Citing three specific cases in three years and a trend of an increase in arrests of believers in individual sovereignty from 10 to 18 cases per year, mostly for non-violent crimes, the FBI declared law enforcement to be “inundated” with threats.

This may be the most exaggerated and offensive example of specious fearmongering to come out of an administration which has been promoting irrational fear of generally harmless groups of citizens for three years. The FBI is taking aim at a huge body of citizens who are increasingly angry about government abuse of power and irresponsibility and attempting to turn them into a movement of dangerous potential terrorists.

These dangerous “extremists” hold such horrific views as “outrage at tax collection,” defying environmental regulations and believing that “the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.” The FBI is identifying them as “sovereign citizens” and is defining them as a members of a movement, though they provide no evidence of organized or coordinated activity beyond just being angry with the government, a characteristic shared by about half the nation’s population.

I would say that the concerns over this threat were excessive, but that’s giving the FBI too much credit. Ridiculous is a more appropriate description. Statistically a three year increase from 10 to 18 cases of mostly non violent crimes associated with anti-government activists isn’t a crimewave. It’s not even large enough to qualify as a validly quantifiable trend. Given the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed yearly it’s far below the margin of error for crime statistics.

The FBI claims that they are “being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters.” This supposed demand for a response to a nonexistent threat probably would not be there at all had the FBI not been promoting the idea that average citizens are potential domestic terrorists for years. The FBI is creating bogeymen to justify their own actions and to distract from the government’s increasingly callous disregard for the rights of citizens.

The kinds of concerns which the FBI is using to identify these potentially dangerous citizens are not the hallmarks of dangerous extremism. They are mostly reasonable concerns over the current state of our government held by tens of millions of fairly ordinary citizens who have legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with government. They are also the same kinds of extreme views which were held by our founding fathers. They are targeting Americans for the crime of being American and for holding to values of independence and self-reliance on which our nation was built.

The one genuine, unifying characteristic of all of these “extremists” is that they are not happy with a government which is spending beyond its means, taxing beyond our ability to pay and which encroaches more and more on our constitutionally guaranteed rights every day. In their statement the FBI is not actually identifying a real threat to public safety or to citizens, they are putting us on notice that public expression of justifiable anger at the government can get you labelled a dangerous criminal or even a terrorist.

This is a tactic intended purely and simply to intimidate and silence the public. They are sending the message that protest is a crime and speaking out against government will not be tolerated. The implications of this statement from the FBI are particularly ominous in the wake of efforts in the National Defense Appropriation Act, the PATRIOT Act and the pending Enemy Expatriation Act to empower the government to take away the most fundamental rights of citizens. As they did under Hoover, the FBI is categorizing people and making lists and if you don’t watch your step they’ll put you in a database and take away your rights.

The goal may be to intimidate critics of government, but they are also showing us why we so desperately need to take our government back before these threats of abuse of power turn into full-fledged tyranny.

A version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

Dear Sens. Ayotte and Shaheen and Rep. Guinta:

I understand how form e-mails to representatives and senators are not taken seriously, because they indicate a lack of effort on the part of a constituent to even read into an issue and think about it on his or her own. I typically give such e-mails less attention when I receive them, so I wanted to make sure to type an original message to you before the form letter text, which is below my first signature. This letter is being sent to Sens. Ayotte and Shaheen as well as Rep. Guinta, as a grievance against the federal government and the Congress, as written by a state representative for his constituents.

I’m sure you know by now that I am disappointed with the direction of our Congress, particularly the House (I expect the wrong direction from a Senate controlled by Sen. Reid). To be clear, I am opposed to what all three of you are doing in Washington for the most part, with a few minor exceptions. I am also certain that the American people and the people of New Hampshire share my views. We expected more from you. I understand your job is to use your own judgment and not bend to the whim of a handful of constituents, like me; however, I would hope that you would at least take my grievance against you into deep consideration.

