There has been a movement afoot in American politics for decades now, a movement that has an under-current all its own, and one that works both from inside and outside the current two-party system.  It is a movement that is fighting for the America that our Founders envisioned.

There are many names for this movement, but I believe the one that encompasses the feelings of all those involved would be the Liberty Movement.  I say this because I feel it truly started back in December of 1773, when a group of men known as the “Sons of Liberty” boarded ships in Boston Harbor and dumped tea into the water. The colonists believed the East India Company had engaged lobbyists to coerce Parliament, and they were convinced the government was selling them out to big business.  The Sons of Liberty saw this as an attempt to control their freedoms.  And out of their fight for liberty, the Liberty Movement was born.

In more recent years, we have seen similar uprisings.  I believe the current one started in 2007. That year, the then-eleven-term representative Ron Paul (R – TX) was raking in more political contributions each month than nearly any other GOP presidential candidate, not from large special interests but from hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters raising donations around the country through the use of Tea Parties.  Yes, Tea Parties.

I feel the need to digress here for just a moment and state that this movement is not about one man. As I talked to many members inside the Liberty Movement, I was somewhat dismayed to find that the overwhelming majority say that they do not know exactly what they ought to be doing right now, without a Ron Paul campaign to work on. Ron Paul is the inspiration of a message, but he is not the message itself.  I certainly hope that many of these people understand that the future of liberty is not pinned completely on his possible candidacy for President in 2012. I believe that Ron Paul himself would be dismayed to hear that people are waiting to get involved based on his decision.

Today, I would say that Ron Paul, his supporters and like-minded candidates from around the country comprise most of the Liberty Movement. This movement is growing in numbers, as more and more Americans realize that they must stand and fight for their liberties or those liberties will be taken from them.

I am a fairly new member to this movement, and am often astounded to see the passion, energy and motivation of others in the liberty movement. More than that, I am amazed at the camaraderie that the people within it share despite its very diverse composition. Across the country, I have been welcomed into a social group – a family – that only knows that I am fighting with them for the same cause: Liberty.

I believe that the libertarian philosophy is among the most robust and developed political philosophies, because it practices what it preaches: ruthless competition in the marketplace of ideas, while promoting individual liberties and demanding personal responsibility.

But this also means that libertarianism (the belief system, not the political party) should be a big, big tent – much bigger than mainstream political movements, for it is the one that most closely embraces the Founders’ vision for our country. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence encompass the foundation of the Liberty Movement and contain principles and ideas that most Americans can rally around. This is the tent under which we need to stand together, united in the fight for liberty.

As with any newly established movement, at the beginning differences are set aside and the movement unites in a push to gain growth and traction. However, as a movement tends to do as it grows, it begins to be plagued with confusion over what to do with its newfound members and power; eventually, the disagreements over ideas for how to continue erodes its base and plunges it back to its starting form.

I fear we may be seeing some of this now with the current surge of those in the Liberty Movement.

There are various organizations, clubs, groups and caucuses now that fall under the ‘tent’ of the liberty movement. In order to be most effective, attract others to our message and continue to grow in recognition, all of these groups need to understand that our fight is the same. We are all fighting for Limited Constitutional Government and Individual Liberty.  But now the infighting of the members within the Liberty Movement has begun to grow. If this is allowed to continue, it will make the message that we are all working to bring to the masses virtually ineffective.

We must recognize that embracing the full concept of liberty is something of an evolutionary process, with a person embracing liberty more and more as they come to understand it better.  Many times, those who are further along in the process feel the need to demand that everyone embrace everything now or else we are somehow not remaining true to our cause. This is a dangerous mentality that stifles growth and tends to make the perfect the enemy of the good. (Think Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and today’s Tea Parties.)  Patience is, as ever, a virtue.

We must also respect and value differing strategies and tactics within the Liberty Movement. Some liberty activists feel the need to focus on single issues; others see the need to draw the connection between multiple issues.  Some want independence from the two-party system; others see working from within the two-party system as the best way to advance the cause.  Many liberty activists see education as the focal point; others are more concerned with political action. We should see the competing strategies and tactics as a strength, not as a weakness. They allow the movement to cover all of the bases and have more long-term resilience. Think of it this way: Would it be easier for the enemies of liberty to focus on stopping one strategy or try to head off twenty different strategies?

We are united in a cause and we should be focused on spreading the message of liberty in all its forms. We should encourage and uplift others who do this, in any way that might be effective and productive. We should be sure our methods are respectful and that our tone is welcoming. Attacking those within will never encourage those that are on the outside to join us. By fighting each other we marginalize our own movement.

A strong, valid movement needs integrated vision, goals and a unified front. I would much rather be fighting this battle side by side with a patriot against those who wish to see America as we know it destroyed, than to be fighting the patriots within my own movement.

We will never see everything the same, but remember: Those with the bigger vision are the ones that are responsible to share that vision in a way that motivates others to join in pursuit of it.

If we continue to direct our passion and energy towards fighting others within the movement, we will see it fall apart from within.  In launching the Liberty Movement the Sons of Liberty adopted the motto “Join or Die.” Today we might be better off adopting the phrase “Unite or Die.”  I believe if we can focus on the message, and keep our eyes on the ultimate goal of spreading liberty and educating the masses, we have great things ahead of us as a movement.

