web analytics
Your Independent Alternative!

Thrasher Elected to GOP State Committee, Police Called to St. Johns County Meeting

thrasherState Senator John Thrasher has taken the first step towards running for Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. Earlier this evening, Thrasher was elected as the State Committeeman from St. Johns County. That post now makes him eligible to seek the state party's highest office.

Thrasher was elected by acclamation, as there were no other nominees from the floor.

Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus were reported to have caused a disturbance during the meeting, and the police were apparently called to escort RLC member John Stevens from the room.

REC members who were present told the Jacksonville Observer that Stevens was removed because he was not a qualified member of the county committee and that only committeemembers and staff were allowed into the meeting.

Thrasher won a brutal special election primary last Fall to win the State Senate seat formerly held by Republican Jim King.

Details are still developing on the incident and we'll post more as the picture becomes clearer.

140 Responses »

  1. I don't understand why John was there. Has he not been suspended from th REC?

    • I dont know if he is or not. But the point is that there were plenty of voting members of the SJREC that were excluded as well.

      • I am sorry Jose, you are unaware of the process and the rules regarding voting members. The full official roster of voting members, qualified under the rules is available at the Supervisor of Elections.

      • I spoke with SJREC people today. Anyone who wasn't qualified to vote; didn't. Anyone who was: did. Anyone whom they wre unsure about were given provisional ballots.

        Here's what happened, as I understand. People came to the meeting who HAD been voted into the REC, but had not met their requirement to attend every month, save 3. One guy with the last name that begins with "J" had not beed to a meeting since September: my his own admission. This was the begining of a rucus with a person who'd been barred fro participating in the Republican Party because of multiple, and serious complaints he'd been unable to disprove, or explain adequately.

        IF there were people who were "legal" to vote, and they were refused a ballot, please let me know. I'm going to do a article (maybe a series) involving the Libertarian element within the GOP- which was an element in this fracas.
        I happen to know that John isn't qualified to vote: or be in a closed quarum session, and he made a spectacle of himself to get the attention.
        All of this complaining here is the retribution for the decision he forced on the Committee to call Law Enforcment to have him removed.

        These are adolescent "look at me" stunts, and have no place in adult circles.
        To your accusation that people who were "viable" were refused ballots: Who? Name names, or file a grevience. Frankly, I think you're miosinformed and others are bending the truth specifically for the self-aggrandizement.

      • Jim,
        If you think this fracas with Thrasher is the conduct of a real and viable party, you are not as committed to real change as I originally thought.

      • Furthermore, this goes way beyond SJREC, this is about Thrasher trying to hijack a party power structure using his connections in the SJREC to obtain a position of power not for the benefit of his county but for the benefit of himself.

      • Dear Jose or John or Whatever,

        Just because the RLC has been unable to hi-jack the GOP here and around the country does not give you dispensation to make such attacks. We run our party for the benefit of the members, not one man like some others we know. If you are concerned about ppeople hijacking a movement, why don't you focus on the friends of the RLC trying to hijack the name TeaParty in Florida?

    • Jim,

      This very statement proves that you have issues with the truth...
      you know that is not true- He was suspended from leadership. No ONE can remove you from the party. I know that many like you, wish that you could decide who a republican and who is not. Because you would include the Olympia Snowes and the Scott Browns, who are not conservative by any measure, voting for bigger government, increased spending and higher taxes, and kick out John Stevens, who is staunchly pro-life, for smaller government, less spending and lower taxes...

      That logic makes perfect sense, lucky for us YOU do not get to decide that...

      • When I got the same answer from two different people who were there, I took their word over yours: yes. Johns? Absolutely.
        You never answered why you're always in the peripherals when there is confusion. why is that?

  2. I doubt voting members were excluded. You are either a current member of the SJREC or not per the rules. If a voting member was excluded there will be serious consequences.
    If you are there to disrupt proceedings then you will be asked to leave or be subject to removal by the police. Visitors and guests have no right to speak or disrupt unless given the opportunity by Chairman et al.
    Former Chairman of SJREC

    • Hank,
      I spoke with two representatives separately: they both explained the great lengths they went to, to make sure that those who were supposed to get a vote did. But those who were not: didn't.
      Those who didn't are now throwing their version of a childish tantrum.
      Which is normal for this crowd.

      • I also spoke with a representative and was told of the very strict adherence to the rules, as required and I believe this person. They wanted to ensure everything was legitimate. Reading all the posts I presume Cliff Johnson missed 3 months or more and that would remove him from membership. I agree with you Jim that there is a lot of whining and baseless accusations being thrown around by RLC members. These actions would not be tolerated at the DCREC if tried. RLC members this is not about being singled out because you are a Rubio supporter. I support Rubio 100%. You either play by the rules or you are removed from participation. Pretty simple, so determine your course of action. Trying to blow up meetings or being associated with those that do leaves a stain on your reputation. RLC members file your grievance if you have one but bring your facts and witnesses as that is what counts.

      • Hank,
        It was not about Rubio support, I do not support Rubio, but I also oppose this attempt to coronate John Thrasher through special favors and favorable arrangements with local power brokers.

      • Jose, Thrasher followed the rules and it is what it is. He will be one of two or more that are vying for Chairman. Coronation...sounds like your sour grapes. Use the process to change the leadership if you desire someone else.

    • Hank,
      So you are claiming other visitors were not in the Room Thursday night?
      Actually there were 5 that I know of and have a picture to prove it. They just all conveniently were given bogus jobs to do inside the meeting to justify the leadership allowing Thrasher supporters to be present.

  3. Jose, who? If someone wasn't afforded their rights then file a grevience.
    If Stevens isn't qualified to sit in a meeting- especially during and election (bad history there) why did it take Law Enforcement to remove him?

    The answer is these Libertarians are being perposfully disruptive. I asked Kr---- why she always seems to be around confusion. She didn't answer. The reasonable conclusion is obvious: intentional disruption.

    Who wants to be involved with a bunch that plays tricks to get attention? This sounds like Code Pink methods to me.

    • The ONE and only SJC REC member that I know of that was excluded from the meeting is Cliff Johnson. He has not been removed from his post like the others were. He was duly elected, and has every right to be there and vote.

    • Precisely, we at the SJCGOP are trying to maintain a level of professionalisim and follow the rules WE adopted and accepted. John Stevens and Kristi Dunn defy the rules and are constantly looking to disrupt. If REC Members were in compliance with the rules, they we accorded their voting rights. There were some that missed meetings and in accordance with the rules were moved to non-voting status.

      If Stevens et al want to work for the defeat of John Thrasher, that process is now moving to another stage, move to the next stage. However, you will not get anywhere behaving like children.

      • Cliff, did you not have a conversation where a person asked when you last attended a meeting, and you both determined that date was in September?
        Did you prove to them you'd attended since that time?

        If we play the video of that meeting, or subsequent meetings since September are we going to find you present?

        If so, I'd strongly urge you to file a grevience. No one eligible should be denied their vote, just as no one who isn't should be allowed to vote. I'd recommend you pay more attention to those whom you associate: your current niche has a bad reputation. If that's the reputation you want, then continue to do what you're doing. Doesn't hurt me.

        I'd say prove you were eligible, and follow through; otherwise this is all bravado to garner, yet again: more attention.

      • Randy,
        I have NEVER disrupted a meeting. Thursday night I was demanding to see the records, but I was not disrupted, I did not threaten and I did not swear at you.
        I challenge you to Name ONE time that I was a part of a disruption.
        YOUR very words prove your dishonesty. I go to every Duval REC meeting, Young Republican meeting and Republicans throughout Duval and St Johns. I have never been asked to leave, or even told not to speak.

        PROVE your statement about me, or admit that you are a liar.

        Your comments however were belittling and demeaning- so I think your character has be duly proven.

      • Randy,

        I have never seen Kristi even attempt to disrupt a meeting. She does her best to go through proper channels to be heard and respect the rules and the other members. Sometimes it actually works against her as someone might decide they don't want to pass on a request, or call on her when she she has her hand raised to signal she has a question. Not once have I seen her even speak up about that, much less disrupt a meeting. It is markedly unfair of you to make such comments and have nothing to back them up.

        Also, you try to claim you're "following rules" and yet you cannot produce these rules. Where are they? Can you point anyone to a copy of the SJCREC rules or constitution? Anywhere? Even a print copy? No, of course not. I'm not sure they even exist. And as for "professionalism," your discourteous assaults on individuals' character while using blatant falsehoods is hardly professional, nor are some of the dirty tactics used in the past by the SJCREC.

        I personally would prefer another choice than Thrasher for RPOF Chairman, but I am not fighting him in this. I am fighting the system to push him into the position, which was decided as part of the deal to remove Greer and Cox and "save face" for the party. A decision was made from the top, orders given, and those orders are being implemented, with all dissent quieted through any means possible. This is not an indictment of John Thrasher, it is about the process being used to move him into the RPOF Chairman position, the top-down and bullying approach that shows no lesson was learned from Greer and they only removed him because the media caught wind of how corrupt he was.

        You are part of the same group that would still have Greer in power right now, despite everything he's done to harm the party. You aren't even working for the good of the party, or you would not be defending this process right now. I *am* working for the good of the Republican Party, and, above them, the American people. And so are my good friends Kristi Dunn and John Stevens.

