this position and would like to learn more about the message of liberty, visit the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida website at http://www.rlcfl.org/ and find your local chapter today.

Will Pitts, Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida
July 17, 2009

Open Letter to Bob Smith, a leader in the St. John’s County Republican Executive committee that continues to attack and smear the RLC, without ever attempting to address any issues he may have head-on.

Bob,

I got a call from the Rubio campaign this morning stating that you sent them an email that said that we did not want Aaron Bean to come speak based on our newsletter. This is not the truth. We are resending the announcement. I was waiting to talk to Aaron myself, since this whole scheduling thing has been such a fiasco. Now that we have confirmed him, we have no problem promoting him. The RLC would have appreciated if you had confirmed with us, before passing on misinformation.

I have recently been told of numerous times that you have gone out of your way to attack and smear the RLC, specifically with people in the Tea Party and 912 groups. I am not sure why you find it necessary to continue these aggressive and non-productive attacks. However, you need to understand that not only do most of the people that you talk to in attempts to smear the RLC come back to us to find out if there is any cause for the absolute vitriol that you send towards the RLC, this allows us to prove to them what kind of people and organization we actually are. Often times the very people you tried to convince that the RLC was evil and working against the party, end up becoming very active within our organization, once they see and understand how untrue your perceptions and attacks really are.

I know that you have told people that the RLC was the “kiss of death” to the Dan Quiggle campaign, that we lack integrity, and so on. I have a statement from Dan Quiggle stating the exact opposite. The RLC is consistent in its beliefs and what it stands for. When you state these kinds of things with no proof it proves that you have a different agenda than advancing principles of conservatism within the Republican Party.

Even those within the Republican Executive Committee, such as Lenny Curry and Cindy Graves (copied on this email), have proven to be leaders, because they understand that we are all, for the most part, working towards a common goal. They do not find it necessary to attack the RLC and are actually happy, many times, to have us working with them side-by-side. Sometimes we disagree, but neither Lenny nor Cindy have ever tried to shut out the voice of dissent. Often each of them have taken the time to listen to other points of view and even explain their own, allowing us to reach an agreeable resolution. This proves that it is only when you shut out the voice of the people – when you choose unethical, unfair and wrong behavior, when you choose to attack, berate and smear other Republicans – that there are problems.

It is funny how the ONLY club or committee in Duval or St. Johns that has problems with the RLC is the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee. We are at nearly every GOP meeting in those two counties without any problems. We are being recruited to work on campaigns and people are flooding to our meetings, I get several emails a day from people asking for more information about the RLC.

So if you stop and examine this, the fact of the matter is that whenever there is a problem, the same leadership within the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee is involved. It is those people and their behavior, and not the RLC, that is the common denominator when problems arise at the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee meetings.

If Senator Thrasher sticks to his word (and I hope that he will), as he gave it to me, to John Stevens and to Will Pitts, that he believes we are working together for a common cause (as we are), that he wants to bring the party together and stop the unneeded attacks on others within the party, then you and the others in the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee will need to find a way to work with us. We are fighting for our country. We have the same goal. While we may disagree with how to get there, the constant attacks and attempts to smear the character of others, proves that it is never your intention to work with others and it is you and not the RLC that are attempting to tear the party apart.

I would point out, that the Tea Party and the 912 groups share the RLC’s vision and that all of these groups are growing. Many of these people are joining their local Republican Executive Committee in order to fight for principles. They share the RLC’s message. To continue to fight us on these issues is to fight what is a growing majority within the Republican Party.

You have yet to actually attempt to talk to us, about any of the issues that you are so vocal about with everyone else. On every public forum that you posted your hateful words regarding the RLC, I have posted my contact information. I have NOT caused problems, I have always voted Republican and I have worked hard on Republican Campaigns, as has nearly everyone else in the RLC.

You and the others in St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee leadership do not get to choose who is Republican. This is my party as much as it yours. I fight for the values that the GOP has always been for and I am disappointed when a candidate is chosen in the primary or is elected that I feel does not represent those values. This is the cry of the rank and file Republican today. And we want to use that passion to move our party back to those values once again. When people like you create road blocks to that cause, it not only drives a wedge into the party, it shuts out the voice of the people that the leadership within the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee are supposed to be representing.

You know very little about the RLC or the people that are within the organization. By never seeking to find out more or attempting to see what we could work together on, you, sir, are the one causing problems in the party.