Article by:

Kristi Dunn, John Stevens, and Erik Setzer (Republican Liberty Caucus)

Feedback and input provided by:

Pat Mcbride (First Coast Tea Party)
Clive Rickett (Libertarian Party)
Allison Gibbs (Ladies of Liberty)
Scott Oliver (Campaign for Liberty)

Share on Facebook

On the position of organized medicine: the AMA and how it represents physicians ……

The recent slaps in the face of physicians (remember the Obama comments about ‘taking out tonsils’ or ‘amputations’ for profit) with similar sentiments by henchmen Reid and Pelosi) are but a few of countless examples of the complete disdain for physician voices in the ongoing “health care reform” debate. While conduct and comments of this sort should have awakened the medical community long ago, I am skeptical that my colleagues understand it.

The vapid, conciliatory, and utterly complete capitulation of the AMA to the current climate of so-called “reform” is clear evidence that physicians need strong new leadership. Falsely purported to represent the majority of US physicians by not only the organization itself but also the administration, the AMA has shown that its revenue–and not principles or tenets of effective organized medicine–is the business model of the AMA.

It pays to clarify what the AMA really is, what it represents, and how “in touch” the organization actually is. Take a recent statement by AMA President James Rohack “Our agenda, as the AMA fighting for health system reform, is to make a broken health care system for millions of Americans more secure and stable.” Well, I wonder where Dr. Rohack would choose to have his CABG, cancer treatment, or hip replacement? Don’t think for a minute that it would be anywhere but right here — in our “broken” health care system! But let’s look closer at the AMA and fellows like Dr. Rohack.

In addition to the enormous membership dues it receives, those which yield few or no useful benefits, the dirty little secret is that the AMA’s “deal making” with big government is not new. It began as far back as the 1980s. At that time, the AMA was granted an ‘exclusive contract’ by the government (yes, a monopoly crafted by physicians!) and given sole ownership of the only billing codes allowed to be used by government programs. In return, the AMA has (for nearly 30 years!) provided maintenance and updating of the data and codes at no cost to the government. Now, the original deal related only to Medicare and other government insurance programs. But since then, Congress expanded the regulation to require the codes to be used in electronic billing transactions with private insurers (socialism is the term, I believe), and that regulation exists to date!

As the owner and publisher of the codes, the AMA is represented in 11 of 17 seats on an advisory panel that creates codes for new procedures and sets values for each code. Insurers, a government official, and other providers fill the remaining seats on the board, which is lobbied heavily by those in medical specialties who seek the highest reimbursements for new treatments. Karen Serkes, Policy Director for an AMA competitor organization, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), likens the current code system to IRS tax forms. She questions why doctors and practitioners should have to lobby a trade group for regulatory favors, then have to purchase required materials from that same group. “The government requires us to use IRS forms,” Serkes said. “Imagine the outcry if people were charged for these pieces of paper (and the directions for filling out the forms) that the government requires you to use.”

So how the AMA can represent the interests of doctors and medicine while it relies on massive revenues that come from a government-sanctioned monopoly is easily answered—it cannot. The AMA knowingly gouges hundreds of thousands of physicians, other providers, and healthcare organizations by the sale of its exorbitantly priced coding books, software, and software licenses, including the AMA sponsored courses to use them. The estimates of “Codinggate” revenues range from 50 to 100 million dollars annually (although AMA leadership is tight lipped about it); over the course of the last 25 years, it is in the billions. And oh, by the way, AMA members quickly find out that this “cash cow” is not a benefit of their membership!

Most physicians are altruistic, humanistic, and selfless, and so many find the political process and its machinations quite distasteful. When they finished medical school and residency, they hardly envisioned having to write Congress, petition their elected representatives, attend “law days” or become active in the political process. But this is the new reality for physicians, some who, I believe, still don’t “get it”.

Particularly in the eye of politicians, physicians should just keep quiet and take care of patients. Never mind politics, Doctors! But of course, these same politicians who are now reengineering (read destroying) the best health care system in the world will enjoy “Cadillac” health care plans for life–the bennies of serving just one term in the House or Senate! These same folks have no problem telling Americans to “accept” what they are going to be ‘given’– rationing of substandard care in endless waiting lines; while also advising physicians to just “accept” what they are ‘given’—a chaotic, incompetent system providing substandard care. But the worst part of it all is that physicians will be enduring all this while receiving substandard reimbursement and an ever expanding role of government intrusion in the delivery of that (substandard) care.

Many physicians are labor neophytes, uninformed about organization of the type that gets its voice heard around the country and in Washington. And while the data are not readily available, most physicians do not come from families with a blue collar, union background. And for those that do, organized labor and unions are not what most physicians would find palatable or “politically correct” activities.

A slaptrap conglomeration of fragmented specialty societies that attempt to amalgamate into a viable entity in times of crisis is not that “voice”. In its attempts to cajole the current administration, the AMA has failed miserably in addressing essential issues–tort reform, physician reimbursement, working conditions, limiting government interference into private business, and protecting the doctor-patient relationship. That relationship should be and is just as sacrosanct as the lawyer-client confidentiality we so often hear about (but our elected officials wish to abrogate)!

So physicians need true organization to bring a real “voice” to the negotiating table in the political arena. But since elected representatives are in large part law professional, it is easy to see how the doctor-patient matter is ignored.

Now how true organization of medicine and physicians is formulated into law is a constitutional matter of the first order. Because dealing with issues like health care reform on an altruistic, humanistic, and “common sense” basis has NOT worked – and is even laughed at by the current “change at all costs” administration which, because we have zero power, is outright ignoring the voices of US physicians.

Even worse, much of the “reform” sentiment of the exceedingly few MDs who back the current disastrous changes (widely reported as general AMA “support” for Obamacare) is generated in the ivory towers of large teaching centers (read ‘academia’) where staff physicians can wax philosophical about how things should be down in the trenches (i.e. the real world). Sadly, it is a world these physicians never see as they are cloistered in their cushy tenured faculty positions with resident slaves doing the “heavy lifting”—all this under corporate programs which guarantee health care (and a job) for life.