      • Randy,
        My understanding is Ms. Dunn was pounding on a window and screaming into the room after it was quorumed. If that's true then:

        "Kristi Dunn says:
        January 24, 2010 at 11:22 amRandy,
        I have NEVER disrupted a meeting. Thursday night I was demanding to see the records, "

        . . .this certairnly illustrates where she's been caught in a lie.

        My question is why she isn't proclaimed "person not welcome" by your Committee?

  4. As I understand the situation, Cliff Johnson who is a legitimate voting member was also removed with Stevens and not allowed to vote.

    Is Thrasher the only candidate for the chairmanship? It seems to me very much like an effort to silence those who support his opponent, just as this entire campaign against RLC members has been primarily because they are Rubio supporters rather than Crist sipporters.

    The national GOP is not going to continue to put up with what's going on in Florida. People are watching this stuff and if these heavy handed tactics of exclusion continue there is going to be a price to pay.

    Dave

    • That is exactly it. There is no question that this was a hatchet job to grease Thrasher into power. This is an embarrassment, but it is the direct result of a party being in power too long.

      • You say it was a hatchet job. What I see is an organization making contotions to follow the rules, and the Libertarians were so offended, they made fools of themselves.

        The only hatchet job is the position that people were slightede. I haven't seen any evidence of that- but I'm open.

      • Jim,
        These people are Republicans, they wanted to make their voices heard that this good ol boy set up should not go unchallenged. Do you really think that this sort of BS is acceptable?

      • WHO? who was qualified to vote and was denied the opportunity?

        STILL waiting on that answer.

    • My understanbding is Johnson hadn't been at a meeting since September. There's 1. October 2. November 3. December.
      That's 3, right?
      Also, you have the situation where he was (reportedly) being adversarial and disruptive. Enough that "John" interviend and said "he's with me". Well, so what? Johns been suspended from the Republican Party: which means he's a nobody in that area.

      So you named a name, the man wasn't legal to vote. What else ya got?

    • Dave, my understanding is he missed every meeting since September. That excludes him from voting.

      • Jim Davis,

        Funny how you act as if you were there- who from the other side did you bother to talk to? Remember what Proverbs says- "Haste in answering controversial matters after hearing only one side is utter folly" (Proverbs 18:13)
        That will be proven here... you should have done some more research...

        We are demanding they produce the minutes from the December (that I was told by Brian Iannucci was canceled) and the list of attendance from this past year.

        If they can not do that- then yes Cliff is prepared to file a grievance.

  5. In a political meeting, the citizens of Florida are bound by state statute to use established parliamentary procedure. When individuals purposely circumvent those rules, they become more than the low-minded criminals that they are. No it is far worse. When they are determined to undermine the democratic process in order to have their way, they become traitors. Traitors to their party and traitors to the Constitution. They become the domestic enemies of the United States of America.

    No one who calls themselves an American, no one who believes in democracy and fair play should associate with such people, speak to them, or do business with them. The time for polite discourse is past. These individuals must be strongly opposed in every public and private venue, they should be spoken out against loudly wherever they appear, identifying them for what they are, until they are forced to crawl back under the rock from which they were spawned.

    Louis William Rose is a political philosopher and writer, and the parliamentarian of the Republican Liberty Caucus of NE Florida. You can contact him at louisrose@yahoo.com

    • Including trying to vote when they aren't supposed to? The answer is "no". You're a smart man. Name who was slighted their vote. . .

      • No one tried to vote that was not entitled to vote, Jim.

      • My understanding is the Johnson guy missed too many meetings, but tried to vote: is that not the case?

        WHO was prevented from voting who had the qualifications. This is what? the forth time I've asked this question.

      • Jim,
        There is much dispute to whether Mr. Johnson missed 3 meetings and whether or not he was denied properly or excluded by the same hack that has been trying to purge the RLC from florida for over a year.

      • My understanding is Johnson had a conversation with, and admitted that he'd not been since September, also that there is no documentation of him attending since September, and that videos are taken of each meeting to further document who is in attendance.

        Had there been some doubt, he would have recived a provisional ballot, but again, my understanding is he admitted to not having been since September and was therefor not issued a provisional ballot.

        If these are not true, then this man should file a grevience: if for no other reason than to document an example of this "hac-job" you speak of. Is he willing to file that grevience?

        I'm NEVER for preventing a qualified (as in "legal") voter from voting. I'm NOT for bending the rules and letting someone "vote anyway".

        I say file the grevience if you've been wronged.

      • "No, no one tried to vote that were not entitled to vote" because we followed our rules and the qualifications to vote were enforced and the vote was limited to those people precisely because we expected a disturbance from people who have a habit of misrepresenting things for their own means. Trust me, Jose, your agenda is pretty clear and it has nothing to do with guarding the interests of the Republican Party or the people of the United States.

    • Randy,
      Whatever you think you know about my "agenda" I would like for you two know two things:

      I have served my country honorably for my entire adult life. To imply that I am somehow a person out to serve my own selfish or that I do not have the best interests of the country at heart because I oppose this GOB love fest is dishonest at best insulting at its worst.

      As for the "interests of the Republican Party", I have nothing but love for the party and what it stands for. But of course, I will not let that love blind me to this little show you put on in St Johns County and I will not give you and the rest of the leadership a pass just because you are claim to value the parties interests.

      BTW, it is just Jose, John is not an Anglicization of it and I am not Mr. Stevens, I dont think he would own up to many of my posts.

  6. Excuse me, can I get you some chees with that whine?

  7. Am I the only one that see's where these people go, there is great strife and confusion? That's an awful reputation to be had.

  8. Jim, you paint pictures with lies, you defend a lack of accountability, and then you cry that people hold others accountable?

    Actually, the RLC has attended numerous meetings of the DCREC and other county RECs with no strife or confusion. Ditto for all of the clubs we attend. Or the RPOF meeting two weeks ago.

    But where people stand up to the establishment to hold them accountable, those who seek to hold onto power and silence others will use every tactic possible and fight as brutally as they can... which creates strife. And they - like you - lie about the situation to try to turn public opinion against the actual victims... which leads to confusion.

    I will never have a problem with a reputation as someone who holds my party to the high standards they claim to adhere to. I wear that reputation proudly, and I will *never* hold the reputation of being someone who holds my voice when wrongs are being done or who actually supports those wrongs. That reputation, Mr. Davis - the reputation you now hold along with others - is one that I would sincerely call "awful."

    • Erik, what lie did I tell? You say your caucus attends meetings and there's no trouble? Congratulations, your friends aren't orangatangs.

      Before someone can hold a person or a group to a higher standard, they must represent that standard themselves. I don't call temper tantrums, and ostetatious antics an example of those "higher standards". Don't TELL me: SHOW me.

      You say I paint pictures that are lies. What lie? Did not one of your caucus members necessitate Law Enforcment to escort him from a building? Did the Officer conclude this Caucus member should be allowed to stay?

      You say there are people who were cheated out of votes. WHO? My understanding is there were people who were not within the guidlines of who is eligible to vote, and they became upset that they weren't eligible. If you have people who were eligible, and were prevented from voting, who are they. So far, the only name I've seen mentioned had not been to a meeting since last September. That disqualifies him from voting.

      LIke you, I wear my reputation for standing up to low-standard trouble makers as a badge of honor. In fact the standards of some are so low, they're action caused them to be removed from the REC. You can say that was a bad call, but then again, when there's confusion, your caucus is usually associated with it. That's not a lie: that's truth.

      When I sit down because your caucus asks me to negotiate with them, the end result has been such that you want to continue to publically malign people, and you want me to stop challenging you. We've sat down three different times with the same conclusion.

      You say you want to be dealt with more graciously, give you "some respect". Yet your caucus members are notorious for sitting down and typing some of the most vehement drivel I've ever read. Your caucus gets from me, what it give others and you scream bloody murder over it. Yet my propositions are reasonable, and fair: and your caucus has yet to refute any proposition that is principle based.

      Your caucus has had it's leadership rebuked by the party. Not for being of Higher Standard, but for simply commiting acts of low degree. Yes, I call those things "awful"

      • Jim, you try to pull out the being removed from the REC as saying that's somehow because they did wrong... yet Greer was forced to resign because everyone knew that his removing those members was, in fact, wrong, and based on several falsehoods. Also, some of the people involved in that process have since apologized for their part in it, meaning they knew their actions were wrong, and not those of the people who were removed.

        Jim, my caucus has always stood up for high standards, and we hold people accountable, and have no problem in having transparency with the American people to let them know what's going on. You want to hide your actions and those of others in the party because you know they're wrong. There is no reason to hide if you're doing the right thing.

        You can complain all you want that there's a caucus out there who - *gasp!* - holds the members of their party accountable. But the majority of people prefer it, and we're not going away.

        And, on your last note, "the party" is not defined by Jim Greer, who was forced to resign for his actions. I've seen the list of complaints, I know that several were lies (as many witnesses who are not RLC members can tell you), others were outright stupidity (so you go to a convention hosted by someone and wear a button with his name, and that guy is a Republican, but somehow that's anti-Republican Party?). You can keep saying the same things over and over... you still won't be right in saying them. (And, ironically, even Thrasher seems to agree that the grievance process is quite messed up.)

        Go ahead, call it "awful" that someone speaks out against cronyism and corruption in the party, the same actions that have caused the party to continue sliding backward. But we won't stop fighting them.

      • Here here, Erik!

