33″Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 Translation from New International Version)

Here is an interesting treatise on oaths and how the history of freedom is bound to Jesus command.

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm

Those responding to you in this message (Kimberly, Erik, Savannah, and now me) comprise the core leadership team of the RLC of Northeast Florida. As you can probably tell by our responses we are not all that “kooky”. We are passionate and we are determined – but we are not crazy.

We have differing opinions on many political issues but we have all rallied around a central message/philosophy that we believe needs to be spread and embraced by as many people as possible. We have chosen to focus our efforts on the Republican Party.

I can accept the fact that some within the Party will reject a portion or maybe even all of our message, but I would like to see such people at least be willing to give us a fair hearing. I don’t mean second hand rumors or quotes or e-mails taken out of context. I mean speaking directly to the RLC leadership, or attending a meeting or allowing for an open and honest public exchange.

Beth – you are always welcome to attend our general membership meetings and I know our leadership team would be happy to meet with you directly.

Hope I have the opportunity to speak with you.

John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman

I had decided to refrain from responding to some of your earlier postings… but I think it’s time I throw my two cents in.

The fact that you are at all surprised by some of my friends’ civility shows me that you are quite removed from our group. I think that if you got more involved and if you approached learning about us with an open mind and heart, you would be overwhelmed by how welcoming and accepting we all are. Sure, we have some very passionate and very vocal members… and sometimes they shout things that could be damaging to the kind of message and image we want to portray… but, Beth, that’s America. That’s what is so beautiful about the rights we are given as citizens of this great nation.

You know, sometimes folks get a little out of hand… sometimes they are so upset about something that they get a bit carried away… but we understand that not everyone is going to be perfect all the time. Politics get people excited. Politics has the potential to awaken emotions within us some of us never knew we had. It’s just the nature of the beast. Rather than trying to oust these folks, as long as they are passionate about fighting for some of the same issues we are fighting for, we try to embrace them for who and what they are. We can’t always control how everyone acts or the words they choose to use. If we tried to control everyone associated with our group, we would be practicing the exact opposite of what we are fighting for: the right to our individual liberty.

Beth, look, a lot of us have been hurt by your choice of words… but we understand that you just don’t know us very well… so we take it with a grain of salt. We know that if you truly knew us as people, as individuals fighting our fight, you would never say the things you have. You mentioned that some of us RLC folks have targeted you and have been rude or hateful… and I am really sorry to hear that. I don’t wish that kind of treatment on anyone and personal attacks are never acceptable.

I just want you to know that these “kooks” are real people. Real people who probably have a lot more in common with you than you would ever imagine. We love our families, we are hard workers, we want to see our kids grow up to be successful, well-adjusted adults, we want our parents to be taken good care of as they age, we want to establish and nurture life-long friendships, we LOVE this country, we are grateful for our service men and women, we have a variety of hobbies, we are members of various churches… and the list of commonalities goes on and on….

I encourage you to open your mind… open your heart… and get to know us. Again, I am sorry if you have been offended by any of our members… but I ask you to work with us to break that cycle. Let’s take what we have in common and run with it… forget the stuff we don’t agree on. If we join hands to pursue the issues that we agree on, we stand to make great strides.

Join us, Beth. There’s plenty of room at our table.

-Savannah

In the meantime, my aim is not to remove anyone from the party, but rather to grow the party, return it to relevance, and restore both the Republican Party and America. I work with a number of people I don’t agree 100% with, but I do so because I believe the end goal is more important than any disagreements I may have. If your goal is to restore the party and this nation, then I would welcome working with you, not against you, whether you’re in the RLC or not.

“My feelings are very personal because of how some of your members have verbally attacked me. You do not come across as confrontational, so maybe you should not be the target of my feelings.”

I am not attacking you at all. I would, rather, build bridges.

Would you be willing to meet for dinner? If so, please email me at . I’ll reply with my phone number and would love to sit down and try to mend the fence.

We would be far better working together and I’d wager that we are not that different.

What do you think?

-Kimberly

National security is one of those issues that many believe cannot be compromised on. So this ruling states that if you disagree with the platform publicly,and you are a REC member, then you are subject for removal.

So here is the GOP platform positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, just as an fyi.

You can thank the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal!

GOP platform
Iraq

A stable, unified, and democratic Iraqi nation is within reach. Our success in Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven, limit Iranian influence in the Middle East, strengthen moderate forces there, and give us a strategic ally in the struggle against extremism. To those who have sacrificed so much, we owe the commitment that American forces will leave that country in victory and with honor. That outcome is too critical to our own national security to be jeopardized by artificial or politically inspired timetables that neither reflect conditions on the ground nor respect the essential advice of our military commanders. As the people of Iraq assume their rightful place in the ranks of free and open societies, we offer them a continuing partnership.

Afghanistan

In the seven years since U.S. troops helped topple the Taliban, there has been great progress – but much remains to be done. We must prevail in Afghanistan to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban or an al Qaeda sanctuary in that country. A nationwide counterinsurgency strategy led by a unified commander is an essential prerequisite to success. Additional forces are also necessary, both from NATO countries and through a doubling in size of the Afghan army. The international community must work with the Afghan government to better address the problems of illegal drugs, governance, and corruption. We flatly reject the Democratic Party’s idea that America can succeed in Afghanistan only by failure in Iraq.

As for the platform issue, I suppose if we hold an “all-or-nothing” attitude then we can start with a good number of Republican elected officials who have worked against the platform? Also, can the party really afford to take an attitude of “You’re either with us 100% or against us” while it finds its numbers dwindling and the Democrat numbers increasing? No, of course it can’t. Especially as the platform changes every few years, so we’d be kicking out a new group of Republicans every 2-4 years, until there wasn’t anyone left.

And, for the record, the RLC has no such test of 100% “with or against us.”

Have y’all read the party’s platform on Iraq? This ruling basically says if you don’t share the party’s platform on Iraq, or any other issue, you can be removed.

I think your conclusion is from the concurring opinion, not the majority opinion. This is what the majority wrote, notice the words “If that were so, and it is not” towards the end. The majority stated that if the state interfered “with the parties’ well-established rights of self-governance” it would be “unconstitutional.”

here it is word for word

The concurring opinion concludes that, when a party chooses under section 103.091(4) to allow the state’s electoral apparatus to conduct the election of executive committee members, the political party surrenders its own rights to impose additional qualifications (beyond those imposed by the statutory oath, but not inconsistent with them) for the positions. If that were so, and it is not, the state would thereby unconstitutionally interfere with the parties’ well-established rights of self-governance.