Great things are happening across America. The actions of a few brave and noble state legislators and state officers around the Republic may well demonstrate that the most important election in the nation may not be the run for the President of The United States. The most important upcoming elections for all Americans may be those for their state House of Representatives, State Senate, Attorney General and their Governor’s races. When this country was created the office of the President was intended to have a relatively minor influence on the citizens of each state. It appears that some legislators and state Attorney Generals are dusting off the Constitution and working to get their house in order.

In Oklahoma the state legislature has a Bill pending to re-assert their state sovereignty.  The short caption of the bill reads:

“Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.”

Essentially, Oklahoma has asserted that the federal government and those in Washington D.C. are no longer going to dictate the way they run their state education, industries, National Guard, state police and they are especially not going to run rough shod over their state legislature. Oklahoma has told Washington, enough is enough. GET OUT!

In Montana the Governor and the State Legislature are reasserting their sovereignty and telling the Director of Homeland Security they have no constitutional authority to force the National ID on its citizens.

In New Hampshire a group of legislators are diligently working to introduce sound money backed by gold and silver as a state currency.

In Nevada the State Legislature rules the Federal Reserve Corporation unconstitutional.

It is All About Sovereignty

When we look at the source of the problem, most every problem in America today stems from a failure to respect and understand sovereignty: national, state, local and individual. The national police state and (FBI, DEA, CIA, OSHA, Corp of Engineers, Homeland Security, IRS, Fish and Wildlife, EPA, Fusion Centers, etc., etc.) runs rough shod over the state police, local sheriff’s offices and citizens in each state. The dire problems in this country were created by unconstitutional, unconscionable actions of the U. S. Congress. These agencies undermine the liberties of all Americans, violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and undermine the sovereignty of each state. Take a look at a list of all Federal Agencies. You will not believe it (http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml ).

The financial problems created by having to feed this machine seem so complex and overwhelming that most Americans have developed a sense of hopelessness and despair. When it comes to dealing with issues such as the national debt, the growing federal bureaucracy and the national police state, the citizens and states have no viable avenue for redress. When citizens have more fear of the IRS and the federal government than of dying, we have a problem.

When it comes to protecting one citizen from another, the sheriff of each county is the legitimate constitutional protector of the rights and liberties of the citizens. Their offices are charged with both protecting the liberty of the citizens and prosecuting those who commit criminal acts against another citizen. Should the sheriffs’ office ever engage in violating the rights of its citizenry, the citizens have immediate recourse by calling a town meeting or replacing the sheriff at the next election. The sheriff is immediately answerable to those who entrust him with such power. This is the proper order of things.

With a Federal Police state or federal regulatory bureaucracy, there is no redress for the citizens of the state. Can one vote out the director of the US Army Corps of Engineers or the head of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington D.C.? Write your Congressman and see what kind of results you get. Additionally, the U.S. Congress and its agencies treat our states and city municipalities as low level extensions of Congress. They have forgotten that, THE STATES CREATED THE CONGRESS and gave them their limited powers. The national police and federal regulatory agencies routinely undermine the citizen’s inalienable right of self defense by placing limitations on gun ownership. The federal government has undermined the citizen’s right of freedom and life through the personal income tax and regulation of every area of one’s life or business. The average state citizen now works nearly 4 months of the year for the federal government. The sad irony is, we created the federal government to protect our liberty and privacy and now it is the federal government we need protection from. This is not how the Founders intended.

Debt, Taxes and Inflation

In order to pay for the federal behemoth, the U.S. Congress and Federal Reserve Corporation have saddled the American people with an unrecoverable $13 trillion of debt. Half of this debt was accumulated in the past 8 years. This is now expected to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. No generation has the right to pass on a debt to the next generation.

Unfortunately, the U.S. treasury is empty, we are taxed until we cannot be taxed anymore and the federal government has borrowed until it cannot borrow anymore. According to the former Controller General of the United States David Walker, the U.S. has another $50 trillion in social service, Medicare and Medicaid obligations coming due over the next 30 years. http://www.federalbud….

