GOP warns dissident wing - Republicans try to stop 'Liberty Caucus'

Republic-ian Set yourself apart ( - ) from the sheeple and the neocons.

re·pub·lic
n.

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

[French république, from Old French, from Latin rēspūblica : rēs, thing; see rē- in Indo-European roots + pūblica, feminine of pūblicus, of the people; see public.]

re·pub·lic Pronunciation[ri-puhb-lik]
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1595–1605; < F république, MF < L rés pūblica, equiv. to rés thing, entity + pūblica public]

-an
a suffix occurring originally in adjectives borrowed from Latin, formed from nouns denoting places (Roman; urban) or persons (Augustan), and now productively forming English adjectives by extension of the Latin pattern. Attached to geographic names, it denotes provenance or membership (American; Chicagoan; Tibetan), the latter sense now extended to membership in social classes, religious denominations, etc., in adjectives formed from various kinds of noun bases (Episcopalian; pedestrian; Puritan; Republican) and membership in zoological taxa (acanthocephalan; crustacean). Attached to personal names, it has the additional senses “contemporary with” (Elizabethan; Jacobean) or “proponent of” (Hegelian; Freudian) the person specified by the noun base. The suffix -an, and its variant -ian also occurs in a set of personal nouns, mainly loanwords from French, denoting one who engages in, practices, or works with the referent of the base noun (comedian; grammarian; historian; theologian); this usage is esp. productive with nouns ending in -ic (electrician; logician; technician). See -ian for relative distribution with that suffix.
Compare -enne, -ean, -arian, -ician.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: ME < L -ānus, -āna, -ānum; in some words r. -ain, -en < OF < L]

-ian
a suffix with the same meaning and properties as -an; -ian is now the more productive of the two suffixes in recent coinages, esp. when the base noun ends in a consonant: Orwellian; Washingtonian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: extracted from L loanwords in which -ānus -an is joined to stems ending in i]

-ian
suff.
Of, relating to, or resembling: Bostonian.
One relating to, belonging to, or resembling: academician.

[Middle English -ien, -ian, from Old French -ien, from Latin -iānus, adj. and n. suff.]

Voluntary Association + Mutual Cooperation + 110% Personal Responsibility = 100% Individual Liberty

I like how you integrated all the email addresses and links right into the post to make it easy.

Where did the Libertarians come from? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Libertarians come from a whole bunch of Young Republicans that walked out of the Republican Party in the early 70's after Tricky Dicky instituted wage and price controls and closed the gold window and the neocons were rearing their heads within the GOP.

Now I don't know what the party hacks are so upset about, we're just coming back to take back what was ours in the first place. As I see it ,they have only three choices, Lead, Follow or Get The Hell Out of The Way.

Voluntary Association + Mutual Cooperation + 110% Personal Responsibility = 100% Individual Liberty

Voluntary Association + Mutual Cooperation + 110% Personal Responsibility = 100% Individual Liberty

That's the battle.

http://staugustine.com/st...

Also some good Letters to the Editor would help:

Letters to the Editor, Releases
letters@staugustinerecord.com

Several weeks ago I spoke with Mr Bob Veit in regards to his statements made in a local news story about Ron Paul people. I called him at his home phone number and apologized after realizing I called his home and asked if there was another way to contact him and he said that he's retired and his home number is the best means to reach him. During our conversation, he showed me his true colors as being a complete jerk even accusing me of supporting Obama and went so far as to make misrepresentations over the words I used in speaking with him about my deep-rooted concerns with John McCain as being an embarrassment to the Republican Party and not a true conservative. I even afforded Mr. Veit a moment to calm himself and rethink his words and mentioned that I will call back. Upon my second call, I again reminded him why the prior call had ended and that I cautioned him again to choose his words carefully and during this second phone conversation, I realized that I was not going to get anywhere with this man. He is a traitor to the idealism of smaller government and concerns himself with supporting people who do not work in the best interests of the true Republican philosophy and I believe that in all due diligence and efforts, Mr. Veit should be replaced from any leadership roles in his local GOP organization.