  9. Last night I was turned away from attending the executive session of the SJCREC because apparently I had missed 3 meetings and they disqualified me as a precinct committee person. I explained that I had not missed 3 meetings but had only missed 2. And the only reason I missed those two meetings was because I was never informed of them. The last meeing that I attended was September of 2009, the debates for senate candidates. I missed the October meeting and the November meeting. The December meeting was canceled. In fact, I recently emailed the secretary of the SJCREC asking to put me on a mailing list or group that receives meeting info.

    When I was informed that I could not vote, I asked to see the sign-in sheets myself and I was not allowed to see them. The doorman (Eric West) told me "I can read just as good as you". His malicious demeanor and attitude was clearly directed at me simply because of my name and my association with the RLC. I would NEVER have been as blatantly rude to a person that I had just met. When I questioned how this mistake happened, I received a cold shoulder as if my concern of not being able to vote was insignificant. I stepped inside to ask Harlan Mason what was going and see if he could help remedy the confusion and he instructed me to wait outside until executive meeting was over. There was absolutely no concern to remedy the situation. When our Republican party is clearly falling apart at the seams, why would the SJCREC so venomously oppose the participation of an elected precinct committee person over a PERCEIVED technicality when a majority of precinct committee seats are empty? I would think that they would encourage participation and make sure that I attended that meeting to grow the party, bring the party together and take part in an election of a Chairman. Could it possibly be that they did not want a voting member to show opposition to the "Coronation" of a new Chairman who has questionable principals? Well, it is my opinion that in order for Republicans to actually be able to ELECT CONSERVATIVE people into office, we all must know the TRUTH about them, and they should not have any problem answering questions or concerns from those who are expected to vote for them. After all, the are elected as representatives of the body. Obviously accountability is not part of the SJCREC's plan for growth. It is the same old power structure that they desire to preserve.

    • Cliff, Republicans should elect those who agree with their perspectives: not yours. If you have a perspective, get in the mix and get elected.

      • What does that mean? I am a Republican. I have been a Republican my entire life. My family has always been Republican. We have always voted Republican. This has now been the cause of the problem. We vote for someone just because they have and "R" behind their name. They could be as liberal as a Democrat but Republicans just voted for them because of the letter behind their name. I have decided to hold my Republican representatives accountable to the traditional Republican values that I have held my entire live. If you choose to support a liberal candidate simply because they have decided to run under the guise of being a Republican, then you are part of the problem with the Republican party deteriorating into a elite socialist club.

      • It is not just about liberals in Conservative clothing, Cliff. It is about guys who say all the right things, talk conservative, go to the right church, but are corrupt to the core.

      • Cliff, let me make it simple for you: people in Massachusetts should have the opportunity toi vote for the person who represents their perspectives- were you smarter, you'd have understood that fact without having to bring it to the simplest explanation. However, that's so simple a second-grader can understand. You need it broken down further for you?

      • Jim Davis, I have never met you, I have only seen your snide remarks on internet postings. You have no Idea who I am nor my intelligence level. Not once have I ever insulted your intelligence or made condescending statements towards you. You are a childish fool. I would consider giving you credit for being half of what you say you are if you were courageous enough to speak to me in this manner while looking me in the eye. You are a typical weak, loathsome keyboard commando who believes himself to be superior to others only behind the dim glow of a computer screen. I have never mentioned Scott Brown in this conversation, so your reference to Massachusetts makes no sense. I am a republican who has spent the majority of my life in St. Johns county and I am sorry if you don't agree, but the majority of my constituents, especially the folks I grew up with, believe in the traditional conservatism in which I hold dear, and I intend to get them involved in their local politics. That will be my final statement in regards to any more of your childish babble. I will no longer respond to any more of your comments until the day you are willing to stand in front of me and look me in the eye. But because you are a coward, I believe that day will never come. Prove me wrong.

      • Cliff, you still haven't shown why the people of Massachusetts should vote for a Representative YOU think they should vote for.
        Prove me wrong.

    • Cliff
      Unfortunately, at the time that you were trying to assert your rights to challenge the record, another member of your party began to escalate his belligerence, including telling a 70 year old member of our REC to F**k off. Maybe you should direct your anger to him. He caused us to have real concern for his attempts to incite violence and possibly you were unable to hear the explanation made to you.

      Unfortunately, you have clarified for all your ineligibility as there was a meeting in December and you acknowledge you were not in attendance. I am sorry you misunderstood. We several other people suffering the same circumstances as you, including several that made no scene, politely accepted the responsibility for non-compliance and awaited their privilege of admission accorded all Associate members after the Executive Session was closed.

      We do not follow Acorn rules here. We have standards and responsibilities that attach to those standards and process to cure the defect. Maybe they do over at the RLC but not in our house. If you are unwilling to accept that, just stay in your house.

      • Randy,
        You forget that other people were there...
        John stood quietly at the back of the room, there was no violence and no threat of violence except from Bob Smith who smirked at both John and I and said : "you had better be careful, I am warning you".

        To blame blatant, dishonesty and rudeness on another episode proves that you guys just do not get it...

        If this is Randy Brunson, be man enough to put your whole name. You looked at me Thursday night, and said "what is your problem young lady?" If this 'young lady" is man enough to put her whole name, than prove you are too.

        And then let's talk about morals and ethics- and how John Thrasher was elected fairly, without the help of the party eleite or leadership...
        At the St Johns County Young Republican meeting, you stood up and announced a celebration for OUR NEW RPOF Chairman, John Thrasher." To which I replied, "Has he been elected yet?" Jon Woodard said no. And the meeting moved on. But the celebration announcement, not for the possible election, or the winning the senate, you said "For our new RPOF chairman John Thrasher".

        For people like Randy Brunson in elected office to act as if this is an open, fair or honest while making these kinds of statements is absurd.
        Does this reflect the kind of campaign YOU run? If so I am willing to bet the people of St Johns County will be very interested in knowing that.

      • Randy,

        "Clif. . . Unfortunately, you have clarified for all your ineligibility as there was a meeting in December and you acknowledge you were not in attendance. I am sorry you misunderstood. We several other people suffering the same circumstances as you, including several that made no scene, politely accepted the responsibility for non-compliance and awaited their privilege of admission accorded all Associate members after the Executive Session was closed. "

        So you see? My perception of the situation was correct. The three different explanations gave me the correct accounting of the facts, and the demeanor of the RINOs.
        That all made sense, including the vulgarity and atrocious behavior of this red-headed step child called the RLC.

        Here are a few reactions and thought for you to consider:

        I wonder what makes a visitor to your committee think she can "demand" anything? Is that not one of the most narcissistic things you've ever heard?

        How does a person who's been suspended from a committee think he can tell a valid member to F-off when the subject has to do with that committee?

        Why does your committee allow those who've been suspended to attend the committee meetings? Does that not supercede the penalty of being suspended?

        If you have a member, from another county to become belligerent or disruptive, would your committee not be prudent to ban that person from the proerty and meetings?

        My understanding is Mr. Pitts was posturing that he'd been suspended from something in which he wasn't a member. If he isn't a member, and cannot become a member for a set duration of time, then why is he allowed in your committee meetings?

        Just a few thoughts. I suspect this RINO group knows this will be the action of Duval County, so they behave when they invade us.

  10. I am not a member of the RLC. I am a conservative Republican who supports Marco Rubio and other candidates who respect our Consitution and the principles of our Founding Fathers. As someone who has lived under a tyrannical regime (Castro's Cuba), I have been a fighter for freedom and the rights of every American. I was a SJC REC member for six years and SCW for one year. I resigned almost two years ago after the SJC REC Board and membership did not support my efforts to discuss the important changes in 2007 Election Law, particularly Section 103.161 which allows the change of Loyalty Oath from the Party to the Chairman (and his hand picked Grievance Committee). This change which was voted with the support of most of Florida legislators, was meant to give total power to the RPOF Chairman. In other words, it was the end of grassroots power. Every RPOF Quaterly Meeting I attended was a spectacle of cheerleading for Governor Crist and his policies by Chairman Greer. I was appalled at the condonining attitude of most RPOF members, including my colleagues at SJC. I clearly understood the ramifications of giving so much power away to a leader, but no one in the SJC REC cared to listen. They just committed mass suicide with their rights and went along with the "good old boys" for the good of the Party. One Board member even betrayed me by sending Chairman Greer an Email telling him I was opposed to these changes in the Election Law and wanted to bring the issue up for discussion at a Board meeting. This member went on to become Chairman (before Harlan Mason). I kept the nasty Email received from Chairman Greer for not agreeing with him which was meant to intimidate me into servitude. Other members told me after meetings how they agreed with me,but when Chairman Greer came to one of our REC meetings in St.Augustine to speak and he picked on me for not agreeing with him, no one Board member stood up to support me. I alone told Greer why I had problems with this changes and soon was heckled by someone unknown to everyone present.
    The purpose of this background information is to allow everyone to better understand the problem with the SJC REC. Most of the members are good people who mean well but, they are not informed about RPOF Constitution and Rules, about parlamentarian procedures, and most sadly, about how "going along to get along" destroys our freedom and our unalianable rights as citizens of a great nation.
    Unfortunatly, the leadership is composed of people who either have a special interest in politics or who have no leadership qualities and no organizational skills or experience.
    It is true that for years most SJC precincts are empty. In 2004 I was Precinct Coordinator in SJC for the Bush/Cheney campaign. My duty was to first find Precinct leaders for more than half of SJC precincts. This was done and the well organized campaign (nationally directed by Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove) resulted in an 84% Republican voter turnout in 2004. I wanted to honor the new precinct leaders and encourage them to join as PC, however no one else seemed interested.