If you are not the one trying to drive a wedge into the Republican Party by determining who is acceptable and who is not, then you would attempt to make ways for us to work with you, instead of you working against us. I will also add that is you and a handful of others in the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee that are spreading these untruths regarding the RLC. We are focused on the big picture, which is the goal of restoring our Republic and we are not spending our time trying to find ways to attack you or the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee. It is our wish to work together.

Prior to the attacks, character assassination and grievances, several attempts were made to reconcile with the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee and these attempts and acts of faith have been disregarded.

Consider this story, http://staugustine.com/stories/082508/news_news01_002.shtml

Jon Woodard and Becky Reichenberg agreed to cease attacks on the RLC on the condition that John Stevens and Wynona Mayer drop out of the race, which they did, in good faith, taking them at their word. Less than a year later those very people were involved in a grievance proceeding with one of the  people ( John Stevens) they had given their word to.

Now it is happening again with Precinct Committeeman Cliff Johnson being shut out of the vote for John Thrasher. He politely asked for the records, via certified mail, that would prove that he has missed three meetings, and was denied. He was denied entry at the vote and now has been ignored in his request for the records that should simply prove that he missed three meetings. This kind of behavior is not demonstrated on the part of the RLC, these are things happening at the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee and within their leadership.

Many of the rank and file  who hear this story and the lengths that it appears that the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee leadership has gone to, in order to shut out a certain group of people, are baffled and disenfranchised (with the party, not the RLC) to say the least. We do not want bad publicity, we do not want to keep fighting. But we believe the message of return to Constitutional principles is worth fighting for, and because of that, we are not going away.

So now I am asking you, as a leader within the community and the party, will you step up and be the one to make amends? Will you cease the attacks and admit that we have more in common than we do different? Will you allow us to work towards the same goal?

Most of the RLC feels it has done all it can do, we have put our contact information out there, along with an open invitation to sit down and talk these issues out. I hope that as a leader and fellow fighter and servant within the party you would take us up on that and stop with the senseless attacks.

I hope to hear from you soon, all my contact information is below.

Kristi Dunn

MsKristiDunn@gmail.com

1 Corinthians 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but  of the other:
for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?

Why is it that the newly energized liberty movement has only enjoyed marginal support amongst the so-called religious right? In the early days of the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign I can remember thinking that Dr. Paul is one of the first liberty centered candidates who will be a slam dunk with this faith based segment of the Republican Party. After-all, a grandfatherly figure married to the same woman for more than fifty years; A pro-life OBGYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, and a military veteran who is an outspoken advocate of the Christian Just Theory of War seemed like the Christian Coalition Super Candidate. However the Ron Paul R[evol]ution failed to produce overwhelming numbers of faith based supporters within the rank and file of the GOP.  As someone who has always considered himself to be a cultural as well as a fiscal conservative, I was anxious to understand why my brothers & sisters of faith were not on the same page as me.

I began by taking a close look at my own personal transition from a faith and religion centered political philosophy to a liberty and freedom focused philosophy. Did this transition make me a believer in moral relativism? Did it weaken my faith in God? Certainly not, but it did cause me to re-examine the proper role of government when it comes to cultural, religious and moral issues. And I believe it is here where the real conflict and disconnect between the two groups lies. To illustrate, consider three issues where traditional religious right conservatives and liberty minded activists usually part ways: Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage and Prayer in School.

Drug Legalization
It is generally agreed upon by both the religious right and liberty activists that the use of drugs causes more harm than good. And it is also agreed upon by many in both camps that an individual who is engaged in drug use is acting immorally. Furthermore both groups see a need, perhaps even an obligation, to work to minimize this activity in our society. The conflict only arises when one group (the religious right) favors using the force of government to minimize drug use while the other group (liberty activists) stand in opposition to such an approach.

Gay Marriage
Most people of faith believe the institution of marriage is a sacred institution that should be preserved in its traditional form of a one man, one woman lifelong committed union. Many (not all) liberty activists share the same view. The conflict again arises when one group (the religious right) favors using the force of government to enforce this belief while the other group (liberty activists) is opposed to any and all governmental interference in the institution of marriage.

Prayer in School
Most people of faith believe that if we as a society had a greater focus on God and spirituality via public prayer we could improve many of our cultural problems.  And again many (not all) liberty activists share the same view, but are in conflict when they are told that the force of government should be used to promote this behavior. There does however seem to be a consensus from both groups that the force of government should not be used to prohibit such behavior.

