Florida Libertarian News & Info

"Faux" Florida Libertarian Alex Snitker's Suspicious Texas Bank Campaign Account

Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:02:00 +0000

Why would Alex Snitker, a Florida Candidate for U.S. Senate open his official campaign bank account 1,167 miles away in Texas? It's odd and suspicious. Many Florida Libertarians feel something is "off" and "false" about Alex Snitker as a Libertarian Candidate and his suspicious Texas bank campaign confirms it.

Alex Snitker has been established as a "faux" [fake] Libertarian in a recent article with his video taped claims of being the "Tea Party Candidate" and by his own hand-written documents stating he was "NPA" and had "No Party Affiliation" until very recently when he switched at the last minute to be a "Libertarian" on-paper.

I'm publishing this to inform Florida Libertarians of this campaign oddity that needs to be questioned.

I doubt I will get a true answer from the Alexander Snitker campaign, but will likely get some crazy explanation, political spin doctoring and/or some petty attack comments to distract you from the facts.

Let's put the hard facts first.

San Antonio Texas is 1,167.43 miles away from Snitker's Florida address listed on his official Senate Campaign documents.
It's about an 18 hour drive to San Antonio Texas from Alex Snitker's home address.
It's a really inconvenient distance to have a Campaign Bank Account.

But the biggest suspicion is... What was Alex Snitker really doing in San Antonio Texas?

And why open a bank account 1,167.43 miles away?

I can't help but wonder what kind of odd ties and connections Alex Snitker has in Texas?

Mr. Snitker does not mention ever being from or living in Texas at www.snitker2010.com/about/

his campaign website.

So why would Alex Snitker need to have any kind of bank account in Texas, let alone a Florida Campaign account?

As candidate you can not use some existing personal bank account as a campaign account.

You have to open a new bank account specifically for your campaign and use it only for your campaign deposits and official campaign expenses.

So that would mean that Alex Snitker drove or flew 1,167.43 miles to San Antonio Texas to open his "Snitker for Senate" bank account. Why? Why go to all the trouble when there are plenty of banks in Florida.

So what was Alex Snitker really doing in Texas?

Anyone?... Anyone?

Well at this point I can only speculate.

Hmm?

Alex Snitker is a U.S. Marine. But so was Lee Harvey Oswald. It's true!

Both were in Texas under suspicious circumstances.

Hmm?

I know it's a stretch, but then again Alex Snitker does seem to be as odd as Lee Harvey Oswald.

I just hope that Alex Snitker isn't some Millitary "Plant" that's just a political "patsy".

If anyone has any information about Alex Snitker being in Texas post your info in comments below.

How Alex Snitker can be a Better Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:04:00 +0000

Here's some helpful advice for Alex Snitker who asked this website to help him in a recent article at this site titled Is Alex Snitker really a Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate? which was written because there were many oddities and inconsistencies about his campaign as a Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate. The article pointed out documented things that Alex Snitker himself has actually done or said publicly as a candidate.

Pehaps the first amendment and free speech have eluded Mr. Snitker who joined this site wondering why an article was written about him. I learned this from his posted curt comments to www.FLLibertarian.org .

But really, I'd like to support a Libertarian Party Candidate who at least promotes the Libertarian Party and Libertarianism. That not too much to ask of a Libertarian Candidate.

So this website would like to inform Alex Snitker how to be a better Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate.

1.) The Only Reason to be a Libertarian Candidate is to Promote the Libertarian Party Platform and Ideas.

Unless you are a multi-millionaire or billionaire with money to spend on a real campaign with TV ads and mail-out ads, your best and only reason to be a Libertarian Party candidate is to promote Libertarian Party ideas and Libertarianism via free public venues, forums, and newspaper articles.

If you want to promote other ideas, non-Libertarian Party ideas it's more honest to run as an independent "NPA". It even costs less.

2.) Read & Use These Libertarian Party Candidate Campaign Tools.

Below are PDF publications on being an effective Libertarian Party Candidate.

Click on each document image to open PDF file.

3.) Get Educated About Libertarianism and Libertarian Ideas

Below is a link to these Libertarian eBooks that you can READ ONLINE for FREE.

www.FLLibertarian.org/FreeEbooks.htm

Healing our World
Local Problems, Libertarian Solutions
Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
Economics in One Lesson

4.) Libertarian Party Candidates Can Get Positive Press Coverage

...Without party crashing uninvited to private events.