    SJC REC needs new blood and leadership. I have received requests from Tea Party type citizens who want to join the REC in order to help rebuild the Party and help it win elections. I have told these individuals how to join the REC and even send the information to a SJC REC Board member. I have not heard anything yet.

    For what I have read in the articles written and Emails received about this last incident with Senator Thrasher appointment, it seems to me both sides can take blame. The RLC non-members had no right to be present at this meeting. If Mr. Johnson is correct, then this is a flagrant violation of not only his rights but those of his constituents. I can testify that what Mr. Johnson says about not being notified of meetings sounds familiar as I remember clearly how Board members colluded to change meeting dates in order not to have certain members attend. This was not only wrong but childish. This is the problem when the leadership is weak and does not want confrontations. Another point brought out that I can also testify to is the fact that this group uses "cherry picking" on which members they decide to keep or throw out because of missing more than three meetings. When I was a member I constanly complained about how members were kept on the roster even when they had not attended for several months. I have in my possession a copy of the most recent SJC REC roster and it has surprised me to see the names of individuals who I know are not currently active. This roster must be purged and new patriotic Americans from the county allowed to become REC members.

    • Elvira,
      My understanding is you are NOT a person who's just become interested in politics. You feign to be an innocent onlooker whos appauled by the in-fighting, but you are in fact part of the fight. Someone called me a liar for stating the truth, I think the title would be rightfully worn by yourself.

      Glad we cleared that up.

      • Ditto to you, Jim, you spend a good third of your time trashing the RLC calling them "RINO's" which is a horrible term to use.
        I dont like it when people like Cliff use it either.
        Think about it, when you call another person a RINO you are setting yourself up as an arbiter of what is a Republican and what is not. I can think of a few people who could reasonably be in a position to make that determination. You are not one of them.

        That said, I like you, I like our chats, I am glad you are out there fighting for the cause. But if you support the ascendancy of an insider like Thrasher and the skid-greasing that goes along with it, I submit that you are not part of the solution.

      • Jose, I stand behind that statement: and do with the acknowledgement from the RLC that they are indeed libertartians. They posture there's a difference between them and someone else because they don't claim the "capital L". However, when pressed for an answer, we have Stevens admitting their intention of a coupe de tat. His words were "So what? Everyone does that".
        So while I constantly deride the RLC, it is with factual merit.
        That would be the difference, and it's an important distinction.
        Glad we could clear that up.

      • Jim,
        You constantly confuse you stating something with actual facts.

        There is a difference between small "l" libertarians and the actual party. There is a Liberty wing of the party as a whole, the RLC is generally where those people congregate.

        I do not always agree with all of the platform points of the RLC, but they have never kicked me out or derided me because of it, they have never implied that I am somehow less of a Republican. And if they are the only ones willing to stand up against this sham, then I say that I stand with the RLC.

  11. Thank You Elvira. People like you give me great hope for the Party, the county, the state and the nation.

    I got heavily involved in RPOF politics immediately following the election law changes you mention in your comment. You correctly saw exactly what was coming - I only wish I was there as a voice of support for you at that time. Because you were not listened to before the mess - we are now all forced to deal with cleaning up the mess.

    Things are changing. The days of the Beck Reichenbergs, Jon Woodwards, Harlan Masons etc. are numbered. They are the old guard - Party before principle. They see those who demand accountability as disruptive. We see them as patriots.

    We will be building a large St. Johns County Republicam Liberty Caucus over the next 2 years. Many prinipcled conservatives will emerge as potential leaders in the 2012 SJCREC elections.

    We have only begun to fight...

    In Liberty,
    John C. Stevens
    Chairman, RLCNEF

  12. To all those of you that are defending the lying and cheating that took place to get Thrasher elected ....
    Politicians are scum of the earth and you are defending their lying and cheating.
    You are throwing your lot in with scum of the earth.

  13. Quit whining, it was a fair election. You guys don't want to play by the rules, therefore you keep losing. I've also attended some of your rlc meetings, you all do not have a base. You may be getting new people every month, but you're not retaining them. You're just mad because you continue to get beat in every election. Ron Paul? That didn't work. Dan Quiggle? That certainly didn't work and you're still pissed, thus you continue to go after thrasher.

    Dave- to answer your question: thrasher is one of 3 people running and it's going to be a close race.

    • It was a fair election? We have a SJC REC leader stating that instead of allowing it to be an open and fair election, he called to encourage votes to go a specific way. Did he make the other options for RPOF Chairman known to these REC members?

      The back room deals and corruption leading to the election of John Thrasher as RPOF chairman proves this is going to be business as usual for the RPOF, even after Thrasher has ascended his throne, handed to him by the party elites.

    • I love people that post nasty comments without their name, you have little credibility without your name, and actually we are obtaining massive amount of people and SUPPORT right now. And unlike the REC I have the records to prove that.

      You are missing the point, its not about the senate 8 race. I am NOT a Fan of Thrasher- and you can read for yourself why- http://www.rlcnef.org/the-case-against-john-thrasher/

      The point is the back room deals that put him there- people IN this comment section admit to calling people for votes and everything else... I have a email for TWO REC Chairman that admit to making a deal that if Greer stepped down, then they would endorse Thrasher- that is corruption at its CORE.

      I understand that Thrasher will be good for the area, I KNOW Thrasher can raise money, we won the senate race because he can do that. But the leadership taking away the voice of the people, by basically attempting to ordain Thrasher into the RPOF Chairman position is not something most Americans or Floridians are going to be happy about.

  14. First, let me say that Elvira Hasty is a patriot and got a raw deal from Jim Greer and certain members of the SJCREC. Secondly, maybe some of you should hear from someone that was at the Thursday night meeting and was a first hand witness to most of what happened.

    John Thrasher is a candidate for RPOF chairman and a fine Christian man who is supported completely by virtually all the members of the SJCREC in his campaign to become chairman. How do I know that? Because I called most of out members and the support was overwhelmingly in favor of the election of our "favorite son" . Even those people that did not support his campaign for the 8th District Senate seat realized he would make a great state chairman.

    I met Cliff Johnson on Thursday night for the first time, and don't believe that I have ever seen him at an REC meeting in St Johns Co. Certainly not in the last four (4) months because I am involved in greeting all the new guest and members and trying to make them feel at home and I think I would have rememered him. When he tried to sign in I was the person that gave him the book to sign in. It was fairly easy to find his precinct #101 because it is at the top of the list and there is no way you could miss it. Unfortuneately, for Mr Johnson, his name had been removed from the list because he had missed three (3) or more meetings and/or failed to sign in if he did attend. By his own admission he states that he had not attended since Sept.-END OF DISCUSSION!!! We all have to be personally accountable for our own actions, and this includes you Mr Johnson. In my presence no one treated you rudely or without respect and the only person causing a problem was Johns Stephens; who was loud, rude, confrontational and generally disruptive to members of the executive board of the SJCREC. I personally resent the implications that something was done wrong by Eric West, recording secretary of the SJCREC. Eric has brought meticulous order and organization to our record keeping since he was elected to serve. There is no doubt in my mind that if Eric West said Cliff Johnson was not elgible to vote that Eric was 100% accurate and correct!

    Lastly, Cliff Johnson was duly elected a precinct committee man last August in the GOP primary. Like many RLC members he chose not to attend the meetings that both Will Pitts and John Stephens attended and were able to find out when we meet. Folks, it's not a big secret when we meet. So Cliff Johnson stand up and be a man and admit you made a mistake by not attending instead of trying to force your way in when you were told you weren't entitled to vote. As for John Stephens, I personally asked you to leave at least three (3) times and you refused my polite request, even after I explained that the RPOF had suspended you and Will Pitts from all GOP activities.

    I don't pretend to know the motivations of the people involved from the RLC but I do know this. If you are elected to any office it is your responsiblity to find out when they meet and to show up. The "buck" stops with Cliff Johnson in this case; he simply didn't do what he should have done-ATTEND THE MEETINGS. He wasn't alone because there were multiple old REC members that hadn't attended since the last election and were purged from the list in accordance with State law. They weren't happy either, but they took their medicine like a men and so should you.

    • Bob, you'll notice there was no repudiation of your first hand account of the meeting.
      The silence speaks volumes, does it not?

      • Jim,

        nearly every person that has posted on here has said that what Bob Smith has claimed is NOT True.
        you are getting ONE side the story and NOT being an eyewitness yet claiming to have all the facts.

        Do not even remotely pretend that you KNOW what happened, you called the insiders that caused this whole mess and hold them up as credible...

        We have officially asked for the records and they will speak for themselves.

        Funny that you ask why John and I were there, but why don't you ask why Robbie Foster, Peret Pass or JJ Whitson, who were ALL guests and ALL allowed into the meeting under one pretense or another but all are also members of the DREC.

        See somehow you are always justified in assuming that your opinion dictates fact, in this case you are wrong. Did your sources tell you that many other guests were allowed in the room? Did they mention that it was only non Thrasher supporters that were left out.

        You state many times that the RLC causes problems every where they go, but you KNOW FOR A FACT this is not true. I have been at 9 Duval REC meetings with you at this point with not ONE incident.

        The fact that you BREED contempt among people working for the same cause speaks volumes of your character...

        I am sorely disappointed that you continue to make untrue and unvalidated statements. While we often disagree, i respected you. I find it hard to respect ANYONE as a leader that hears one side of a contentious story and decides it is fact. John, Cliff, and I among others attend numerous meeting around Duval and St Johns County.
        It is ONLY the SJC REC we have issues with, there is common denominator there- and it is NOT us.

      • Kristi, Are you calling Bob Smith a liar?
        The problem is I've known Bob for some time and he's always been honest with me. I've never caught him in a lie, John, on the other hand. . .
        But because I didn't want to react on one persons perspective, I discussed the issue with someone who is a bit more sympathetic to your group, and got a similar accounting. I did not rush into this half-cocked.

        As I've stated several times, if someone who is eligable is denied a vote: I would stand with them- even if they are RLC. Which is why I've encouraged Mr. Johnson to file a grevience if he honestly feels he was wronged. I look forward to the outcome of that motion.

        Your clich has now accused the SJREC of altering documents specifically to exclude this man. That's a serious charge. If I'm not mistaken, that's a felony. If it's true, I recommend you file a grevience AND a police report.
        If you can't prove that charge, I'd recommend Bob Smith file another grevience against members of your group for falsly accusing someone of a felony.

        "The buck" stops with the two witnesses who don't have a reputation for creating havoc, and distorting facts to accomodate their positions. The only person who is "innocent until proven guilty" is the person accused of a felony. Mr. Johnson just needs to prove he was there, and he has a valid case.

        That should be easy enough. My understanding is the SJREC videos all the meetings and includes face-shots of each member in attendance. Did he view the videos and substantiate that he was in these meetings?

        This seems to me, to be an easy fix.

  15. There was nothing "fair" about an election in which people were told to vote for a guy, and the member listing was cleaned up to prevent any dissenting votes. It wasn't even an election, there were no other candidates because they were all told beforehand how they would vote and the sequence of events that would happen.

    Frankly, you have to be an idiot to call it fair or an election.

  16. I don't mind Thrasher being in there; I am upset with the process that led to it. Had it been fair and he still got the deat, I'd welcome him in that position. I am upset with the process, and would be regardless of who got the seat.

  17. I have a question...

    Why would the nomination and election of a State Committeeman need to be done in Executive Session anyways? This is an election that has state-wide implications. Senator Thrasher may very well be the next State Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. If there were county Republicans who wanted to witness the nomination/ election and (heaven forbid) ask a question, is that not a good thing? What is so private and secret about the process? There was enough room for all members and guests to participate, but yet you forced 10-12 people to wait outside. Why? What was the logic?

    Below is the Press Release that explains the whole situation if interested:
    http://www.rlcnef.org/no-dissent-allowed-st-johns-county-republican-executive-committee/

    • John,
      My question for you is "why is that any of your business? You have, after all, been suspended from the Republican Party.

    • Also, what were you going to do with those ballots had you successfully stolen them?

      • It was not about stealing ballots, it was about asking for transparency and fairness and you know it. As i said before we are asking for the records, they will prove our case, if they can be produced.

        You are being overly dramatic for effect and by doing so lose all credibility.

        BTW, it is the BUSINESS OF ALL Republicans that the coronation of John Thrasher is happening behind closed doors. If there was noting unethical or shady happening it could be done out in the open...

        We understand they had the RIGHT to do it, but why, if they are claiming to represent the "rank and file" republicans would they choose to add more questions and more secrecy to an already contested issue...

  18. I would like to see the Minutes, Member Roster and all sign in sheets for all meetings from September, October, November, (December-if there were a meeting as claimed) and January. If these documents can be provided, I am sure they would assist in settling a few questions in this dispute.

    • Cliff,
      All you need is the sign in sheets. If you signed in, you were there. Otherwise, you're just making a scene. Very immature.

      • Yes Jim and as we said before, he was there in September for the Senate 8 debate ( I was with him then too) and the Decemeber meeting was canceled that equals TWO missed meeting.
        Since now after I have chats and emails from the leadership telling me the December meeting was canceled some are claiming it was not. So then meeting Minutes should be produced to prove this statement.

        That is all we are asking for. Cliff POLITELY asked to see the sign in sheet on Thursday and was told by Eric West "I can read as well as you" ans was refused this common decency.

        Also, If things are on the up and up as you claim then NO visitors would have been allowed in. Instead excuses were made for those supporting Thrasher to be in there... I have a picture to prove this statement. It will be released shortly.

      • See Comment above.

      • As I've already stated, anyone who is qualified to vote should have the opportunity. Those who want to "slide in and vote anyway" should not.

        I've gotten the same story from two different sources, both conclude that you were not polite, and that you were not eligable to vote. If you've been slighted, I support your right to file a grevience.
        'Nuff said, don't you think?

  19. As usual, the RLC people didn't answer any questions. Just more confusion. . .

    • What Questions?

      I have gone through and answered nearly all of them- No confusion-
      Cliff was eligible to vote and denied.

      In protest John forced his way in, The SJC REC felt that John standing my the door quietly was too big of a threat and called the police.

      John has issues a Public apology for the escalation, but also feels that the SJC REC needs to prove the point that Cliff was not eligible, since they refused to show us the records Thursday night.

      We were there to support Cliff and to view what was going to happen in the REC meeting that is going to effect EVERY republican in Florida.
      I have been to many SJC REC meetings. This was not the first and we have had no issues at the other ones...

      I have answered these questions repeatedly, as have others, what other questions would you like to have answered?

      • You've yet to answer the questions.
        If Mr. Johnson was there, all he has to do is request to see the sign in sheets. If a felony was committed, he can use the video to substantiate his presence.
        Has he done this yet?

      • He did request to see the sheets, Jim, and he was denied that courtesy. I dont think any of your buddies are denying that either,

      • Kristi, Is it true that you were banging on a window and screaming?
        I thought you never "caused confusion". If this is true, then you've illustrated my proposition that your group cannot be trusted in their representation of facts.

        The fact that you'r group is quick to call others a liar, when your posture holds less repreentation to facts as they transpire illustrates why your group has no gravitas.

        You're a young woman, let me help you: "Don't hang around with trouble makers and liars. You'll develop a reputation of being a trouble maker and a liar."

      • I will take a bunch of "troublemakers and liars" who stand up against this madness than a crowd of people who stood by and let it happen.

        I will spell it out the argument again.

        Jim Greer resigned.
        John Thrasher announced he was going to take his place.
        John Thrasher was not qualified to assume the post.
        John Thrashers friends in the SJREC arranged for an official to step down so Mr. Thrasher could assume it, opposition was not expected (SJREC status would be increased greatly if one of their own were RPOF chair)
        The vote needed to be unanimous or near unanimous to ensure that the overall shadiness was lessened. To garuantee this, the rolls were scrubbed.
        To ensure there was no dissenters, known members of the RLC were forced to remain outside under the pretense of "no guests". Thrasher guests were permitted in.

        Conclusion: whitewash

  20. Engaing in conversation with people like Jim Davis is a waste of time. He has no interest in truth and facts. He says one thing online and will say another when he is face to face with you. He is not interested in building bridges or finding common ground. In short, he is a destructive force to those who seek to improve our Party, county, state and nation. That is why I have chosen to ignore his comments and questions.

    • The reality is I use the facts to confound you.
      I'm sorry you're offended by my willingness to be polite to you in a personal setting. Thats called "social grace'.

      I've sat down with your group 3 different times to find an amicable relationship between your coup and myself. The end result of each and every meeting was your insistence to keep doing what you're doing, and your expectation that I stop opposing you. To answer your false accusation: "No, I'm not willing to build the bridge you want to build."

      As people read our dialog, they will notice that you've yet to provide anything but accusations, and I've attempted to deal with the issues- but that's the norm for our debates.

      Bottom line is your group has a reputation for being disruptive, John himself, has been barred from multiple meetings because of his disruptive nature, and has yet to answer what he intended to do with those ballots that he tried to steal from a ballot box.

      Those are the facts, and they are indisputable.

      • Any time someone tries to push back against the status quo, they will always be branded by "disruptive" by those interested in keeping power. I thought you were better than that, Jim. But, in the word of another poster, I guess the "fine Christian Man" John Thrasher is above reproach. In the final analysis, whether John Stevens was disruptive or tried to steal ballots (a vile accusation that you have not backed up, Mr. Evidence) does not really matter. What matters is the the SJREC bent over backwards to give John Thrasher a seat so that he could run for another position that he had already been hand-picked for. I do not think that the SJREC was "manipulated" but I do think that any dissent was quashed quickly while Thrasher cheerleaders who were not members of the SJREC were let in. Of course those people were not disruptive, the result was known beforehand.

        The RPOF has done a pretty good job of scaring the RLC away from their country club meetings, it is classic dictatorial tactics, kill a few leaders and the rest will fall in line. But they are still Republicans and this travesty affects all of us in the state.

      • Jose, you know that isn't true. Yours is more a philisophical statement, mine is a representation of what actually transpires.

  21. "We were there to support Cliff"

    What made yoiu think "Cliff" needed support? If he was present at the three previous meetings, there would be no suspicion that "Cliff" was going to encounter anything but a ballot to vote with.

    A reasonable conclusion would be that you understood there would be a discrepency- and, once again: you were in the peripherals of confusion.
    I'll ask again, why are you constantly in the peripherals of confusion: you really haven't answered that question yet. . .

    • Because they knew that Cliff would probably be castigated for opposing the coronation.

      You are trying to apply the facts to your view, not letting them shape your view.

      • Why would they not think Cliff would just be able to vote: those votes are private. Are you saying they would read his vote with him standing there and give him grief?

        Are you also saying if they did: your group was going to create a scene? Is that not attending with the intention of creating a ruckus?

        Honestly, it sounds to me like you understood the man wasn't eligable to vote- which would explain Stevens' well timed attempt to imput himself into the situation.

        The more I read, the more convinced that my original suspicions were accurate. My view, knowing the history of this group; is reasonable. The proclamation that the roles were "scrubbed" and the videos were doctored holds less water, and is far more unreasonable in their propositions.
        Mr. Johnsons' one vote wasn't going to make or break the support Thrasher had in that room.

        It sounds to me like this group wants their own kind of bridge built: the kind that lets them garner more attention than they're worth.

        They should begin to build bridges that are reasonable, and free of bravado. Don't you agree?

      • Jim,
        I would assume that there would be an open debate about this before hand, or does the SJREC not allow debate?
        That is what I was referring to.

        "They should begin to build bridges that are reasonable, and free of bravado. Don’t you agree?"

        Seems they tried that a few years ago and were kicked out of the party for their trouble.

      • Debate with whom? Someone removed from the party for grevious infractions?

        We have a person who uses ostentacious tactics to draw attention to himself, a young girl who reportedly bangs on a window and screams into a quarumed meeting, and a man who isnsists that his presence in meetings have been "scrubbed" from multiple documents so he can't cast a single vote against the will of the quorum.

        The place for the debate- again: is in a grevience committee,. But I suspect that wont happen since there is civil liability for falsely accusing someone of a felony.

        These aren't people you debate, these are people you find mental health assistance: in the name of compassion.

      • your lack of rebuttal suggest your proposition is weak.

      • Jim,
        I am sorry I didnt "rebutt" your "argument", since your most recent post was based on a misunderstanding of my statement (assuming you are not being deliberately obtuse), I will attempt to clarify.

        It was well known that Mr. Johnson would not support Mr. Thrasher, if his claim is correct (which I will assume that it is until the SJREC provides the requested documentation), then the objective in barring Mr. Johnson from debate would be to prevent open debate on the issue by exclusion of dissenting parties through procedural gymnastics. I use the term "gymnastics" because some guests were allowed, some were denied depending on their views on the privilege being extended to Mr Thrasher.

        "Creating a ruckus" is the term used for dissent by those wishing to minimize it.

      • "Creating a ruckus" was another way to communicate "confusion". I just got tired of using the term. I'm afraid my southern accent kicked in.
        I was being obtuse because the proposition that the SJREC was concerned about the one vote is such a weak argument.

        Until one can prove that Mr. Johnsons name was "scrubbed" from attendance sheets, reason concludes that the burden of proof is in his hands.
        The fact that these RLC people have already been caught in their misrepresentations of the facts (according to now three different people who were there) along with the history of the RLC 's obfucatory propencities draws the reasonable assumption that this was all just a aggrandizing prank. This is a reasonable conclusion based on Mr. Stevens' ostentatious stunt with Law Enforcment.
        Bottom line is Mr. Johnson now
        1. Needs to present evidence that a felony was committed against him (removing his name from the roll sheets)
        2. Present evidence via the SJREC video confirming his presence.

        Otherwise, this has all been one more stunt.

  22. It's reasonable, from the conversations above, to conclude that this Libertarian group continues to obfuscate, and create barriers to "unity" to aggrandize their group.

    They speak of "building bridges" yet they only want their type of bridge: based on what they think is right and wrong. Just as they think people in Massachusetts should vote for whom THEY want them to vote: they want the local Partys' to be what THEY want them to be- and are willing to be disruptive to accomplish that.

    In short, they're adolescents that resent being told that can't have everything they want. These are reasonable conclusions.

    • Jim, Again he was there in September- were you? I was with him, as were all the Senate 8 candidates... We spoke to several people in leadership... so that is NOT TRUE>>.
      and there was NO December meeting ( PROVE otherwise...)

      What lie? I was THERE- you talk to specific people and attempt to belittle and demean those that disagree with you, simply because they disagree.

      While you are begging for people to join the REC, we are growing... and the more contemptous you and others liek you become the more eyes of the Rank and file you are opening to just how corrupt many of the insiders in the party have become.

      I have asked you 3 or 4 times what lies? What have I said? What has John said?

      I am working FOR ALL republicans, have never voted for or supported or even encouraged support for another party...

      I have registered a ton of voters, all who vote for Republicans...

      Fighting with your "facts" is impossible, because when i ask you to back them up you come up with people you will not name and facts that eye witnesses refute.

      You will see the actions steps we are taking. I have NOTHING to admit to... and the facts, the records that we will have will prove that we ARE telling the truth

      When we prove that the SJC records are not up to date and the several people were allowed to vote that should not have and that people should have were not allowed to, Will YOU APOLOGIZE? Since you claim you will?

      What do you gain- by not having all the facts and stating that you know them? I have NEVER called you and name or have even been disrespectful to you- you attack us and want us to sit back and let you do it, otherwise we are adolescents... So it does not matter what we do, you will find a reason to fight and belittle anyone that disagrees with you.
      That is the way to Grow that party....shut out anyone that has a different view... brilliant....

  23. By the way, it's reasonable to conclude this has been the Libertarian goal all along:

    "Menendez says Dems can drive wedge between the GOP and tea party activists."

    Which explains why people have seen interaction between RLC leaders and the Florida Tea Party party founder Doug Gutzlow, and Nick Eggeroff.

    If the GOP were to be weakened by the libertarians, it would give them opportunity to infiltrate the leadership during the turmoil. That would explain the new position of the RLC to "try to build bridges".

    Once again, we see sleaze in action. . .

    • Jim,
      Epic Fail, local RLCers have been very critical of the "Tea Party of Florida' look at Egroffs FB Page.

    • Jim- See you accuse us of telling half truths.. and you never verify or EVER use this kind of language face to face. Check out your info, Nick is not even an RLC member...

      We have nothing to do with Nick Eggroff's plan with the Tea Party we have been openly critical of him and any attempt to work outside the party structure.

      That is precisely what you do not understand. We are all working for the same goal- you are just doing it with the premise that principles do not matter. We disagree. But the goal to get Conservatives in office is the same.
      You say that you think things should be handled privately yet you will never EVER confront any of this face to face. You will openly defend LIBERALS and accuse us of attacking Republicans, the whole time you are attacking me and other. REPUBLICANS in a OPEN forum. I know that you justify it because YOU tell us we do not count as Republicans- but have you ever talked to me about what I believe? NO you simply assume and spread half truths. So for your information I WORKED at the RNC, I have always been a Republican, I co-ran 3 republican Senate races ( not counting working on Dan Quiggle's race) You miss the BIG picture because you are so busy telling us that we do not belong...

      You know that most of our group supports Marco? And has been working for him? You know what kind of "Boots on the ground" we had for Dan? You guys could use us instead of fighting us, but you guys (YOU in particular) KEEP making it a fight. I have NEVER EVER EVER been rude to you or to Bob Smith, EVER. But yet because I base who I support on Principles- you Dismiss me as a Libertarian... that is not a smart move... and it certainly describes why so many around the counrty are tired of the GOP... Reagan had a BIG tent.. but you, want to play KING and decide who gets to come in..

      well with all the press attention, the numerous emails we have gotten supporting us, and people telling us that because this brought to their attention HOW this election is being run, John Thrasher is losing votes. So now wouldn't it have been better to find a way to work with us, as MOST of (minus you) the Duval REC has?

      Who did you talk to that is sympathetic to our group? Any RLCer's at all?
      No of course not, because then you would have to listen to both sides, something you are apparently opposed to doing...

      This my last comment to you, it is impossible to point out the truth to someone that refuses to see it.

      If you want to continue discussions such as this feel free to do so in person or Via Facebook so that MANY others can see the kind of deception, rudeness and utter contempt that you approach us with...

      In the meantime- this comment of mine is going on my notes in Facebook- addressed to you...

      • Kristi, the difference between you and me is I acknowledge when I make a mistake: you just tell another lie. . .

      • This is what I meant about Jim Davis "burying himself" with his own words.

        People may object to the approach of the RLC, but almost everyone who knows Kristi respects her comittment, work ethic and integrity. To question her character on a public forum further demonstrates why you are not even worth the time.

  24. "Cliff Johnson says:
    January 22, 2010 at 11:29 pmLast night I was turned away from attending the executive session of the SJCREC because apparently I had missed 3 meetings and they disqualified me as a precinct committee person. I explained that I had not missed 3 meetings but had only missed 2. And the only reason I missed those two meetings was because I was never informed of them"

    1. September. 2. October 3. December

    • Jim,

      Earlier on this forum you said it was October, November, December, now you are claiming its September, October, November that Cliff supposedly missed..

      Which is it? I was with him in September, but now that you realize that December's meeting, was in fact, canceled, you have to change your story?

      Since you, of course have seen the sign sheets with your own eyes ( Because you would never, ever assert that you KNOW facts that you have not validated right?

  25. "This is what I meant about Jim Davis “burying himself” with his own words.

    People may object to the approach of the RLC, but almost everyone who knows Kristi respects her comittment, work ethic and integrity. To question her character on a public forum further demonstrates why you are not even worth the time."

    And yet, in spite of her work: she's still caught in a lie.

    As for her "Party work" you seem to confuse RLC as GOP work. There is a huge difference between the two.

    Your attempts to dis-credit me are Democrat-like to be sure. Because you can't refute my propsitions, nor can you show that I've told a lie about your group, you atempt to attack the veracity of these positions.

    If you'r just deal honestly with the GOP, you'd fare better.

    • "As for her “Party work” you seem to confuse RLC as GOP work. There is a huge difference between the two."

      How so, Mr. Davis, she advocates for Republican candidates, she works for the good of the party. One of the things she thinks is in the best interest of the party is for First Coast Republicans not to make special concessions for John Thrasher. I ask, how are her goals mutually exclusive from those of the party?

      • Because her work is focussed on building the RLC's influence, not strengthening the party itself. The fact that we now have learned that RLC members tell REC members to "F-off" and Ms. Dunns propencity to pound on windows and scream into a quorum illustrates there is indeed a difference between the two. Not to mention the fact that many members have admitted to not voting for the Republican in the last Presidential election, AND actively promoted an Independent candidate.

        While they have that right, it certainly illustrates their work is geared towards their cause. Their cause, by their own admission, it to "take over" the Republican party and gear it towards the Libertarian mind set.

        I've seen Ms. Dunn introduced to people of influence at REC meetings, and the first thing she does is take them to the Chairman of their Caucus and introduce the two. Which is acceptable, but it certainly concludes that her focus is geared more toward her caucus, than the party as a whole: a party which that causus in constantly in disarray .

        I've been actively involved with the REC for seventeen months, I can't remember one time in that window that her caucus hasn't been a source of confusion.

        Hence, her work is more valuable to the RLC than it is to the REC.

      • Tell me what you think: If I campaign for a candidate who is constantly contemptable towards the Party they associate with, am I campaigning for that partys' success or that candidates success?

        One could possibly make the case that working against the party is to it's advantage, but that isn't the case here. We have people who admit to being libertarian in their positions, but Libertarians don't garner votes. If one looks at the issues Americans most often delineate as the top ten most important: Libertarians align with the populace on two issues: National Defence and Small Government.

        With that in mind, and the fact that thr RLC admits to being libertarian, and have the goal of "coup de tat"- the argument cannot reasonably be defind as "good for the Party".

        So again, I ask you: "If I campaign for a candidate who is constantly contemptable towards the Party thhe associates with, am I campaigning for that partys' success or that candidates success?"

      • WHAT LIE? ONCE AGAIN WHAT LIE??

        See this is a us vs them and you have sided with the "them" so that means anyone else is a liar...

        WHAT CANDIDATE have I campaigned for was contemptible to the party?

        "propensity to pound on windows and scream into a quorum illustrates there is indeed a difference between the two"

        I never screamed- AGAIN were you there? Did you hear Bob Smith Threats or Randy Brunson belittling remarks?

        I tapped on the window 3 times to POINT OUT the GUESTS that were in the room- while I was being told that NO GUESTS were allowed in the room... but Yea I know how dare I point out inconsistencies- that just makes me evil.. . being upset at the blatant rudeness and attempts to hold an extremely important election in secret, means I am not working for the party.. I am sure the members of the Tea Parties, 912, We surround them and many other groups demanding accountability from the Republican Party would AGREE with that logic- how DARE I want honesty... that just makes me bad...

        Laughable...

        HOW many meetings have I been at with you- with NO problems...

        To even almost like we always cause issues, is to call YOUR credibility into question...

        I VOTED for MCCain in the last election, I made calls and worked HARD for his campaign- your hatred towards me is based on unfounded opinions and NO FACTS.

        Try actually LISTENING to both sides...

    • yea Registering Republicans to vote- that is not PARTY work...
      Helping in republican elections, that is not Party Work
      Helping to bring in people ( most who do not agree with me on policy) into the REC- that is not Party work...

      Because of course Jim Davis knows the intentions of everyone...

      • AND By the way I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER advocated for a Coup De Te or said I was Libertarian...

        However its funny that Libertarian is so evil to you...

        Since Ronald Reagan said:
        REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

        I enjoy the fact that you admit to disagreeing, not only with Reagan but with the principles that quote mentions...

        Tells people alot about where the Republican Party actually stands...

  26. The REC’s need some new blood. After all that has happened the “most active Republicans in the county” are still clueless. The REC is supposed to be the principled foundation of the Party, from which grassroots values are supposed to rise upwards to the elected party leadership; each successive level of leadership is to respond to our mutual values and in cooperation lead the Republican Party to electoral success.
    Integral to this relationship is the understanding that individual Republicans are equals. From the voter that chooses to register Republican all the way up to the GOP Chairman, we are all volunteers. While it is necessary that their be hierarchy to order our activities and ensure our effectiveness, it is proper to understand we all serve of our own free will. Just as proper is to demand that all who serve in the name of the Republican Party do so for conservative principles and the resulting benefit to our nation rather than for collateral benefit to themselves.
    Recently the grassroots REC members of Florida became incensed at our former state chairman, Jim Greer. The root of their complain was that he was abusing his power, that he was basically pushing Republicans around to serve the electoral purposes of himself and his cronies.
    Greer is gone, so now the Republican Party of Florida must pick a new Chairman. We all know who that person is going to be, it will be John Thrasher.
    The more power held by an individual the more liable they are to abuse it. Greer was a party insider who abused his power as Chairman. Now the FGOP elite are giving all the power that Greer had to a man who is already a lobbyist and a state senator.
    Lobbyist. State lawmaker. State Republican Party Chairman. Greer’s power was nothing compared to the influence Thrasher will be able to wield. Grassroots Republicans had better hope he is a benevolent dictator because he will have more power in the Republican Party of Florida than anyone except perhaps the governor.
    Who thinks it is a good idea to give one person that much power, especially when that person will be your leader in the state party? That average REC Republican thinks that’s a good idea! The problem is they don’t come to that idea on their own, they are led to it by manipulation of the party electorate by the party elite.
    Case in point: the Clay REC.
    Understand that I have no real problem with the board or most of the membership of the Clay REC. Clay is a conservative county and this is reflected by our REC. Except for a couple of local power brokers the majority are sincere in their Republicanism; they are nonetheless clueless. They are not the libertarians of the RLC, or the principled patriots of the tea parties, neither do they even have a good understanding of what is means to be a Reagan Republican. They mean well, but they have no understanding, and so in their January meeting voted to place a Republican king over themselves.
    The way it went down was that during “new business” a person in the back of the room made a motion that the Clay REC direct it’s voting delegates (chair, state committeeman, state committeewoman) to select John Thrasher as FGOP chairman. Someone at the front of the room, a former REC chair, then stood up to extol Thrashers virtues. A person in the front and a person in the back, promoting something that was not specifically on the agenda? Sounds to me like an ambush and a tactic for working the room. They told us all the Thrasher had done for Clay County, all that he will doing for Northeast Florida, and all he will do for the FGOP.
    There were some objections. One man wanted to know who else was running as chairman; he received a very sketchy answer that ended with “Sharon Day is no John Thrasher.” A woman made very intelligent remarks that could have come straight from RLCNEF, about the obvious conflicts of interest in someone being both a lawmaker and a party chairman. Her objections went unheeded.
    They “ayes” won the vote, so now Clay is endorsing Thrasher. My impression is that most of the REC members didn’t really know what they were voting on, they were just going with the flow because a couple of Thrasher henchmen put on a good show. I’m sure the same thing is happening in every REC in the state of Florida.
    The Republican Party needs to be protected from itself. Every Republican corporate crony, every tax-and-spend Republican, every power player, every moderate who talks like a conservative, every single one of them was placed in their position by a democratic process in which Republicans unwittingly voted against Republican principles.
    My appeal to the people of the RLC, and the tea parties, and the Reagan conservatives, and that we do in earnest that thing we have been talking about for years: take over the REC’s. The stupidity comes from above, from the party elite that use us, but the REC is the soil in which it is planted. Join your county REC; get other constitutional conservatives to join the REC; go the meetings, and when a critical vote unexpectedly pops up stand on your principles. If you don’t like the county REC leadership then replace them in December. Nearly every precinct in Florida has at least one opening for a committeeman or committeewoman: take that position and together let’s take our party where it is supposed to be. It will be easy because it is not a matter of us against everyone already in the REC, it is just a matter of us against just the few who want elitist domination, it is a matter of us educating the majority of sincere REC members who want the best for their party and their nation in the decisions they should make to achieve those ends.
    I give whoever reads this permission to copy it onto any venue they desire. My hope is that it will go viral in the state of Florida. This will not prevent Thrasher from being seated, but in the future we will at least be able to say “we told you so.” If we drive that home maybe they will listen the next time.

  27. Jim - and I have lost any respect to call you "Mr." anything - you are a contemptible person. You are the worst of the worst. You not only are not for the good of the party, you are actively working to injure the party. You espouse lies, you seek to kick out anyone who has traditional Republican values, and you promote the kind of politicians that Americans are sick of and voted Republicans out of power for continuing to support.

    The number of lies you've told on this website while smearing the names of good people just disgusts me. But any tactic is good enough for you; you have no depth you would not sink to in order to disparage those who seek to fix this party and through it the nation.

    I will not lower myself to respond to each of your comments. You are not worth the effort, and I have not the time to do so, because I have a job - as all good Americans should - and I spend my time away from my job actually seeking to make this nation a better place.

    • Erick, I have respect for you. I've always found you to be reasonable.

      Couple of thoughts:

      My propositions have been

      Mr Johnson had other avenues to persue this issue other than in the news papers, and chose the most ostentacious medium he could.

      John and Kristi refute their own premises with their continued speech: they continually contradict themselves; then lie to cover the contradiction.