When it comes to each of these three issues, the behavior being regulated by government does not directly impact the freedom and liberty of anyone besides the individual whose behavior is being regulated. Yes, drug use many times leads to behavior that impacts the freedom and liberty of others – but it is possible for the behavior in and of itself to affect no one but the person choosing to engage in the behavior. And the moment it does cross the line, most everyone is in agreement that the force of government is acceptable to remedy the injustice. In the case of gay marriage it could be argued that over time a prevalence of gay marriage would weaken the traditional family, but the fact is that when two people choose to call themselves married it has no direct effect on the freedom and liberty of anyone else but themselves.  And in the case of prayer in school, the person who chooses not to pray is the only one being directly impacted by a government regulation forcing them to pray. So the central question is whether or not the use of government force is justified in promoting moral behavior or prohibiting immoral behavior.

Aside from the effectiveness and obvious lack of constitutional authority for government to delve into these issues, you should consider the inconsistencies in regulating moral behavior. There are seven deadly sins, but yet the religious right is not advocating using the force of government to reduce gluttony, greed, avarice or lust. Why not? I mean if the general premise behind laws against drug use, gay marriage and laws mandating prayer in schools is righteous, why not make laws that will promote all moral behavior and prohibit all immoral behavior? I think the answer is obvious. This is not the proper role of government. It is the role of individuals, families, Churches, charities, civic organizations etc. to promote “good behavior” and hopefully raise the standards of moral conduct in our society.  Faith is not the foundation of freedom – individual liberty is the foundation of freedom.

When I first moved from a faith and religion centered political philosophy to a liberty and freedom focused philosophy I felt a little guilty because it seemed as though I was downplaying the importance of the culture war in today’s society. I was no longer in the same political camp as groups like Focus on the Family, The Christian Coalition or Huck’s Army. I know I shared many of their ultimate goals but I was just no longer comfortable with their approach or with their willingness to use government as a means to an end.  However, I still feel that there is no more pressing issue facing our nation than promoting a moral culture. Capitalism, Free- Enterprise, Individual Liberty, and even a constitutionally controlled federal government will ultimately fail in an immoral and decadent society.  I have since reconciled this conflict by fully understanding the proper channels to achieve progress in both liberty and faith. I have also come to the realization that there is a natural home for the religious right within the liberty movement and that understanding the proper roles that Faith and Liberty serve in our society is the first step to increasing the ranks of both.

John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman

Positive thinking is a mental attitude that admits into the mind, thoughts, words and images that are conductive to action and then success. It is a mental attitude that expects good and favorable results. A positive mind anticipates happiness, joy, health and a successful outcome of every situation and action.

Many of us are passionate about politics and often get so caught up in what we are fighting against, that we tend to forget what we are fighting for, what we represent and why it is important to us.

Why is it important to frame what we say as political activists in a positive manner? Because while negative tactics in politics often involves “getting things done at the expense of others” and “being willing to win while others lose,” positive politics is the ability to influence opinions, obtain resources and work with people to get things done.

When we practice positive politics we are acting in the service of our organization and our mission. We become powerful advocates for our stated cause. While building an understanding and mutual network of support with those around us. Even those that do not fully understand what we are fighting for are willing to listen when the message is framed in a positive light.

In debate class, students quickly learn that whoever frames the message in the most positive manner wins the debate. This is an important skill for those of us fighting for Liberty to understand and incorporate in our interactions with others.  As an example, when the abortion argument began, both sides of the debate fought to see who would be able to best “frame the message” which they believed would recruit more followers to their viewpoint.  One side started calling those who were against abortion “anti-choice.” The opposing side responded by framing those who were for abortion as being “pro-death.”  Today, this framed marketing message has polarized both groups into the Pro-life / Pro-choice movement.  This matters because it clearly states what they are fighting for and not what they are fighting against, thus attracting people to the cause.

Those of us fighting in the liberty movement should understand the physiological way that others respond to the message that we are presenting. We need to be able to articulate what we are for, instead of always with what we are against.

If we want to be leaders in our respective political parties, we need to be able to communicate a clear, positive, call to action to potential supporters. Outstanding leaders are able to positively express an ideological vision congruent with the deeply-held values of their followers. Real leaders display a passion for, and have a strong conviction about what they regard as the moral correctness of their vision. They engage in outstanding or extraordinary behavior and are willing to make tremendous self-sacrifices in the interest of their vision and mission. We need to learn to do this in order attract people to the cause of Liberty and communicate with them the importance of what we are trying to accomplish.