Specifically, I would expect each of you as my representative and senators from New Hampshire, a state that treasures the Live Free or Die attitude of our founders, to make a lot more noise against the usurpation of authority in the several bills that have come before you this session, particularly sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Your leadership has been quite unsatisfactory, to say the least, on this matter.

Besides the Patriot Act reauthorization bill, no bill would be more damaging to our way of life and liberties as Americans than sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act as adopted in the Senate. If this bill passes and the federal government acts to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen without allowing that citizen to face his or her accusers and without allowing that citizen to be judged by a jury of his or her peers–inalienable rights under our Constitution–this government will be in breech of contract and I fear it will no longer have the consent of the governed, if it hasn’t lost that consent already. I do not want to think about what might come next, but I can tell you definitively that I very much want to avoid it. I have a wife and children, currently, and we just want to live at peace, without the government interfering in our lives. I know many of my constituents share this view.

To avoid the end to the path we’re currently on, I am pleading with you to fight against these two provisions, sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act as adopted in the Senate, with every ounce of energy that you have. This may just be the last shot we have at restoring a sense of honor to the Congress and our federal government.

The U.S. government was created to protect the life, liberty and property of all citizens, equally under the law. Yet, with laws like the Patriot Act and the provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act, we now have a government that is making war with the very citizens it was formed to protect. We have a government that is making it impossible for citizens to be lawful, and thus, they will become increasingly lawless and I fear even greater conflict between the government and the citizens, who are the rulers of themselves, will result. Such anarchy was what our government was created to prevent. But when the government passes laws that are unconscionable, let alone unenforceable under the Constitution, it leaves the citizens with no other avenue than anarchy. This would be an anarchy created by the government, and it is an anarchy that I do not want to live under, let alone subject my family to live under. What else would be the result than a government crackdown against its own citizens, even more horrific than the one perpetrated in these provisions. What kind of nation would we be?

I am asking you, no pleading with you, to heed my words and please, respect the rule of law and the constitution. Please do everything within your power to remove sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act (Senate version) during the reconciliation process. Our Republic is standing on such tenuous ground right now. We cannot afford anything else like these provisions that will weaken the Republic further, and put the very spirit of lawlessness, within our law.

Sincerely,
Rep. Andrew J. Manuse, R-Derry

As they are today our prisons just suck money away from the taxpayer, do little to rehabilitate, and often put that money into the pockets of corrupt politicians and their cronies. A few of years ago when I ran for State Representative I was up against one of the most corrupt figures in the outrageous prison situation here in Texas. This representative was directly involved in commercial prison management and lobbying for the prison industry at the same time she was serving in the legislature.  Between legislative sessions she was employed by a company which was hired by the state to run prisons for profit, a situation where she benefited directly from making sure that more people were in prison and more tax dollars were being spent on them while nothing was being done to improve the situation at all.

The purpose of prisons is to protect the public from dangerous criminals and ideally to make some efforts to see that those criminals don’t commit further crimes in the future. Right now the system does a poor job with the first and makes no real effort to achieve the second objective. No one seems very interested in remedying this situation. It’s hard to believe so little has been done in recent years while the problems have become worse and worse.  It ought to be pretty simple to make sure that violent criminals stay behind bars, reduce costs to the public for keeping them there, and to lower the overall prison population and eliminate overcrowding and the need to build more prisons.

The first step to cleaning up the prison problem is to stop imprisoning non-violent offenders. Even if we don’t have the legislative good sense to legalize relatively harmless drugs like Marijuana, there is no justification for jailing drug users or other non-violent lawbreakers. Rehabilitation, community service or simple fines for drug related crimes are a much simpler and less expensive solutions. The same applies to other non-violent crimes which can be dealt with through alternative sentencing without sending anyone to jail. Releasing rapists and armed robbers early to reduce overcrowding while people whose only crime is recreational drug use are being taken away from their jobs and families and thrown in prison is an outrage against logic and decency.