      This "rough-shod" method of debate is EXACTLY the method John and Will use consistently- kind of rough, "ain't it"? These men should learn to suck it up if this is what they dish out. That's fair, isn't it?

      I'm sorry if I lose you for a friend, but I'm not sorry for facing the obfuscation, half-truths, and nafarious intentions we've discussed and exposed here.

      If your caucus want to be treated with more respect, I recommend they start carrying themselves with a more respectable demeanor.
      They got what they give. . .

  28. Or pound on a window and scream into a room.
    Both are a bit crass, wouldn't you agree?

  29. For the record: My opinions and assertions are valid and accurate. When an assertion is correct, I quickly retrack it.
    The reader can determine if the substance of my posts were or were not based on debate style and logical deductions. I think you'll find while I was aggressive, I went to great lengths to be sucinct.

    My perspectives were based on feedback from three different people who were at the meeting, and did not know I spoke with another.

    My assertions about the crassness and admitted coup de tat of the libertarians caucus are documented and quantifiable. So much so that I was asked for, and supplied that documentation to the Republican grevience committee to substan

    • (oops) typing on my laptop and thumb hit the wrong button)

      subtantiate that the current Chairman of the RLC admitted to the idea of a coup. If fact, when confronted with the premise, his response was "so what? everyone tries to do that".

      My demeanor may have been aggressive, but my assertions, unless otherwise retracted are reasonable and true. My stated opinions are based on 12 months of debate with this caucus.

      You make up your own mind- I know what thesed people have proclaimed themselves to be. . .

      'Nuff said.

  30. As a Republican, I am thoroughly shocked and offended at the party's lack of concern for the constituents that it represents. Holding secret meeting, barring voters and party members from sitting in, name calling, bickering, and everything else that has been made blatantly obvious by JDavis's postings, are what have led me to rethink my political affiliations. I believe that if given the opportunity to speak, maybe the actual voters that elected the officials into office might have something valid to say on their own behalf. Such as which candidate will recieve financial backing from the party, and which won't. The biggest coup that I have seen thus far has been the Republican party officials trying to oust the voices of the party members. I personally cannot stand to remain affiliated with such a biased and discriminatory institution. I would rather support the Libertarian movement before staying in the cesspool of Republican leadership.

  31. for someone who has no personal ties to Kristi to openly attack her and continue to hold a leadership position in the republican party, proves to me the party is corrupt from the top down.

    Kristi is passionate, and has an energy that is unbelievable when it comes to politics and protecting the principles this country was founded on. She can get upset, but has never been a liar.

    Jdavis you need to talk to everyone involved in these events- I do not yet know what happened so I can not make a decision regarding it, but I know Kristi would not make up facts regarding it. She would make no claim before she would make up facts about what happened.

    If you have ever taken the time to talk to her, and listen you would know that. Your behavior makes me question the entire party, how many more like you are there in leadership in Florida?

  32. I do not understand why this issue is so divisive. Personally, I actually AM a Libertarian and have never been directed by anyone to invade and divide the Republican party or to take it over. If anything, the establishment GOP/Democrat party is the reason people wanted a third option. It is exactly these types of infighting that drives people away from the GOP. From what I know of Kristi, she has never been dishonest in anyway. I have long wondered why she remained in the Republican party and I have come to the only conclusion which is that she believes in it. She wants to restore the transparency and conservative principles that should characterize your party. If these types of attacks continue, you are gaining no one and losing the people that care the most about the principles of the true Republican party.

  33. For the record, I pulled this off of Facebook, Monday 2/1/10. This is a Monday.The conversation took place over the weekend:

    Sharon Poole: I'm not calling America a warmonger, you don't see what I see, and I will leave it at that. A year ago I saw things like you. As for the Libertarian candidate, to be honest with you, I have not looked into this person or ever heard of him before. I was impressed with his website and I may end up supporting him, so thank you Jonathan for the information. I don't want to argue with anyone. I am hoping more people start to see what I am seeing though. Our military actions around the world are unsustainable, and just wrong. Same goes for the UN.

    Yesterday at 8:49amRobert White: Sharon, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Pres waging war w/out declaration of war (I assume that's what you think is unconstitutional). Presidency was constructed with this in mind. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion without a declaration of war.

    Check out Republican Liberty Caucus (very strong in Fla). They try to elect libertarian candidates in Republican primaries.

    Have been a member of LP for years, but they are behind the 8-ball, are disorganized and fractious. They don't have much of a chance and are just as ripe for corruption if they ever did get power because power corrupts. Foolish idealism (or cynicism) allows incompetent socialists to gain power (e.g. Perotistas in 92 & 96 -- Dems gaining power in 2006-08).... See More

    GOP is a broken vessel, but better than either Dems or LP.
    Yesterday at 8:58am

    Sharon Poole: I'm not calling America a warmonger, you don't see what I see, and I will leave it at that. A year ago I saw things like you. As for the Libertarian candidate, to be honest with you, I have not looked into this person or ever heard of him before. I was impressed with his website and I may end up supporting him, so thank you Jonathan for the information. I don't want to argue with anyone. I am hoping more people start to see what I am seeing though. Our military actions around the world are unsustainable, and just wrong. Same goes for the UN.

    Yesterday at 8:49amRobert White Sharon, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Pres waging war w/out declaration of war (I assume that's what you think is unconstitutional). Presidency was constructed with this in mind. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion without a declaration of war.

    Check out Republican Liberty Caucus (very strong in Fla). They try to elect libertarian candidates in Republican primaries.

    Have been a member of LP for years, but they are behind the 8-ball, are disorganized and fractious. They don't have much of a chance and are just as ripe for corruption if they ever did get power because power corrupts. Foolish idealism (or cynicism) allows incompetent socialists to gain power (e.g. Perotistas in 92 & 96 -- Dems gaining power in 2006-08).... See More

    GOP is a broken vessel, but better than either Dems or LP.
    Yesterday at 8:58am

    I got this from Tom T facebook page. Tom replied:

    Tom T When you start calling America a warmonger, that's when you lose me completely. Yes, we have made mistakes in foreign policy, but, to paint the picture of America being this blood thirsty country that is falling all over itself just to kill people is ridiculous. And, I have to be honest here Sharon, the Libertarian Party has a true, principled candidate running for Senate in Alex Snitker, yet, you don't support him. Doesn't that shoot a hole in everything you're saying?

    For courtesy issues, I deleted Tom T's last name. If you're my friend, you can go to my FB page and follow the discussion from there. I just wasn't going to publish my friends name without his permission.

  34. Case in point.
    'Nuff said.

  35. I'm curious as to how an opinion posted on Facebook about a Libertarian candidate found its way into a conversation about how the Republican party is denying access to registered constituents, and how this post proves any point that Mr. Davis has been trying to get across.All I have seen is that Mr Davis is more concerned with proving his "rightness" as opposed to listening to the members of his party. If this is any indication of how the republican party views democracy, it's not difficult to see where our government has failed us. Remember, it's WE the people, not I the people.

  36. J. Jones: Then you aren't very astute. My premise has been that this organization that openly admits an intention to "take over" a party isn't presenting the facts. They are fabricating an "alternate reality" of this meeting.

    I find it interesting that you didn't acknowledge my position of "if someone was prevented from their right to vote or speak when qualified to do, then I agree that a grevience occured".

    I was told via phone call that the sign in sheets had been viewed and that Mr. Johnson had indeed been slighted that opportunity. Like any honest person in a debate, I checked that claim, triple checked that claim, and found it to be a lie as well.

    What I don't understand is why you would defend someones' position when it's based on a lie. Nor do I understand anyones propensity to defend someone's desire to be around a ballot box, when thay person has a history of attempting to steal ballots when elections don't swing that persons' way.

    Yours is the weaker position.

    • I guess this shows who is, and isn't being honest.

      • Jim Davis-
        I am disappointed that after a phone conversation with Chairman Lenny Curry and a long phone conversation with me, in which you claimed that you are fair and "always tell the truth" yet you continue to post on here, spreading the lies that you claim are not the truth.

        I believe that you will not like the direction that you have pushed this when the truth comes out.

        I personally take offense to the fact that you go to a church that is sound in teaching integrity with a pastor that I respect and admire, yet you find no fault in continuing to degrade people's character with lies in a public forum. It seems to me that those 2 things should not go together.

    • Mr Jones,
      I was there- were you? Cliff was not given the opportunity to see the sign in sheets. Eric West will admit this fact. And did so again at this month's meeting.

      Funny how everyone claiming the to hold the "truth" only posts part of their name and spoke with "unnamed" sources. Those of us telling the truth have posted our full names and contact information.... call us, email us, check us out, those of you claiming to know the full truth without even without seeking it from anyone outside of those that caused the problem- please feel free to contact any of us...

      Kristi Dunn
      mskristidunn@gmail.com

      • The previous comment was to Jdavis, not JJones- Sorry for the confusion.

        Jim Davis I was the one that told you that about the sign in sheets- I proudly stand by the truth and I would expect others to do the same.

  37. Ms. Dunn the date is Feb15 I hace just scanned the Blogs on the REC meeting in question.......I am not the Randy that has been posting......I would love to meet with you and John..I know there are two sides to every story.....we don't know each other and I know this is not the forum to make appointments but I will try to contact you......My info is BrunsonRandy@aol.com

Trackbacks

  1. The Fight Goes on in Florida | Republican Liberty Caucus