To have any “voice” or a “seat at the table” (as the AMA and ACS, for example, like to call it) in the current discussion of health care reform, you must have organized power. It pays to remember that only weeks ago, “Cadillac” health plans held by labor union members magically were exempted from taxes until 2018, while their nonunion counterparts with such plans will not be exempt. So as unsavory as unions (SEIU, Teamsters, IBEW, UAW, etc) might seem, it is this very power that translates into action on Capitol hill and across the country. But physicians have none. And by current law, can have none!

Now, how union power is achieved  is a major legislative challenge confronting medicine. Right now, the cards (poorly written laws prohibiting organization by professionals) remain stacked against such organization in the professions. And right now, the AMA having sold out its physicians, has let the government control horse out of the barn.

Share on Facebook

Right now, I am shocked and appalled at what appears to be a world turned upside down, at least here in Jacksonville.

The Trail Ridge landfill is up for a new contract.  In 2008, Mayor John Peyton pressed the City Council to extend the city’s deal with Waste Management with a 35-year, $750 million dollar contract.  There would be no bidding on the contract, simply a 35-year monopoly for Waste Management.  After some wrestling back and forth, the City Council killed this deal.  However, it’s back again in a new form, and once again, no bidding is being allowed.

As anybody who understands the principles of free enterprise knows, this is a slap in the face to the concept of a free market system.  As well, it is fiscally irresponsible in that bidding the landfill deal could find a cheaper contract that would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

So, then, the Republicans in Jacksonville, being the party of fiscal responsibility and free enterprise, are obviously out in force against this deal, right?

Actually, no.  In fact, aside from the nonpartisan Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, the group leading the charge against this breach of conservative values is… the Jacksonville Young Democrats.

That’s right, the Jacksonville Young Democrats (JYDs) have been collecting hundreds of signatures on a petition to ask the city council to bid the landfill, and plan to protest the monopolistic deal at the city council’s meetings on the subject.  They have been vocal in their belief that the free market should be allowed to set the price.

The Republican clubs of Duval County have been strangely silent.

This is a direct example of party loyalty trumping principles in modern politics.  A Republican mayor pushes forth a plan to issue a long-term contract granting a monopoly to a company, and the local Republicans fall in line, either supporting the deal or remaining largely silent.  Their belief in the free market system goes out the door in their attempts to not criticize a fellow Republican, lest such criticism – gasp! – damage the party’s public reputation.

In the meantime, the Democrats, who are hardly believers in the ideals of capitalism and never shy from throwing away taxpayer money, are fighting against the deal.  Why?  Because it’s a Republican making the deal, that’s why.

I am embarrassed by my local party’s inability to stand for their own principles in this matter while the Democrats manage to run with the issue.  As a Republican who believes the fiscal ideals of the conservative platform, I want to support the efforts to get city council to bid the landfill.  Yet anyone who joins in championing traditional Republican values will in this case be called “traitors” to the party as they are forced to work with Democrats while Republicans stand by silently.

I ask those of you who are true believers in these basic principles to do the right thing, regardless of how it might look for the party.  Stand up for our principles, and fight to have the landfill deal be bid.  Don’t listen to those who will say you are working against the party because you happen to be going against a Republican mayor and agreeing with a Democrat club.  Remember that our nation only moves forward if we remember our ideals and push them forward, rather than the agenda of a party’s power.  And, in the process, when people see Republicans working for those principles again, we’ll actually be helping the party regain the trust of the public.

In the meantime, Republicans are supporting a taxpayer-funded monopoly while Democrats are pushing for a free market solution.

The world’s turned upside down.

Erik Setzer

Share on Facebook

In late 2009, Republican Party of Florida chairman Jim Greer, under fire from a number of party dissidents, was sent a letter from the state committee calling for a special meeting to oust him. The dissidents won, as Greer opted to resign among praise for his hard work. Vice Chairman Allen Cox resigned with him to allow for a fresh start. The people of St. Johns County, eager to see their man John Thrasher take the helm, elected him in a unanimous showing of support to take the state committeeman position that Jon Woodard graciously stepped down from, allowing Thrasher to run for the RPOF chairman position, which he won with a solid majority over Sharon Day, showing that he was naturally the favored choice of the people.

Or rather, that’s what the RPOF’s “elite” would have you believe. Greer, Thrasher, Charlie Crist, Dean Cannon, Mike Haridopolos, and several other big names have pushed this story.

Ladies and gentlemen… we have been lied to.

It is certainly true that many grassroots members of the party were unhappy with Jim Greer, considering his persecution of those who disagreed with a party line that had become corrupt and leaned far left of the Republican Party’s traditional constitutional values. However, it was his attempts to bully the people within the ranks of party officials, as well as his financial mismanagement and several other examples of poor leadership, that prompted the letter from dozens of state committee members calling for the special meeting in which they would seek to remove Greer.

Leading up to that meeting, a plan was made, which was never to have seen the light of day. Jim Greer, John Thrasher, Delmar Johnson, Jason Gonzalez, Mike Haridopolos and Richard Swarttz concocted an agreement with Greer, and a plan for the next phase of the RPOF. This agreement outlined that the party would allow Greer to resign, then publicly praise him, and keep him on as a consultant through January 31, 2011 at a salary of $11,250 per month, along with his full health benefits. It also noted the party would find all expenditures during Greer’s chairmanship to be honest and legal.