Could someone please explain to me why these people have such an undying loyalty to the Rep. Party? If you're a true conservative, shouldn't your first allegiance be to the Constitution? The Rep. Party is not who/what this country is founded upon. It's the Constitution. If it weren't for the liberty provided for by this great document, there wouldn't even be a Rep. Party. How can we get this through to these old Rep. stalwarts?

'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.

the primary meaning of the word republican is conceptual and generic in nature. Republican (as in Republican Party) is the secondary meaning, which applies if Republican is capitalized. Drop the capitalization and they've got no argument. Hair-splitting BS.

The Republican Party doesn't own the word republican any more than they own the word Party... geez. What arrogance!

republican-1a: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a republic b: favoring, supporting, or advocating a republic c: belonging or appropriate to one living in or supporting a republic.

Tell individuals that they are not Republican ENOUGH! Who do they think they are? To try and tell the base, the soul, the REAL conservative Republicans that they cannot speak their minds? They do not understand that the Neo Conservatives are the ones that have hijacked the party, not the true conservatives. It is not a question of are you Republican enough, it is a question of are you a Republican that holds core values, or are you a Republican that agrees that neo conservatism is what will help the party, and the answer is a resounding NO.

The very reason they did not do this to the neo cons is simple, they want the power over the American people and their families and do not want the American families to rightfully be the most important focus on their agenda. Taking people to court for upholding true conservative values shows their liberal motives, as these tactics we have seen across the country are from those that hijacked the party that many of us supported for many, many years.

Keep up the good fight and let the judges know that we are not there to disrupt the process, but to rather take back the party that was stolen from us to begin with. Wars, spending like drunken sailors, and acting as rulers over the American people are no where near the core values of the Republican party that drew me in during the 70's and 80's, My question is what gives them any more of a right to change the face (and destroy) of the party while all we ask is that we go back to the principals that once made the party great? Let it not be said that as a people we did not try and do the right thing, to uphold that documents our founding fathers laid before us as they had just escaped tyranny. The Neo cons think they know better and their beliefs are based souly on power over others as opposed to public servants that will make their decisions based on what is best for America and not their personal bank accounts and careers. Never let up and never lay down to their ideals which have never representative of We the People!

BT

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
~Mark Twain

...of the above article, Mr. Champion is what's wrong with this whole boondoggle. He is pushing for a McCain vote simply because he's on the Republcan ticket!..."more Republican than Obama". It isn't about one party or the other...the parties are pretty much de-volved and are the same in most facets. It's time to vote for PRINCIPLE...for good ideas, for solutions. If Kucinich or Gravel were the guys with Dr. Paul's platform, I'd have no qualm of voting Democrat. A good idea is a good idea, no matter the source.

------------------
BC
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!

the better I like it!

Let's have some more of it.
It shows progress for us, and is a very real barometer of our effect.
Nobody really expected these people, who live off of the love of power, to give it up willingly and without a fight, did they?

Allegiance should be to what the Republican party and platform stand for. Not to some hig taxing, amnesty encouraging liberal democrat.

June 29, 2008

Bob Veit, chairman of the county's Republican Executive Committee, said last week that The Republican Liberty Caucus, a national organization of libertarian-minded Republicans, has formed a new St. John County chapter that seems to be seeking control of the committee.

Veit said the Caucus wasn't doing anything illegal, but it wants to put supporters into vacant precinct leader positions and thereby influence the composition of the Executive Committee to press its agenda.

"(The Caucus is) attempting a hostile takeover," Veit said. "It's a threat. What happens to all the centrist and less-conservative Republicans who don't agree with them?"

He called Caucus members "ultra-conservatives."

William G. Pitts of St. Johns, a successful builder and a founder of the local Caucus chapter, disagrees with Veit.