The next step is to make prisons pay for themselves. Inmates should be put to work, either in the prison, or under the right conditions, hired out to businesses which need manual labor. Yes, it’s the old idea of the chain-gang, but it was an idea which worked and should never have been abandoned. The money paid for prison labor should go to cover the cost of housing and feeding the prisoner and to victim compensation, either directly to the victims of that inmate, or to a general victims compensation fund. This has worked in other states and would work in Texas just as well.  And before you complain about taking away peoples rights and liberty, check the 13th Amendment where it says “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” – work as part of punishment is not unconstitutional.

These two changes would reduce overcrowding while keeping violent criminals behind bars. They would make new prisons unnecessary, massively reduce the cost of the prison system, keep families together and workers in their jobs, and make Texas a better, safer place to live. It seems obvious, but there’s a lot of money in the prison industry and that gives influence and political power.  When punishment produces profits then prisons become a growth industry, as legislators and law enforcement look for ways to put people in prison rather than realizing that society benefits more from keeping them out.

Yes, the government is supposed to protect life, but there is no specific amendment of the Constitution that empowers the federal government to have jurisdiction on common crimes like theft, fraud, or murder.

Instead, the Founders explicitly warned against giving the federal government the power to deal with common crimes.

According to the late libertarian icon Harry Browne, “All crime is local. It occurs in the jurisdiction of a police department or sheriff’s department somewhere. The Founding Fathers wisely provided no Constitutional role for the federal government regarding common crimes of any kind.”

Browne concludes that a federal police force makes you less safe. In fact, the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see today’s federal police forces — such as the FBI, the BATF, and the DEA.

Of course, there are a select few crimes that the federal government does have jurisdiction on. National defense is a specifically outlined constitutional function of government, so acts against federal employees are punishable. Additionally, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 gives the federal government jurisdiction on piracy and this same section (Clause 6) gives the feds jurisdiction on counterfeiting. And Article 3, Section 3 gives the federal government authority on treason.

However, the federal government should have no jurisdiction on abortion. The RLC Statement of Principles says about abortion, “We support a resolution of this issue through the proper judicial and legislative channels specified in the Constitution.”

The proper constitutional channel is the Tenth Amendment, which gives powers not outlined for the federal government to the states and to the people. Thus, overturning Roe v. Wade would not only return authority to their proper jurisdiction, but it would also empower states and individuals to decide the proper course of action on the controversial issue of abortion.

If you support limiting the size and scope of government, then you can’t rely on the federal government to protect us from crimes like abortion. Crime and the protection of life should not be federal issues.

Think about it this way: The federal government does not deliver your mail on time. Why would you want to trust them on issues of life or death?

More importantly, they have no constitutional authority to protect your life, other than via national defense.

Melissa Wandall, whose husband, Mark, from Bradenton, was killed by a red-light camera runner in 2003. At the time, Wandall was nine months pregnant. Wandall vowed after her husband’s death to do something about drivers who run red lights. She pushed for the law former Gov. Charlie Crist signed last year, known as the “Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act.”

However, Rep. Richard Corcoran, R-Trinity, cited a slew of examples from cities and states across the country where he said the cameras were not preventing accidents.

Courts have thrown out many red-light camera tickets, he added, saying the problems with implementing last year’s bill are “overwhelming.” Corcoran argued intersections could be made safer using other measures, such as changing the timing of traffic lights and improving signage and road painting. “Let’s step back and figure out a way from scratch where we can make these intersections safer for our families.”

A portion of the $158 fine issued to drivers caught by the cameras goes to the state. Since July, the state has received the most money from Orlando ($1.1 million), Miami Gardens ($928,000), Aventura ($911,000) and Hillsborough County ($907,000).

The bill now heads to the House floor.

One of the pieces of the Florida RLC’s 2011 Agenda includes “banning red light cameras” because, “Our Constitution says citizens have a right to face their accuser, yet their accuser in this case is a machine.”

Last week, Tea Party and libertarian groups including the RLC held protests throughout the state to support Richard Corcoran’s bill to repeal the red light cameras.