The document went further. It had a clause stipulating, “Senator Thrasher agrees that if he is elected RPOF Chairman, he will re-execute this Agreement on behalf of RPOF within 24 hours of his election.” And the document includes a second line for John Thrasher to sign under the heading, “To be re-executed following the election of successor RPOF Chairman:”

Keep in mind that at the time, Thrasher was ineligible to run for RPOF chairman. Only members of the state committee could do that, such as each county’s REC chairman, state committeeman and state committeewoman. So how could such a statement be in there, and a second line to sign which assumed he would get the nod?

Ah, but the pieces were in place for everything. Around that time, the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee just happened to do a purging of its roster, which conveniently removed some members who might object to Thrasher. Jon Woodard then stepped down, allowing the SJCREC to vote Thrasher into his position as state committeeman. This was not spur of the moment, it was planned in advance. And there are still questions about the purging of the roster, with a grievance having been filed against the SJCREC by one member who was removed without due cause.

At the January meeting of the Duval County Republican Executive Committee, DCREC state committeewoman Cindy Graves spoke about Thrasher and the DCREC’s planned endorsement of him. She mentioned a deal that had been made with Haridopolos and Cannon to have Greer resign, which would have Cox resign with him, and part of the deal was that they needed to elect Thrasher as chairman. Even as she attempted to correct that statement when asked about it, she confirmed it again. But members were asked to keep all of this quiet, that it was an internal matter for the RPOF, and nobody – media or anyone else – needed to know about it.

Sharon Day, the national committeewoman for Florida, ran against Thrasher for the position of RPOF chair. She had great support among the “rank and file” Republicans, but the majority of RPOF state committee members knew that they were required to make sure that Thrasher became the new chairman, to uphold their end of the deal that had been struck with Greer. So it was that Thrasher became the new chairman, speaking to the ideas of ushering in a new age of transparency.

One of the first things forced upon the RPOF was the need to do an audit of finances. There was no way to keep this under wraps. There had been many stories coming out that pointed to mismanagement of party funds and even outright fraud in some cases. The audit came back with all the damning evidence and there was no way at that point that it could be swept under the rug again. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement was handed the records and planned to proceed with a possible criminal case against Greer. The audit showed that Greer had been channeling a lot of party funds to personal use and to Delmar Johnson, his aide, who received over $400,000 in party funds.

Greer’s attorney, Damon Chase, addressed a letter to the party noting that associated of Haridopolos and Cannon had offered Greer $200,000 – nearly twice the salary he was scheduled to make – to keep quiet about the agreement for his resignation. Both deny that any such contact was made, but party officials had denied for months that the agreement existed to begin with. Even Thrasher claimed that no such agreement existed, even though he had signed it. The document itself though had stated that it was not to be officially filed unless necessary for enforcing the execution of the agreement. In light of that, it’s hard not to believe that Greer might have been offered “hush money.”

Another disturbing note that came out in the process was an announcement at a Jacksonville Republican club meeting that the RPOF was half a million dollars in debt, which was a prime reason for hiring a lobbyist like John Thrasher who could rake in a lot of money. However, it was found out afterward that Haridopolos and Cannon had funneled money out of the RPOF funds to “protect it” and that this money was over half a million dollars. Further, the RPOF was able to spend $200,000 on television ads shortly after Thrasher took over. This suggests that the RPOF was placed in a position to look like it was in a “financial Armageddon” which would support the need for Thrasher as chairman.

All of this paints a very disturbing picture of the Republican Party of Florida and its top officials. The former chairman was acting in a criminal manner while using shady rules to force out those who were calling for accountability. The incoming House Speaker and Senate President were involved with a State Senator to make sure that Senator replaced the outgoing chairman. Through it all, secret agreements were made and deals put in place to force the passage of this scheme.

This story highlights the need for electing people of principle within the Republican Party, and not people who “have connections” or “can raise money” or “know the system.” Greer knew the system. Crist is a “smart politician.” Thrasher can raise money and play the system. None of this has helped the Republican Party of Florida to be sustainable in winning elections, because none of it matters to the regular people. The people who are out waving signs and protesting government-as-usual do not want more of the same. They want people who will stand for principles and values, will do what they promise, and won’t make shady deals. Those people are sorely lacking in the Republican Party of Florida, and that is why Florida is on shaky ground in an election cycle which should heavily favor the Republican Party.

Examining the reason of why it would favor Republicans tells you why the RPOF is in danger right now. People are sick of backroom deals, or shifting stances to play to the lowest common denominator, or criminal behavior from their officials. They are running away from this now that they see it in full play in the Democrat Party. Yet as they run to the Republican Party of Florida, they see the same things occurring right now, and shy away from it.

If we want to win in November 2010, and make a stronger party in Florida, one that has a chance of winning, we need to have real accountability for our party officials and candidates. Vet the candidates and make sure they truly follow the Constitution. Make sure the officials are not corrupt. Create a party that is of the people, by the people, for the people… not a party that is above the people, buys the people, and fools the people.

That is how we will retake our country. And until we’re willing to call out the crooks and schemers in our own party, we have no right trying to lead a nation and call out crooks and schemers elsewhere.

You can find the Greer document at:
http://news.jacksonville.com/specials/pdfs/timesandherald.pdf

Share on Facebook

Many Northeast Florida Republican insiders were excited to learn that Senator John Thrasher has been chosen by top Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) leadership to be “their man” for Chairman of the RPOF. Unfortunately for them, many rank-and-file Republicans and conservative groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida (RLCNEF) do not share in their excitement. Rather, it appears an outright revolt is brewing, because while Senator Thrasher talks about conservative values, a closer examination of his career in politics paints a much different picture.

There is also a problem among many in the RPOF with the selection process itself. The structure of the RPOF is designed to allow the 67 Republican Executive Committees around the state to identify potential candidates and then, as a body, make a selection. It is supposed to be a bottom-up, not a top-down, process. This is not the way it has played out so far.

Many concerns have been raised regarding Thrasher himself. His record of questionable ethics and methods concern many conservatives who make up the base of the Republican Party and who are looking for serious reform. Tom Edwards, Jacksonville resident and president of Conservative Citizens for Justice, said, “I’m not concerned about John Thrasher because he’s a former medical association lobbyist who led the state’s tort reform effort, but I am concerned about his ethics. His record speaks for itself.” (Source: http://www.jaxobserver.com/2009/08/20/new-group-prepares-to-blast-thrasher-with-more-negative-tv-ads/)

Examining Thrasher’s Record:

• In 2008, Americans for Prosperity, Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, the Republican Liberty Caucus and other grassroots organizations attempted to get a Taxpayer Protection Amendment on the ballot for the voters. John Thrasher was hired as a lobbyist to defeat this legislation. Thrasher was working as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist against the taxpayers.

• Thrasher sponsored the legislation that forced Florida taxpayers to pay $10 million per mile for CSX, one of his clients. This is the highest per-mile cost for such projects.
  (Florida Times-Union 11/08/2008)

• In his first term in the House, in 1992, Thrasher violated a state law prohibiting a legislator from lobbying a state board on behalf of a client. An Ethics Commission report found that Thrasher, a longtime general counsel for the Florida Medical Association, called the chairman of a Florida Board of Medicine subcommittee to lobby against a proposed rule and appeared in person a week later to advocate for the FMA. The result was a public reprimand for his ethics violation on the floor of the House in 1995.
  (Source: http://politicsfla.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/examining-district-8-candidates-john-thrasher/)
• In violation of Florida’s law against former legislators lobbying their colleagues for two years after leaving office, Thrasher organized and hosted a luncheon for legislators on behalf of one of his special interest clients in 2001.

• Thrasher spent $5.8 million in taxpayer money to redecorate his office.
  (Source: Florida Times-Union, “Thrasher Sprucing the House; Some Shocked by $6 Million Tab” 6/28/99)

• Thrasher supported the passage of a bill that would provide $60 million in a tax giveaway to help powerful South Florida interests make renovations to the Miami Dolphins stadium. (Source: Florida Times-Union, “House Sacks Dolphins’ $60 M Sales Tax Break,” 4/29/97; Miami Herald, “Broward’s Rookie Democrats Have Capitol Challenges Ahead” 11/16/98)
• John Thrasher gave $500 to the re-election campaign of Democrat Alex Sink while she was still Florida’s Chief Financial Officer.
  (Source: http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/01/about-john-thrashers-campaign-check-to-alex-sink.html)
• As House speaker in 1999, Thrasher blocked legislation that would have beefed up the ethics commission’s power, saying it could lead to witch hunts.
• As Clay County commissioner, Thrasher was cleared by the commission by a narrow margin of an ethics allegation, after he voted to award a contract to a garbage firm he had represented as a lobbyist.
  (Source: http://flapolitics.blogspot.com/2009/08/mysterious-and-troubling.html)

Conflict of Interests

As party chairman, Thrasher should remain neutral in Republican primary races, but as a senator, Thrasher would need to build alliances with other Republican legislators who might face a primary challenge for re-election. Each role would be vying for attention, but only one would win.

Another key role for the party chairman is raising money for the party.  Thrasher will not be able to do that during the legislative session, when legislators are banned from raising money.

Thrasher is also chairman over the Senate Ethics and Elections committee. The task of this committee is to set public policy on maintaining fair and unbiased elections. This post requires him to shepherd all legislation that impacts how political parties and campaigns operate. Whose interests will he represent in that role?

The second committee Thrasher is a member of oversees the drawing of legislative districts. To allow Senator Thrasher to remain in dual chairmanship roles and/or as a member of a committee holding sway over fair representation would threaten the integrity of the process as a whole.

The People’s Voice

Once one has considered John Thrasher’s record, it is hard to understand why the Republican insiders want to lend their support to him. With the growth of the Republican Liberty Caucus, the emergence of Tea Party movements and the influence of the “We Surround Them” (912) groups, many grassroots activists had high hopes for a new direction for the RPOF.  Electing John Thrasher keeps the RPOF running “business as usual.”

Approaching this election with transparency and honesty 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.

Please contact your local Republican Party Chairman, State Committeeman and State Committeewoman and let them know your thoughts on the election of a new State Chairman. The election is set for February 20, 2010 in Orlando, FL.

Additional Reading:

• http://politicsfla.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/examining-district-8-candidates-john-thrasher/
• http://jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2010-01-07/story/john_thrasher_cant_serve_2_masters_at_the_same_ti
• http://www.postonpolitics.com/2009/10/state-ethics-violator-thrasher-to-head-senate-ethics-and-elections-committee/
• http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1063292.ece
• http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2010/01/07/fundraising_rule_hampers_thrasher_gop_chairman_hopes
• http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/01/unraveling-the-thrasher-fundraising-catch-22.html

Share on Facebook

Jim Greer helped the progress of the Republican Party of Florida this week by stepping down as chairman.  There was much cheering from the grassroots and the people who make up the actual party within the state.  That cheering was silenced quickly by the rush to push state senator John Thrasher into the position, without any regard for an election.