Once we learn to “frame the Liberty Message” in a positive, upbeat way, we will have more curious bystanders join our cause.  Those who are apprehensive will begin to listen. People become fascinated with and are drawn to a message of hope and encouragement. After all, the ultimate goal is attracting more people to our message of Liberty and Freedom.

How do we frame the issues that are important to us in a positive manner:

Our opposition to the Patriot Act- We support protecting all American’s privacy and personal liberties.

Opposition to the current managing of the Federal Reserve- We support a sound monetary policy that is transparent to all Americans

Not being willing to Vote for the lesser of 2 evils in elections- We believe American’s should only vote for someone whom they agree with on fundamental Republican principles.

Our Opposition to unprincipled republicans such as Charlie Crist, John Thrasher and other such as them- We support holding all Republicans accountable because it is the only way to insure our party remains true to its principles.

Our opposition to Interventionist Foreign Policy- We support a Constitutional approach to foreign policy thus allowing us to build a strong national defense.

It has been interesting to witness the confusion amongst conventional politicos as groups like The Campaign for Liberty and The Republican Liberty Caucus begin to exert more and more influence over today’s political discourse. Members of these groups are fighting for issues and taking positions that don’t seem to fit neatly into the traditional left or right boxes. I recall hearing a long time Republican Party loyalist accuse one of these activists of being a “left-wing Obama supporter” because they questioned the GOP’s support of the Patriot Act. On another occasion I witnessed this same activist being mocked as a “right-wing extremist” by a long time member of the Democratic Party for suggesting that the federal government should have no involvement in the issue of health care.   How can the same political activist be both “left wing” and “right wing”?

It seems that in 2009 politics, the “left” or “right” label is determined by where you stand on issues in relation to where the Republican and Democratic Parties stand on those issues. Oppose the Patriot Act, question the constitutionality of the war in Iraq or oppose government involvement in the issue of gay marriage and you will find yourself on the wrong side of the GOP and therefore labeled a “leftist”. However, oppose a federal health care bill, support the elimination of the federal Department of Education or speak out against the progressive income tax and you will be at odds with the Democratic Party and likely lumped in with the “right wing extremists”.   The problem with this approach to politics is that rarely is the question asked why the parties hold their positions on various issues. And even rarer is an actual discussion or debate on the reasons for holding those positions.

Members of groups promoting liberty do not fit into the conventional Left/Right paradigm.  When an issue is presented to a liberty activist, the first question is not where does my party stand on this issue, but rather what position protects the freedom and liberty of the individual. In looking at the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Gay Marriage, Health Care, Education and Taxes, one must first have a clear understanding of individual rights, where they come from and the proper role of government. The Declaration of Independence clearly spells out the fact that our rights come not from man but from our Creator. And the United States Constitution clearly spells out what authority the federal government has in relation to those rights. It is from these two documents that all political issues should be discussed, debated and acted upon.

Does the federal government ever have the authority to violate the right of an individual to be secure in their person and possessions from search and seizure without probable cause? The answer is no and therefore the liberty position on the Patriot Act is to oppose it.

Does the Constitution give the Legislative Branch of the federal government the ability to transfer its authority to Declare War to the Executive Branch? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals?  The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on the Iraq War has been to oppose it.

Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to define or regulate the institution of marriage? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals?  The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on the issue of any gay marriage regulation (pro or con) is to oppose it.

Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to impose laws or to regulate the delivery of health care? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals?  The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on federal health care legislation is to oppose it.

Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to impose laws or to regulate education? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals?  The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on funding a federal department of education is to oppose it.

Does government taxing the fruits of one’s labor threaten the freedom and liberty of all individuals?  The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on income taxes is to oppose them.

These concepts are pretty simple for those who get involved in politics for the purpose of ensuring that government protects the liberty of the individual. To those who complicate politics by focusing on things like party loyalty, personal ambition or political personalities, understanding exactly what it is you stand for can be a little more difficult. When you are not looking at issues based on a fundamental set of principles you will often times open yourself up to weak arguments or even worse, hypocrisy.

Understanding liberty and applying it to all political issues is a liberating and empowering experience. You no longer have to feel uncomfortable when asked your position on an issue because you will no longer have to worry about making the party line fit with your own personal logic.  You won’t have to defend the inconsistencies coming from party “leaders” or political personalities. In essence “The truth sets you free”.

Yes a good understanding of the concept of liberty will change your scale from one measuring Left vs Right to one which measures Freedom vs Tyranny. And that is the only measurement that should matter in the fight for liberty.

John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman