Several members of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) attended the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) annual meeting January 8th and 9th.  With factors such as the recently announced resignation of RPOF Chair Jim Greer, the growth of the RLC, the emergence of Tea Party movements and the influence of the “We Surround Them” (912) groups, we had high hopes for a new direction for the RPOF.

New opportunities were opened as a result of the anger and energy of these activist groups, and the RPOF state committee recognized this with a resolution to encourage county executive committees to reach out to “Tea Party people.”  This would have given the RPOF a solid boost heading into the 2010 elections.  But they failed to understand that those “Tea Party people” want principled leadership and bottom-up representation, not the party-first top-down mentality currently in place.

At the annual meeting, the RPOF leadership demonstrated that they still don’t get it.  Chairman Greer received a standing ovation from party leadership when he exclaimed at the conclusion of his speech, “It’s about the party, party, party”. The cries heard at a Tea Party or grassroots function, however, are for “principles, principles, principles.”

Rank-and-file Republicans are clearly angry over the unprecedented growth of the federal government in 2009.  They are also disgusted at our Governor Charlie Crist’s display of support for Obama’s stimulus package. Yet, when Crist addressed the RPOF at the meeting, he stated that “Florida needs to get her fair share,” and added that he would “not apologize for supporting the stimulus.” Such a statement would be met with scorn from the majority of voters of the Republican Party and Tea Party attendees, but was met with a standing ovation by party leadership.

The first person to speak on policy was Jeff Kottkamp, candidate for Attorney General. Kottkamp did not talk about reducing the size and scope of government, cutting spending, or removing regulations and encouraging free enterprise.  Instead, he focused his remarks on expanding the Defense and Space industries in Florida.  Grassroots Republicans are pleading for leadership that understands the core issues of fiscal responsibility and limiting the size and scope of government, but RPOF leadership offers only promises to protect special interests.

Most discouraging of all, however, was the apparent coronation of Senator John Thrasher to replace Jim Greer as Chair of the RPOF. In much the same fashion Jim Greer was chosen, the word is that Thrasher had been chosen before the conference call announcing Greer’s resignation had even ended. Many in leadership have rallied around Thrasher because of his ability to raise large sums of money, something the RPOF is in need of. What the RPOF needs more than money, however, is to discover its principles and to get candidates who truly understand those principles elected to office.

A Sign of Hope

In spite of the leadership’s general disconnect with the grassroots, there was a significant sign of hope.  There appears to be some serious resistance to the leadership-led coronation of John Thrasher as the new RPOF Chair. Sharon Day, who currently serves as national committeewoman for Florida, stated that she too is running for RPOF Chair in the election that will take place at the February 20th special meeting in Orlando. “I’m running to give the RPOF members a choice, because there should always be a choice,” Day said when she addressed the state committee Saturday morning.

The RLC applauds those in the RPOF that are supporting the courage of Sharon Day and others that seek to offer a voice to the rank-and-file Republicans. We hope that more in party leadership will stand against the top-down approach taken by many in the RPOF.

-Republican Liberty Caucus Leadership

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

MEDIA RELEASE

For Immediate Release
For Further Information
Contact Attorney Fred O'Neal
(407) 719-6796

GOP PARTY OFFICIALS
NICK EGOROFF & DOUG GUETZLOE
FILE SUIT AGAINST THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF  FLORIDA
OVER REPUBLICAN PARTY  PURGE

A lawsuit  was filed this morning (9/24/09) by elected Orange County Republican party executive committee members Nick Egoroff and Doug Guetzloe to
nullify the recent action by Republican Party of Florida Jim Greer to remove or  suspend duly elected Republican party leaders who have disagreed with
Greer and  other party bosses.

The lawsuit (2009-CA-030146-O), filed in Orange/Osceola Circuit Court has been assigned to the Honorable Robert Evans and it seeks to re-seat both
Egoroff  and Guetzloe on the Orange County Republican Executive Committee, who were  removed without due process by RPOF Chairman Jim Greer based on a
bogus  complaint by embattled Orange County REC Chairman Lew Oliver.

This lawsuit comes on the heels of a recent court victory in the Third District Court of Appeal that affirmed an injunction against RPOF to allow the
seating of Dade County REC members that the party has attempted to expel. That ruling lays a precedence for the removal of embattled Orange County
REC  Chairman Lew Oliver, who previously removed 17 duly elected REC members immediately before the Chairman's election last December.  Oliver then
conducted an election for Chairman and declared himself the winner by one  vote. Another Orange County court case seeking to invalidate Oliver's  election
will be combined with this lawsuit.

Constitutional attorney Fred O'Neal is representing Egoroff and  Guetzloe.

"This is a huge battle for the First Amendment, due process and the ability of Republicans to control their own party.  We will win this lawsuit and
the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party will register a huge victory in Orange County," stated Guetzloe.  "We will put a stop to the
party purge."

Guetzloe has been an elected member of the Orange County Republican Executive Committee for 29 years.  He was named "Outstanding Republican in  Orange
County" by the REC in 1989 for leading the voter registration drive that moved Orange County into the Republican column.

Both Guetzloe and Egoroff were elected by wide margins in their individual precincts in 2008, in spite of concerted negative campaigns orchestrated by
Lew  Oliver and Jim Greer.

Oliver has also been implicated in financial misdeeds by spending over $100,000 in party monies over the past year with no party approval, including
over $55,000 to himself and a consultant.

The Federal Election Commission (Case #MUR6202) is investigating the alleged illegal transfers and payments to Oliver.

(END)