For the record, the RPOF Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2 (Duties), B: “In the event the State Chairman is no longer able to perform his duties, either through death, disability, or through resignation, the Vice Chairman shall temporarily assume the duties of the State Chairman.  An election shall be called by the Vice Chairman for the purpose of election a new State Chairman and said election shall be held within sixty days of the date the vacancy occurs.”

Therefore, the Vice Chairman should be running an election to replace Greer, not a simple selection process to make “the powers that be” happy at the expense of the voters and the people who actually do the work in the party.

However, as Allen Cox has now resigned as well (likely a result of his insistence that the RPOF be responsible and hold its officers accountable), that duty falls – according to the RPOF Constitution – to the Secretary.  At the moment, that would be Donna Solze.

So, let’s look at the choice of the elite, John Thrasher, and his resume for the position of chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.

Thrasher is a lobbyist, which is supposed to be a bonus for him in raising money for the party.  That is the key point in his favor.  And he has quite a history involving lobbying.  In his first term in the Florida House of Representatives, Thrasher violated a state law that prohibited a legislator from lobbying a state board on behalf of a paying client.  He received a public reprimand on the floor of the House in 1995.  After he left the House, in 2001 – still within the two year period that legislators are forbidden by law from lobbying their colleagues after leaving office – Thrasher held a luncheon for legislators to lobby for one of his clients.  He received a very light fine as a result.

Thrasher hasn’t just raised money for his own party. In February 2009, he donated $500 to Alex Sink’s chief financial officer re-election campaign fund, disregarding the fact she is a Democrat.  Only after Sink opted to run for governor did her campaign choose to refund $460 of the donation to Thrasher.  Some write this off as “what lobbyists do.”  So, if we took that to be true, and accepted that lobbyists show no values or loyalty and will contribute to the opposition party, does that still make someone who has done so fit to run a state political party?

There are also several conflicts of interest for Thrasher as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.

First, Thrasher is a state senator, who is up for another election later this year.  He would be incapable of being partial when that election came about.  There are also laws prohibiting legislators from raising money, even for other campaigns or their own party, during the 60-day legislative sessions, which would prevent Thrasher from doing a key part of his job as chairman.  As a legislator and lobbyist, Thrasher would still seek to influence other legislators, and his position as chairman would allow him to do that even more effectively.

Thrasher is also the chairman of the Florida Senate Ethics and Elections Committee (a role that already seems remarkably hypocritical for him).  This committee is responsible for guiding election rules within the state of Florida.  In this role, he would be able to influence the state’s election guidelines to give the Republican Party of Florida an amazing advantage.

Thrasher’s history, and the conflicts of interest he will be facing, make him a very poor choice for leading the Republican Party of Florida.  He will also be a divisive personality, after running one of the most vicious campaigns in recent history.

In the best interests of the Republican Party of Florida, the “elite” should withdraw from the discussion with their “endorsements” and allow the process to work in electing a new chairman, from whoever chooses to step up and run.

Additional Reading:

• http://politicsfla.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/examining-district-8-candidates-john-thrasher/
• http://jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2010-01-07/story/john_thrasher_cant_serve_2_masters_at_the_same_ti
• http://www.postonpolitics.com/2009/10/state-ethics-violator-thrasher-to-head-senate-ethics-and-elections-committee/
• http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1063292.ece
• http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2010/01/07/fundraising_rule_hampers_thrasher_gop_chairman_hopes
• http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/01/unraveling-the-thrasher-fundraising-catch-22.html

Share on Facebook

The Florida chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus held a statewide meeting during which the general membership passed a resolution condemning recent grievance actions taken by Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer.  Greer’s ruling, which is not subject to appeal, resulted in three members of the Board of Directors of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida, including Chairman Will Pitts, being removed from leadership positions within the Republican Party of Florida.  Among Pitts’ alleged sins – criticizing RPoF leadership for supporting U.S. Senator John McCain for President, attending Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis during the RNC Convention and wearing a Barry Goldwater button.”

Vice Chairwoman Kimberly Wells of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida (RLCNEF) explains the ruling from September. “The Republican Party of Florida unjustly purged a number of fellow Republican Liberty Caucus members due to their outspoken criticism and call for accountability within the Republican Party of Florida.”

“It doesn’t get any more ridiculous than this”, said Pitts.  Chairman Pitts was stunned by the ruling because he, in particular, had no leadership position within any RPoF county executive committee and believed the entire situation was a dog and pony show that would “go away,” Pitts stated, referring to his post-hearing private conversation with Grievance Committee Chair, Tony DeMatteo.

“The RPoF unjustly punished me and other members of the RLCFL for our libertarian views and criticism of party leadership during the 2008 elections cycle,” said John Stevens, Chairman of the RLC’s Northeast Florida Region.

The Ruling from Chairman Greer came after a long battle to silence any dissent within the Republican Party of Florida with the onset of the 2010 elections cycle. “You engaged in disruptive conduct likely to interfere with the activities of the Republican Party,” Greer stated in a letter to each of those sanctioned.

“This resolution is important because it lets grassroots activists know there are still people in the Republican Party who are standing firm on principles,” said Stevens.   The RLCFL chose to send a strong message to Jim Greer and the Republican Party’s Leadership.  “The Republican Liberty Caucus is not backing down in its fight for accountability of our elected officials in accordance with the U.S. Constitution,” said Stevens.

An official statement released on the RLC website by Chairman Pitts states:

“As much as I dislike what the Party apparatus has done to discredit [me and] personally attack others and myself, I realize that we must stay the course and fight the good fight. Those few in power in the party would like nothing more than for us to leave and take the others that are upsetting their good ole boy corrupt system with us. We will not give them that satisfaction. As a result, I have decided to continue my fight to restore the original principles within the Republican Party in spite of the daunting long road ahead.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus encourages all conservatives to contact RNC Chairman Michael Steele, RNC Secretary and Florida Committeewoman Sharon Day, and Florida RNC Committeeman Paul Senft, Jr. to ask that they implore Chairman Greer to rescind the sanctions against not only the board members of the RLCFL but also against all other victims of the August grievance hearings. The Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.RLC.org/), founded in 1991, promotes individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise.  Members consider themselves libertarian Republicans who want all Republicans and all citizens to understand how far elected officials have drifted from Constitutional principles and take action to defeat those who disrespect the Constitution.

Contacts for Grassroots Supporters of the RLC:
• Michael Steele, GOP Chairman:
• Sharon Day, FL Committeewoman: ,
• Paul Senft, Jr., FL Committeeman:

References/Additional Information:

• Florida Republican Party Wages War on Liberty Caucus: ‘Party Purge’ Expels Caucus Chair and Members from RPOF Positions
http://rlcnews.org/florida-republican-party-wages-war-on-liberty-caucus/
• GOP Removes Deon Long from Position:
http://www.rlc.org/2009/07/10/gop-chair-removes-long/
• St. John’s GOP Complaint Against Will Pitts:
http://www.rlc.org/2009/07/10/stjohns-gop-bullies/
• Other “Party Purge” Details::
http://republicanpartypurge.com/

Share on Facebook

“With us or against us…”

Five simple words that draw a line in the sand.  Black and white, no shades of gray.  As if things were ever that simple.

Those words have been used to describe America’s stance on the war on terror, but I’m not going to talk about that today.  I’m going to talk about the Republican Party itself.

My introduction to the Duval County Republican Executive Committee was the meeting of July 21, 2008.  What I saw that night appalled me.  Republicans were actually telling Republicans they weren’t welcome if they didn’t follow the party line.  Change is not an option for them.  So those who seek change, despite being Republicans themselves (and truer Republicans, by the party’s long-time principles), are put in the “against us” category.  This is absolute nonsense.  We all know that.

You would think this was an isolated incident, but it wasn’t.  Such an atmosphere – “with us or against us” – grew not only within the Republican Party of Duval County, but it became very noticeable in the Republican Party of St. Johns County, and all across the state of Florida.  It came to a head in July of this year (2009) when the Republican Party of Florida held grievance hearings against several Republicans, including RLCNEF Chairman John Stevens and RLCFL Chairman Will Pitts.

One of my first reactions to all of this was anger, that such a division would be sought and forced.  But I quickly realized, that isn’t the answer.  Instead, I beseech you all to flush any anger you feel over such sentiments.  One of the most intriguing things I’ve seen related to Ron Paul was the reversed letters markedly spelling out “LOVE” in “REVOLUTION.”  You can’t have love with anger.  That is one absolute that does exist.

So then, if not anger, what?  I would first suggest sympathy.  The ultimatum stems from a lack of knowledge, of understanding of our message.  They are uninformed, and that lack of information leads them to fear groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Hiding behind masks of false bravado, they try to instill this same fear in other party members, but with messages such as, “They’ll split the party!” or “They’ll drive out the centrist Republicans!”  Yes, this is essentially the same politics of fear that the Democrat party uses to maintain its own power.

So show them sympathy and compassion, and seek to enlighten them.  If they will not listen, turn to others to enlighten them instead.  If they still insist on turning this into an “us versus them” situation, let the situation grow beyond their ability to control it.  But never forget, the minute you lower yourself to using their tactics against them is the moment we’ve lost.

We can change this party, change its mentality, and from there change the nation.  But in order to do that, we must be truly different.  In the meantime, it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  A cornered beast fights that much stronger with its desparation.  What we’ve seen so far are just the first signs of that desperation.

There is no ultimatum in the Revolution.  Conservative or libertarian, black or white, Christian or Pagan, or even none of the above.  We will see this one out through a message of inclusiveness, understanding, and enlightenment.

In the meantime, forgive those who do not understand, and seek to help them rather than letting them draw your ire.

-Erik Setzer

Share on Facebook

Ladies and gentlemen…  I am a Republican.

Some of you may groan and some of you may cheer.  By the time I am finished, some of you may reverse your position.

I believe in free enterprise.  This means true free enterprise without government interference.  No unions or any of that nonsense.  The strong will survive, the weak will fall, new companies will rise in their place.  The system will continue to work, as it has in the past.

I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy.  I believe we have no business in getting involved in wars in which the United States is not directly threatened.  This has done us no good in the past, and continues to do no good for us.  I am wholeheartedly for crushing anyone who does attack us, though, and leaving them to clean up the mess.  I want to withdraw all foreign aid.

I support Israel, which is why I believe the United States should get out of its business.  Don’t worry about what Israel does or is done to it.  Israel can defend itself.  So can the Arab nations.  If we get involved in whatever war happens there, where do we stop?  What other “helpless innocents” or “allies” (depending on your point of view of that situation) do we need to defend?

I believe religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion.  They won’t interfere in your church, don’t try to inject your church into them.  We should be tolerant of all religions.  If somebody believes in liberty, I don’t care what religion they are.  If you are part of a “peaceful” and “loving” religion, then why would you deny someone from another religion the basic rights and opportunities you enjoy?