Walker says, the U.S. Government is already insolvent and operates only off of borrowed money. The income taxes collected are primarily paying the $1.5 billion a day interest payment. Assuredly, he states, at our present course the U.S. Government will cease to operate.

Privacy

Did you know that the federal government has passed legislation requiring every citizen to obtain a National Id Card? The little known legislation is known as the Real ID Act was passed into law by Congress in 2003 and began being implemented in May of 2008 ( http://www.realidstates.com/category/real-id-act/ ). Florida, my home state, implemented the program in January 2010. The national ID Card is a centralized federal government file database on every American. This legislation allows the director of the Department of Homeland Security to track all of your financial transactions (i.e. political affiliations, social clubs, service clubs, gun ownership, types of guns purchased, places traveled) health records, biometric data, blood type, DNA information and social security number and will have the ability to be directly connected to your ATM or Debit Card.

People often say that if you have nothing to hide why should you care?

First of all, it smacks of a modern version of the required papers required by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany and secondly the government was created to protect our privacy not invade it. Read a little on the Nazi police state for a brief history lesson. Also, I am uncomfortable knowing that my small children, for their entire life may have every doctor visit, everywhere they travel and everything they ever purchase collected, maintained and analyzed by the government official in a federal government database.

So with all of this, what can possibly be the good news?

The Solution

The good news is that our founding fathers anticipated all of this and they gave us the ability at any time to bring the house in order. When this Republic was founded, we referred to one another as Floridians, Alabamans, Georgians, and Virginians.

When referring to the states collectively it was states the “United States are” …

Today the federal government would have us to believe the “United States is” one large collectivist national state, run and operated out of Washington D. C.

This issue probably would not be resurrecting itself if it were not for Washington seeking to strip our liberties and God given rights from us, enslave us through taxation, burden our children with debts, and collapse the dollar we trade in until our entire nations wealth disappears through inflation. As a result, few leaders in Washington can be trusted. Our founding fathers repeatedly warned us to not trust those in power. We must follow Oklahoma’s lead, dust off the Constitution, re- assert our state sovereignty and turn to ourselves to preserve our liberties and our prosperity.

Our solution will be a long arduous battle that begins at the local level, then state level, one legislator at a time. Eventually we will have a legislature and governor willing to stand up to the federal leviathan. During the process they will be under tremendous pressure to abandon the course. Their careers will be threatened, if they own businesses they will be threatened with loss of business or contracts, they will be ridiculed by the media as anachronistic and the weight of their party will bear on each of them. There are trillions of dollars being spent at the federal trough and the pigs will not leave until they are starved out. This plan will take governors calling governors and legislators calling legislators. We must follow the Founders advice and the states must re-assert their sovereignty. The states must refuse to allow the US Government to continue to run roughshod over their legislatures. We must do as Oklahoma has done, tell them enough is enough.

We need to find, educate and elect officials who think deeply about the principles this county was founded upon. Leaders that understand that taking office is a burden not a popularity contest. We need leaders that do not allow themselves to become compromised. We need leaders with the courage of their convictions to tell those in Washington D.C. that our state is not going to take it anymore. As Oklahoma has said, enough is enough. We are here to take it back!

If you are committed to the cause of liberty and limited constitutional government please join or contribute to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida www.rlcnf.org.