Montana Republicans have a huge majority in the State House and a small majority in the State Senate, so they should be moving productive legislation along without trouble. Unfortunately, two recent examples show that they are not committed to common sense government at all, but are instead beholden to special interests, corporate socialism, and the nanny state.

You’re not even going to believe the legislation being courted by Montana Republicans! Check it out:

Montana Republicans Try to Gut Medical Marijuana Law

With the exception of Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed State Representatives Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller and several moderate Republicans, the rest of the Republican elected officials in Montana voted to gut the voter-approved medical marijuana law last week.

Because Governor Brian Schweitzer (Democrat) vetoed the Republican attempts to kill the law, BusinessWeek reports that “Many lawmakers from both parties say something needs to be done to rein in medical marijuana in Montana now that it has reached beyond those with severe illnesses for whom voters in 2004 meant the law to apply.”

According to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, there are 29,948 registered users in the state. As we reported earlier, last month the federal government decided they needed to step in by raiding medical marijuana businesses in the state under the guise of investigating “drug trafficking and tax evasion.” This despite a promise from the Obama Administration claimed it would not override state law.

According to BusinessWeek,

“Three lawmakers from each chamber will begin meeting this week in a conference committee to figure out the final form of the overhaul measure, Senate Bill 423, before it lands on the governor’s desk. Since the beginning of the session House Bill 161, a repeal of the voter-approved marijuana law, has been the favored measure of Republican leadership. House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, carried the bill through the Legislature but the possibility of a governor veto forced Republicans to work up a contingency plan.

Last month, Republican lawmakers made a last-minute introduction of a bill to overhaul of Montana’s medical marijuana industry. After Republican fears of a governor veto became a reality Wednesday, the overhaul measure carried by Senate Majority Leader Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, has become what is likely the last chance the Legislature has to restrict medical marijuana. But the measure has not had an easy passage and it still has key hurdles left to clear with just a few days left in the session to do it.”

The only common sense on this issue, aside from Governor Brian Schweitzer, is from RLC-endorsed legislators like Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller. According to Representative Miller, “If the federal laws (related to the Montana state medical marijuana law) were gone, it could be just another prescription filled by a pharmacist. The bottom line is that the legislature did not do its job and put the appropriate rules/laws in place once the initiative passed in 2004. I believe it is up to the legislature to fix the mess it created. And it is a huge mess and it is being grossly abused by some,” Miller said.

Miller took what apparently is an unpopular position, concluding at his website, “While many people disagree with my vote to not repeal, I hope this helps them to understand it a little better.”

RLC-endorsed Reps. Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller voted to protect the Montana medical marijuana law.

Renewable Energy, Curbing Property Rights via “Corporate Socialism”

According to LibertarianRepublican.net, “Sounding like something straight out of an Ayn Rand novel, a renewable energy corporation out of Canada is pushing legislation to allow for seizure of private property rights in Eastern Montana. The Bill pits small landowners such as ranchers in Eastern Montana, against government-backed corporate interests and many environmental groups in support of renewable energy.”

From the Great Falls Tribune, “Montana Senate revives eminent domain bill”:

“HB 198 would grant private developers — including Canadian developer Tonbridge Power — the ability to use eminent domain authority to condemn private property so that transmission lines can be built.

The company wants to build a 214-mile international Tie Line through Montana and Alberta. The bill would [give] Tonbridge the authority it needs to condemn private property along the proposed MATL route in Montana.”

After nearly three hours of debate, 16 Democrats sided with 12 Republicans to pass the measure.

Republican proponents of the measure said if the legislature failed to enact HB 198, it could doom the state’s economy.

“We need an export economy in this state,” Senator Alan Olson said. “We make money to fund our education system, and we make money to fund our senior services on an export economy. If a minority interest is going to shut down an export economy, if we continue to circulate that same stale dollar around the state, we’re done.”

Opponents of the measure, including Sen. Art Wittich, R-Bozeman, said the bill would give private corporations unprecedented power, while sacrificing the rights of private property owners.