I believe that love comes in many forms and we should not condemn love that does not conform to our particular view of what love should be.  Love should be encouraged and embraced, not used as something else to hate your neighbor over.  So long as no one enforces their ideas of love upon another, we should be allowed to love as we want.  If that means that a man finds happiness and love in the arms of another man, or a woman with another woman… why should we condemn it?  Shouldn’t we be happy that they’ve found some kind of light in this dark world?  Do we really need to snuff that light?

I believe in sound money.  I want to see the Federal Reserve abolished, and control of our currency back in the hands of the government, where it Constitutionally belongs, and not in the hands of the bankers.

I believe people have a right to keep and bear arms, and should be allowed to use that right responsibly, especially should they need to defend their life or that of their loved ones.

I believe torture is wrong and we should not do it, but harsh interrogation techniques should still be used in gathering information if necessary.  But there are lines you don’t cross.

I believe in charitable giving and volunteering, but as an individual’s choice.  Nobody should be forced into either, but if you give them the opportunity, they will do both, and far more capably than any government service could do either.

I believe in states’ rights.  The states should be considered sovereign and allowed to govern the people living within their borders as they see fit.  No sweeping federal mandates, especially any that aren’t necessary.

I believe taxes have become unfair and the current system punishes those who actually work hard.  The FairTax system is no better.  We do not need the amount of money the government has been spending.  We can shut down several programs that aren’t necessary, bring our troops back inside our borders unless they’re fighting a war, and we will save plenty of money that can be returned to its rightful owners: the American taxpayers.

I believe that some drugs are harmful and should be kept off the streets where possible, but at the same time, others which are currently illegal are not as harmful as many which are legal.  Legalizing such drugs and turning them into a market would allow the government to tax them as it does tobacco and alcohol, which kill a combined nearly half million people every year in the United States alone.  I believe in ending the war on drugs and focusing on intelligent methods of combating severe drug abuse.

I believe in individual rights and responsibilities.  I believe we should all enjoy our freedoms and liberty, but understand that with them comes the burden of acting responsibly.  Without one, it is hard to have the other.  Let’s enjoy these responsibilities and act upon them, rather than seeing them as prison shackles.

I believe all of these things.  And for that reason, I have had Republicans attack me for “not being a Republican.”  At the same time, those who go only by labels attack me just for being a Republican.  But I believe that, when you look at its history and what this party truly stands for, not the nonsense of the last few years but its actual history…  I believe these are the views that define the Republican Party at its root.  It is about liberty and freedom.

That is what I think about when I display my pins, shirts, and other paraphernalia with the Republican elephant on them.  I display this logo proudly for all to see, and dare them to disagree with what I know to be true.

I am a Republican.

Erik Setzer

Share on Facebook

The liberty movement made a splash in 2009’s limited elections, and the center of the action was New York, long seen as a liberal bastion, where the Democrat Party features more registered voters than all other parties combined.

The premier race was the special election for New York’s 23rd congressional district, which had been help by Republican John McHugh, who resigned to take a post as United States Secretary of the Army.  The three eventual candidates were Dierdre Scozzafava (Republican Party), Bill Owens (Democrat Party), and Doug Hoffman (Conservative Party).

The Republican National Committee stood by Scozzafava even as other notable Republicans, such as Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin, endorsed Doug Hoffman as the true conservative in the race.  RNC Chairman Michael Steele even added, “I support the Republican nominee as the Republican Party chairman, and that’s the way it should go, right?”  There was no concern from the RNC that Scozzafava’s liberal leanings might injure the party or work against the ideals of conservative Americans, only the idea that the Republican must win.  As Scozzafava’s support declined, she dropped out of the race and, to reward the unreserved support of the Republican Party, declared her support for Democrat Bill Owens.

After this turn of events, the party turned to Hoffman, but in a very limited manner which did not speak to real support.  When election day came, Scozzafava, who was still on the ballot, polled 5.5%.  Owens, the Democrat she had put her support behind, got 49.2% of the vote.  And Hoffman reeled in 45.2%, a healthy number that, when combined with Scozzafava’s, would have given a majority.  Sadly, the Republican Party’s insistence on backing the “moderate” candidate led directly to a lost seat for the party which was picked up by a Democrat.  The “win first” mentality had ceded a position, while supporting the true conservative candidate would have kept a liberty-minded representative in office.

This is just one sign of the Republican Party’s problems with its party-first, principles-second mentality.  It doesn’t resonate with the party base, who will not turn out in numbers to support a candidate they don’t believe in.

While Hoffman wasn’t a ‘perfect’ liberty candidate, he was certainly a much better candidate than Scozzafava, and made more sense for the Republican Party to back, being an actual conservative.

Also in New York was the New York City mayoral election, where Michael Bloomberg won his re-election campaign by 4.6%, after spending a record-breaking $100 million, the most ever spent on an election outside of the national presidency.  An interesting note in this race is that Bloomberg was originally a Democrat, who turned to the Republican Party to win in 2001, and then switched to Independent in 2007 when he sensed the Republican Party was having trouble drawing votes.  However, the Republican Party backed him as a candidate in 2009, despite his belonging to another party.  This series of events goes to prove that the Republican Party can indeed endorse a third party candidate, and is in fact quite willing to throw their weight behind anyone with very deep pockets.

Finally, in New York City’s City Council District 19, Republican Dan Halloran took the win.  Halloran is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus and is working hard to spread the liberty message, and his election directly helped that cause and proved that even in New York people are receptive to the message of the RLC.  Halloran’s election also represented a step forward in religious tolerance in elections.

All of these elections are helping to lay the groundwork for the liberty movement to reshape the political field and gain a true foothold in 2010.  While some may believe that politics are still “business as usual,” there are signs out there that the momentum is building for a return to Constitutional government.

Share on Facebook