Regards,
Will Pitts, Chairman

Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida

Florida Liberty Candidates

Here are some good candidates to support in Florida:

Charles Perniciaro, State Senate District 8
http://www.charlesperniciaro.com

Luis Melendez, State House District 16
http://www.electmelendez.com

Marcus Rivchin, State House District 117
http://www.marcusrivchin.com

Francisco Rodriguez, State House District 83
http://www.rodriguez2010.com

Nathan McDonell, State House District 26
http://www.nathanmcdonell.com

Roger Shealy, State House District 29
http://www.shealy2010.com

By Chaumont

In the Madisonian republic that the citizens of the several states have managed to sustain, above all else, including such abstractions as “the common good” and “general welfare” for example, stands the rule of law.  It is with strict adherence to and equal application of a supreme law of the land that we are able to live, at worst, relatively free and, at best, with ultimate liberty and maximum personal responsibility.  As Madison explains in Federalist Paper #57, the same laws that apply to the citizens also apply to the representatives.  No man–not the executive, nor the legislative– is above the law.  It is with this understanding then that we must allow ourselves to be guided when making judgments and decisions on our elected officials.

We must learn to set aside our own “special interests” when seeking out the best candidates to rule us.  Citizens of the modern states excel at disdain for the organized interests of business, for example, who employ professional lobbyists, but fail to draw the parallels between their own intentions and the intentions of these organized groups.  Each citizen who makes a judgment of a candidate based upon any issue that is personal to them commits the same offense against the Republic that the professional lobbyist does.  The only difference is that the professionals often do so with more money than the common citizen.  But, in principle, there is no difference.  Each is trying to influence the system based on their own personal values and ambitions.  As secondary considerations, this practice is not so harmful; however the primary qualification for office in a constitutional republic is this:  Will the candidate respect the limits place on his power by the Constitution?  If no, then the candidate must not serve, no matter what a voter may like about the candidate’s views on other issues.

Contrary to what so many people believe, and what the lobbyists hired by the special interests practice daily, the elected representatives do not serve us.  They serve the Republic.  When representatives serve the people, then by consequence they will serve the majority at the expense of the minority, the rich at the expense of the poor, the influential at the expense of the commoner.  This is the evil which we see today where the elected are divorced from the electorate.  We must elect moral men who will bound themselves with the chains of the Constitution, vote for no legislation that is not authorized by the Constitution, and represent the interests of the whole of their constituency in the interest of maintaining the republic.

Much of my message here to you has been a nice way of saying the following:  Nobody cares what you think.  Your opinion does not and should not matter.  Your influence must be defended against by every liberty-loving citizen of the states.  It MUST be this way.  We have a rule of law and a system of government designed, as its primary function, to protect me from you .  My motivation for electing a representative to government is to make sure they will keep you from forcing your values upon me, to keep you from stealing my property, to prevent you from forcing my children to march off to foreign lands to slaughter innocent citizens of another geo-political union.  I know you’re my enemy when I see you supporting issues like the Fair Tax, which is a different disguise of theft of my fortune.  When you support aggressive and pre-emptive war, I know you are willing to kill my children to further your agenda against the enemies you’ve made for yourself.  When you support a ban on gay marriage, I know you are telling me that you own the definition of marriage and, at any time, you can further clarify that definition to exclude me.

I must find a moral man who recognizes the threat you pose to me and my liberty, and do everything I can to put him between you and me to provide protection.  THAT is what this republican form of government and our Constitution is designed to facilitate.  Only candidates who run on this platform are fit to serve our Republic.  Stop being selfish and become self-interested.  Cease looking for ways to participate in the power-grab which has become modern-day politics.  Find it in yourself to be brave enough to give up the tendency to use the power of government to force others to think like you, act like you, and vote like you.  Instead, choose liberty for all to do as they please so long as they do not rob another of life, liberty, or property!  Be loyal, not to a flag or another man or a government; rather be loyal to the principle of liberty that this country was founded on!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida had a large crowd for its last meeting at the offices of W.G. Pitts, with the feature of the meeting being Dave Shields’ presentation on “Living the Liberty Message” and a forum for members and guests.

Randy Scudder opened with the Patriot’s Pledge, then Chairman John Stevens recognized the elected leaders and guests, and gave the guests an overview of the RLCNEF.  Kimberly Wells stepped up to the podium for a moment after, letting the assembly know of her resignation as Vice Chairman of the RLCNEF, and Chairman of the Membership Committee.