“It’s corporate socialism at its best,” Wittich said.

“To me, good government is limited government that respects everyone’s rights and properties,” Wittich says. “I support accountability in government spending and promoting private sector prosperity by adding value to our resources.”

The bill goes for a final vote on Thursday. Then, it heads to Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer for his signature.

It is not known if Schweizter would sign the legislation, but it appears likely that he would.

RLC member Eric Dondero worked to get a property rights initiative on the ballot in Montana in 2006. Here, he is collecting a signature from a resident.

A westside Chicago school, Little Village Academy, has banned schoolchildren from bringing their own lunches from home. They now require all students to purchase their meals from the school cafeteria. An age-old American tradition has fallen by the wayside in Illinois.

Libertarian Republican radio talk show host Neal Boortz comments,

“So there you go folks … government knows best. If you surrender your child to the government to be educated, they you surrender your right to determine what type of lunch that child will eat. While the government has physical possession of your child in their indoctrination centers your rights are essentially terminated.

“There are two messages at work here. One is that parents have to come to the understand that parents don’t know nearly as much about how to raise their children as the government does. The second message is delivered to the children — and that message is that now is as good a time as any for you to learn that the government is going to be involved in virtually every aspect of your life — even down to what you are allowed to eat for lunch.”

Michigan State Police Extracting Data from Driver Cell Phones

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations, according to TheNewspaper.com, a journal of the politics of driving.

If you’re pulled over by the Michigan State Police for anything — an improper turn, a partially obscured license plate, or an officer’s whim — they can search your cell phone using a device called the CelleBrite UFED. That means text messages, photos, videos, contacts, who you’ve called, what apps you’ve downloaded, GPS data that reveals where you’ve been, even deleted data.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.

“The Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure,” said ACLU attorney Mark P. Fancher. The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. We have that same concern.

A U.S. Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

Nevada’s Libertarian Streak on Seatbelts and Helmet Laws

According to our friends at LibertarianRepublican.net:

“Two big victories against the Nanny-State in Nevada this week. The State Senate Transportation committee voted against tougher enforcement for seat belt non-usage, and for legalizing motorcycle use without a helmet. Predictably, all Republicans sided with the pro-freedom side. And virtually all Democrats voted against freedom.

From the Las Vegas Sun, “Senate committee says no to helmets, tougher seat belt law,” April 14:

“The seat belt bill would allow police to stop a motorist and issue a citation solely for not wearing a seat belt. The present law allows officers to issue a citation only if the driver is stopped for another traffic infraction. Sen. Elizabeth Halseth, R-Las Vegas, who opposed the bill, SB 235, said Nevadans use safety belts at a higher rate than neighboring states.

Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, in arguing for the bill, said the buckle-up rate is only 30 percent at night. The 93 percent figure cited is falsified to get federal funds, he charged. He said opponents of the bill argue not wearing a seat belt is a personal choice, but everyone ends up paying to treat those injured because they aren’t buckled up. Voting against the bill were Halseth, Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, and John Lee, D-North Las Vegas.

On the helmet law:

“The helmet bill, SB 177, removes the helmet requirement for motorcycle drivers and passengers if they are at least 21 years old and the driver has held a license for a year or more and completed a safety course. Halseth said whether to wear a helmet should be a personal choice. She said figures from University Medical Center show riders injured while not wearing a helmet actually cost less to treat than those hurt while wearing helmets.

Schneider, however, said everyone bears the cost. “This is costing society millions of dollars. No way does this benefit the state of Nevada,” he said. Manendo, Schneider and committee Chairwoman Shirley Breeden, D-Las Vegas, voted against the bill.

Illinois Moves to Ban Trans Fats

The Pat Quinn/Rahm Emanuel/Dick Durbin/Rod Blagojevich/Barack Obama State strikes again.