Pitts said his members aren't planning a takeover or coup. They are applying for the vacant precinct slots because the Executive Committee was "effectively blocking" them from serving due to their political beliefs. The committee had passed restrictive new rules, changed the requirements of membership and delayed or tabled applications from Caucus members to keep them off, Pitts said.

"We're puzzled why, in a time when the Republican Party faces serious problems, they want to become a party of exclusion," Pitts said. "(The Caucus doesn't) want to exclude people. We represent traditional Republican Party values of low taxes, individual responsibility, states rights and the Constitution. I believe most people in St. Johns County believe in these principles."

The new group

The Caucus calls itself a "grassroots, statewide organization working within the Republican Party."

Its mission, stated on its Web site, is straightforward: to "promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party, identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with these ideals and promoting Caucus membership among Republican Party registrants, officials, and officeholders."

The local chapter has about 60 members and is three months old.

On May 26, Pitts wrote the Executive Committee to accuse Veit of impeding the party's growth, lowering the morale of the activist base and arbitrarily evicting groups of registered Republicans from meetings.

He asked the committee to dump Veit as chairman.

Pitts also wrote Jim Greer, head of the Republican Party of Florida, to ask the state party to unify Republicans.

"Have we reduced the entire Republican Party platform to a Middle East foreign policy?" Pitts wrote to Greer. "Is anyone thinking or reading anything more than main-stream media sound bites? If my own local party refuses to allow me to join because of what I believe, how can I support the party?"

Greer was not available, though, Katie Gordon, spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Florida, said this issue is a "very internal and localized" problem. "There's no benefit to the party for the chairman to take a side between different factions, unless there is a major issue and (the local chairman is) unable to deal with it. Our mission is to get Sen. McCain elected."

The Caucus position, however, apprears opposing McCain's. The support a non-interventionist foreign policy, elimination of many federal agencies and giving the states power to regulate themselves, for example.

Pitts said, "We don't need the federal government to tell us how to educate our school children or what is illegal or legal. That determination should be left to the states."

He addressed Veit's accusation that the caucus seeks to control the party.

"Republicans can't 'take over' the Republican Party. The Republican Party in St. Johns County belongs to all Republicans," he said.

The division deepens

St. Johns County has 127,697 registered voters -- 67,372 Republicans, 35,259 Democrats and 25,000 independents or other parties.

Veit, representing about half the county's voters, believes Caucus members want the party to follow the libertarian views of 10-term Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, whose ideas generally align with Caucus planks.

In the Republican presidential primary, Paul got 42 delegates, but 1,191 were needed to win. He won no states.

He officially dropped out June 12 and then donated $4.7 million of his campaign contributions to a new organization, Campaign For Liberty. Its web site said the group's objectives include "(gaining) a foothold in political life at every level of government by expanding our precinct leader program."

Veit said that's precisely what the Caucus is doing.

A memo issued by the Caucus stamped "Confidential" asks local conservatives to apply for precinct leader slots.

It said, "We are doing this because if small government, liberty-minded conservatives become the majority of precinct committee persons, then (we) can get elected to the boards of county Republican Executive Committees, write platforms and change the rules. In short, we can return the Republican Party to its principles: pro-Constitution, pro gun, pro veteran, pro low tax, pro liberty, pro limited government, pro individual responsibility, pro states' rights!"

Battle of words

Veit e-mailed local Republicans May 23, clarifying the Executive Committee's stance toward the Caucus.

"I did not support Pitts and (John Charles) Stevens (another Caucus founder) for membership in the St. Johns County REC because their often-stated intentions were to gain control of the Republican Party apparatus and turn it into a campaign committee for either a political candidate or a narrow political philosophy that has limited appeal to Republican voters, much less all voters."

The following day, an angry Stevens wrote Veit and denied making those statements. He also asked for a retraction.

"Smearing the name of good Republicans by making false accusations to the county REC leadership and the (Republican Party of Florida) is totally unacceptable," Stevens wrote. "(We) are well aware that the role of the REC is to promote and support Republican candidates to office."