Dave Shields followed with an inspirational discussion titled “Living the Liberty Message.”  It focused on self-sufficient living and removing yourself from many of the schackles of typical government-dependent living.  You can find a transcript of his speech on this website at http://www.rlcnef.org/self-sufficient-living-living-the-liberty-message/.

Following was a forum for both members and guests, with a panel including John Stevens, Erik Setzer, Kristi Dunn, Michael Wahlman, Savannah Poole, Cliff Johnson, Jon Anderson, Cal Heseman, Victor Wilhelm, and moderated by Louis Rose.  Members were able to able to ask some questions for the panel to answer, and then were able to vote on the topics that the RLCNEF should focus on moving forward, with the top two being education of the Consitution and trying to get liberty-minded candidates to win local (county and state level) elections.

After the forum, John Stevens announced new members, and moved on to new business.  Will Pitts gave a review of the Republican Party of Florida meeting on January 8-9, and urged members to attend the February 20 RPOF meeting to vote for the next state chairman.  Savannah Poole told members about an upcoming members-only event for fun on March 19.  Finally, Michael Wahlman informed members that the RLCNEF bylaws had gone through a lengthy revision process and will be up for vote by the members on April 6.

Finally, three guests running for office spoke afterward: Mike Yost running for Congress District 3 (yostforcongress.com), Troy Stanley running for Congress District 4 (stanley10.com), and Chelsi Henry running for Soil and Water Group 5 (chelsiphenry.com).

Next Board meeting: February 24, 2010, Offices of W.G. Pitts
Next Regular meeting: March 2, 2010, Four Points Sheraton (8520 Baymeadows Rd.)

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

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

The concept of voting for the lesser of two evils is prevalent in American politics. This is the philosophy that when given two poor choices for elected office, the people vote for a candidate that they think will do the least amount of damage.

After years of supporting the candidate that always seemed to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, I have started to study this philosophy.

A few questions come to mind when thinking about the best way to cast your vote:

Is a vote for the right candidate, which may in the end, not be able to win, a wasted vote?

Or is a wasted vote one that is cast for someone that you do not believe in, and will not be the right leader for the country or state?

I have found that the ‘lesser of two evils’ philosophy is fundamentally flawed. When a voter chooses to vote for ‘evil’ it is still evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for- they are still choosing a candidate that is inadequate for the job

When one of the options is considered the lesser or the greater evil, either choice will be to the detriment of the Country.

When we as citizens cast our vote for the lesser of two evils, what we are basically saying to the candidates is that we support them. The politicians know this, and the parties know this. They do not need to offer other alternatives because the majority will make the choice for the lesser evil, and they can then continue with business as usual.

The ultimate conclusion that I have reached is that when I am presented with two bad choices, I am not going to vote for the choice I think is “less bad”. Evil is evil, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought – that there is a lesser evil – I would be giving into a false dichotomy.

A common response to this conclusion is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate and therefore at the end of the day pragmatism should win out to idealism. Political pragmatism has its merit as long as decisions are always made from a fundamental set of core principles that are never compromised. Everyone must have a line that cannot be crossed. For example, if you believe that an elected official who supports/votes for authority outside that which is authorized in the Constitution should never be elected, then that is a line that cannot be crossed even in the name of pragmatism.   Each voter needs to know where their line is before determining who they will or will not vote for.

Another common counter argument to not voting for the lesser of two evils is that you have to make a choice when given two poor options, because third party candidates are simply not viable. But as I began to study this philosophy I had a realization: The reality is if all the Americans that felt that they were choosing between two evils, refused to vote for the lesser evil choice, and instead voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election.

With this in mind, in the future, I will encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country and slows progress.  If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo!

By: Kristi Dunn

mskristidunn@gmail.com