Note the blatant editorializing in this “news report” by the Gate House New Service out of Springfield, Illinois (via GalvaNews.com): “Illinois House moves to ban trans fat in foods”:

“Illinois is poised to become the second state in the country (after California) to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats. The Illinois House last week approved a bill to eliminate artificial trans fats from restaurant and bakery food and food sold in school vending machines by January 2013. Cafeterias operated by state and local governments and schools would not be included in the ban until January 2016.

“Trans fats are like bacon grease pouring down your sink clogging your pipes,” said Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, sponsor of House Bill 1600. “That’s exactly what trans fats do to your arteries. You can still have fried foods and baked goods without trans fats.”

Republicans and one brave rural Democrat are the only ones standing against this nanny-state imposition on individual liberties: “It’s yet another nanny-state mandate on the public when the businesses and communities are perfectly capable of making these decisions themselves,” said Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria.

“We don’t have to be a watchdog for everyone,” argued Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley. “We tell people to do a lot of things, and it would probably be good if they did them, but maybe at some point they’d like to decide on their own if they should do them or not.”

It has become a tradition. Every year, dozens of RLCers make the trek to Tallahassee for the annual “Lobby Days at the Capitol” — two days of tangling with legislators, drinking at Clyde’s and Costello’s and getting briefings from economists, grassroots lobbyists and think-tanks.

It is a lot of fun, and camaraderie is always a welcome result. But it is more than just fun.

RLC’ers express the views of the membership on key issues directly to legislators and teach them about the liberty Republican approach to policy. The group chooses issues that emphasize liberty and urges principle over party.  View the 2011 Florida RLC legislative agenda.

This year, the issues agenda was longer than usual and Florida RLC Board member John Hallman helped us press the right issues in the right offices to be most effective as he led 34 of us around the Capitol building.

Top issues included supporting the governor on tough pension reforms, cutting spending and taxes, banning of red light cameras, repealing the REAL ID act, several state sovereignty bills, eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing and repealing the state septic tank inspection program.

Interestingly, Smart Cap — the institutional spending restraint billed as TABOR and Taxpayer Protection Act in the past — was on the list but didn’t engender the same enthusiasm of years past. This idea, which traditionally would limit the growth of state spending or revenues to a combination of inflation and population growth, passed the Senate before RLCers had left town. The Senate bill was pushed by its longtime champion Senate President Mike Haridopolos, but had been watered down with exceptions and even with a padded formula that increased spending in the early years and hence raised the spending trajectory forever. As a result, most of our lobbying on Smart Cap was urging House members to adopt a tougher version.

Another surprise is the interest we found in Tallahassee for medical marijuana. The statewide coordinator for the MedMar referendum effort, new RLC member Kim Russell, joined us as we made our rounds and we discovered several rookie legislators of both parties supported the idea.

RLC members received a briefing from our chief advisor, FSU professor of economics Randy Holcombe, on several issues. Also, Bob McClure of the James Madison Institute briefed us on the work the Tallahassee-based think tank is currently working on. Additionally, RLC member Greg Newburn of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, as did representatives of Floridians Against REAL ID.

RLC members met with dozens of politicians as a group and individually, as time was provided for us to visit our own legislators. As a group, RLCers met with, among others, Reps. Jimmie T. Smith, Matt Caldwell, Jeff Clemens, Alan Hayes and Sens. Joe Negron, Greg Evers, Scott Plakon, Mike Haridopolos and Don Gaetz.

Pictured: At top, Senate President Mike Haridopolos goes through our legislative agenda commenting and answering questions from RLCers. Next, Rep. Matt Caldwell addresses RLCers about his memorial calling for Congressional term limits and other issues. At bottom, RLC members Bryan Donnelly and Steve Burden listen to FSU professor Randy Holcombe.