No retraction was forthcoming.

Caucus members had already filled 44 of the 105 filled precinct slots, with another 105 slots still vacant,Veit said.

Precinct leaders are tasked with getting voters to the polls in their districts. They also are the electorate for Executive Committee positions. The Caucus has apparently taken advantage of Florida law, which says applicants seeking precinct slots and who attract no opposition are immediately installed.

The application process closed June 19. Contested races go to Republican voters in the Aug. 26 primary.

Veit believes the Caucus wants to take over the party by those tactics, not only here but also in other counties.

"(Republicans) don't mind people having libertarian views," he said. "But we do mind being hijacked by supporters of a particular candidate or another political party."

Ideological standoff

Pitts said the Caucus would maintain its ideals of liberty and limited government, despite the obstacles.

"(Incumbent) committee members will fight desperately to maintain the positions they now have," he said. "They say we 'have narrow views that don't represent the people of St. Johns County.' But if we don't become a party of principles, we'll never beat the Democrats, because we can't out-promise them."

Veit said the Caucus may really have more precinct leaders than he's counted because, he said, at the moment he has no way of telling which precinct candidate was a caucus member or not.

"We're still sorting them all out," Veit said. "Their approach is brilliant. If I were going to try to take over an organization, that's what I'd do."

Contested races: Each precinct gets one male and one female precinct leader per 1,000 voters.

The candidates are:

* Committeeman: Incumbent Jon Woodard of St. Augustine faces caucus leader John Charles Stevens of St. Johns.

* Committeewoman: Incumbent Rebecca Reichenberg faces caucus member Wynona R. Mayer, both of St. Johns.

* Precinct 104: (vote for five) Bill Cosnotti, Brian A. Iannucci, Dale H. McKnight, David Reichenberg, John P. Safar, Henry K. Stevenson, David VanDerZee and Neil R. Woida, all of St. Johns.

* Precinct 108: (vote for three) Gayle Chappell, Wynona R. Mayer, Etta R. Raines and Vanessa M. Warner.

* Precinct 110: (vote for four) Stepan Kira, Michael Lee, Phillip W. Milliken, William G. Pitts, James VanDerZee III and Kerry Williams, all of St. Johns.

* Precinct 201: (vote for three) Wesley L. Bunce, Harlan Mason, Ken Neikirk and Anthony Pacetti, all of St. Augustine.

* Precinct 503: (vote for two) Douglas A. Conolly, Robert Federer, Donald Heine, Gary McMahon and Martin Barry Miller (all of St. Augustine).

source: http://staugustine.com/st...

There is no GOP bylaws in any state in the Union which requires a delegate or potential delegate to take an oath toward a certain candidate (i.e. McLame) only an allegiance to the Republican Party itself. so the aforementioned article is filled with lies and half truths. These morons would support Hitler if he had Republican after his name. It's truly scary, the lack of self-determination by these people.

E Pluribus Unum...

.....Out of many, one.

Bob Veit, president of St. Johns County Republican Club, speaking about candidates Stevens and Mayer:

"They obviously do not take their oath seriously because they both are actively trying to torpedo McCain's candidacy as evidenced by their stated intentions to demonstrate against McCain at the National Convention in Minneapolis. I want Republicans to know what's happening."

Meanwhile, from over in this thread, the National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole is telling Republicans to criticize the Republican Party, cite dismal congressional approval ratings, express disappointment in fellow Republicans, and "not hesitate to be anti-Washington, D.C."

By all means, Mr. Veit, please do let Republicans know what is happening.

article thanks, for posting. A lot happening behind the scenes. Peace

Hmmmm, sounds a bit like recent warning from Salt Lake LDS to the FLDS that they could not use Mormon in their name. Will the real 'Mormons' please stand up? :-P

When are they going to understand we have the doctor's medicine for the US?

Shut up damn Republican conservatives! Sorry to say, but libertarians are taking over your party.