A special thanks to Florida RLC Chairman Matt Nye and longtime RLC member Philip Blumel for their efforts to organize the trip.
]]> http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/19/florida-rlc-2011-2/feed/ 0 http://www.rlc.org/2011/01/17/rlc-trip-richmond/ http://www.rlc.org/2011/01/17/rlc-trip-richmond/#comments Tue, 18 Jan 2011 02:22:58 +0000 Aaron http://www.rlc.org/?p=3810 A group of roughly 25 Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia supporters — including Chairman George Primbs, Vice Chair Steven Latimer, Treasurer Cliff Dunn, members of the Board of Directors, and members of the organization – met early in the morning on Monday, January 17 to participate in the Virginia Tea Party Lobby Day. This was the first coordinated group trip to Richmond.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Central Virginia played host to the northern Virginia contingent as well as several activists from Charlottesville, Newport News, and Virginia Beach. The day began with a RLC business meeting over coffee and breakfast. RLC’ers brought various literature and brochures to the event to distribute, and the Central Virginia RLC paid three folks to hand out our literature to everyone in attendance at the various events of the day. Chairman George Primbs made “I am the RLC” stickers that everyone ended up sporting.

The Board nominated Shelby McCurnin and Rob Kenyon to alternate positions on the Board of Directors. The Board also chose to endorse Republican Delegate Harvey Morgan’s bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana possession in the state of Virginia, HB 1443. After the business meeting, the RLC took a group photo (Note: other RLC members were not present at our initial gathering, but met up with us later in the day):

Then RLC members met up at the Capitol to meet with legislators. RLC Board member Rick Sincere met with Senator Creigh Deeds, a Democrat, to discuss non-partisan redistricting in the state. A small group of core RLC members met with Senator Mark Obenshain (R) to discuss his constitutional amendment to protect private property rights. Rick Sincere, who also runs his own blog, was able to get the Senator on audio discussing his legislation. The same group of RLC members had an excellent meeting with a new delegate, retired air force Colonel Rich Anderson (R), who represents a Democratic area west of Woodbridge. Delegate Anderson expressed that he may attend the RLC National Convention and enjoyed hearing from RLC members on the need to end government growth and, in particular, our support for HB 1443 to decriminalize marijuana. Each meeting was fruitful.

RLC members then went to a gun rights rally outside of the legislative office building.  After a break for lunch at the historic Tobacco Lounge, RLC members caught the tail end of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s speech — which an estimated 200 people attended. Cuccinelli talked about his lawsuits related to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Obamacare bill.

After the speech, RLC members went to testify and express support to the Criminal Justice Committee of the House of Delegates on HB 1443, Delegate Morgan’s bill to decriminalize marijuana. RLC’ers went with the intent of swaying a single Republican member of the Committee to consider allowing the bill to be considered in the General Assembly.  RLC member Rick Sincere testified in support of the bill, as did a large crowd from NORML and LEAP. Unfortunately, the bill was killed in Committee by a Democrat-Republican coalition of legislators.

Ultimately, this was one of the most productive meetings of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia. In addition to participating in the lobby process and showing unity at a Tea Party event/rally, the RLC also was able to engage a wide variety of allies on the organization’s mission as well as invite them to attend the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention in Arlington, Va. on Feb. 12. Thanks to the RLCVA members who came out to join us.  To become active in the Virginia RLC, please e-mail us.

Former Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer was arrested today on charges of grand theft and money laundering.

Governor Charlie Crist, then a Republican, appointed Greer as head of the state’s Republican Party upon election as governor in 2006. Greer was committed to alienating libertarians and conservatives from the party to favor the moderate (read: Democrat) wing of the party.

Greer resigned his position in February after receiving intense criticism of his tactics and spending, including reports of excessive funds spent on private jets, luxurious meals and entertainment.

Statewide Prosecutor William Shepherd said Greer developed a scheme to take money from the Republican Party through a shell company he created, Victory Strategies. He used the money for his personal expenses — at least $100,000.

Activists most concerned with issues of transparency and party spending — including Republican Liberty Caucus members Will Pitts, John Stevens, Elizabeth Campbell, and Doug Guetzloe — were promptly suspended from the Republican Party by Jim Greer’s puppets.

The next step for the Republican Party and its new Florida Chairman are to repeal the bogus suspensions of these Republican Liberty Caucus activists.