Contact the Newspapers and "Reporters" directly by phone and email, ask for the interview.
Attend political forums you are invited to.
Answer the Candidate Questionnaires you are sent.

Libertarian Party of Florida Candidates have had excellent press in past elections. The people you are attacking now are the ones who could have helped you get good press. The current Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee was not responsible for this previous success. Neither was John Wayne Smith who had nothing to do with the most successful LPF Campaign "Full Slate". Unfortunately you are following the LPF "Losers" who have forced out the successful LPF campaigners.

5.) Libertarian Party Candidates Can Get Elected

Don't believe the myth that Libertarian Party Candidates can't get elected.

6.) Stop Promoting Fair Tax... No One Really Wants a 30% Tax

This is a Lose-Lose issue. No Voter wants to hear about a 30% National Sales Tax. No Candidate will ever win by promoting a Tax or a Tax Increase. Are you trying to lose?

Shift taxes? Increase taxes? Impose a different kind of tax? Fair Tax?

What kind of fake Libertarian tax reform plan is this?

How about reduce, cut, eliminate, and abolish taxes?

So why is the Fair Tax not fair? Well, first of all, what's fair about a consumption tax? Why is it that people who rightly criticize the income tax are so quick to accept a national sales tax on consumption?

The Fair Tax perpetuates the fallacy that the government has a right to confiscate a percentage of the value of each new good sold and every service rendered.

This is no different than claiming that the government has a right to the portion of each American's income.

As Murray Rothbard explained,

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

The Fair Tax is also not fair because of the rate. What is fair about the government taking a 30 percent cut on every transaction? I know the Fair Taxers claim that the rate is only 23 percent, but regardless of whether the rate is 23 or 30 percent, why should the bloated, pork-laden leviathan we call the US government get anywhere near this much of our income?

Plus wealthy people hate taxes and will avoid the 30% National Sales Tax by buying expensive diamond rings and yachts in other countries.

7.) Follow Previous Suggestions if you want to be a Successful Libertarian Party Candidate

Mr. Snitker, If you disagree or have a problem with doing these things... well the problem will be with you.

These are proven successful ways to be an effective Libertarian Party Candidate.

Mr. Snitker, if you do not do well or win your campaign, it is because you are choosing to follow the bad advice from the current Libertarian Party of Florida officers and convicted criminal, John Wayne Smith who are withholding factual information, campaign resources and tools from you while feeding you untruths that will cause you to further embarrass yourself in public and not be successful as a Libertarian Party Candidate.

Is Alex Snitker really a Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate?

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:35:00 +0000

"You wanna talk about the Tea Party Candidate? It ain't Marco Rubio. It's Alexander Snitker." 6/17/10 (above) video quote of Mr. Snitker at Florida Society of News Editors Forum

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5sFkMXYlFE&feature=related

When it comes to political campaigns, I'm a great believer in truth in advertising.

On paper, Alex Snitker began his 2010 US Senate Campaign in 2009 as "No Party Affiliation".

At the last minute he switched his party registration to "Libertarian". He has only been a Libertarian on paper for just a few months. It's been clear he is inexperienced as a Libertarian.

This may explain why he's confusing many longtime Florida Libertarian voters and being politically misleading by calling himself "The Tea Party Candidate" when he is not a legitimate listed "Tea Party Candidate" at the official Florida Tea Party website www.FloridaTeaParty.US/Candidates.php .

First, Alex Snitker is advertising he's "Florida's Liberty Candidate" instead of saying he's the Libertarian Party Of Florida candidate on his website. Why? If he's a Libertarian Party candidate why not just say it on his website.

But just to be clear... the "Liberty Candidate" name does not automatically mean a "Libertarian Party" candidate. The term "Liberty Candidate" evolved from Republican Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty and the conservative Republican Liberty Caucus.

Second, Alex Snitker is "advertising" that he is "Florida's First Libertarian Senatorial Candidate" on his website. Ahh...that's not exactly quite true.

Charles Manhart was actually Florida's FIRST Libertarian Senatorial Candidate who ran six years earlier in 2004. But Mr. Snitker has only been calling himself a "Libertarian" for a few months and must not have done his homework. If he were a longtime experienced Florida Libertarian he might know that the Libertarian Party of Florida has run many more successful candidates and campaigns prior to him.

But when he gets filmed in a high profile video he does not say he's the "Libertarian Party" candidate Mr. Snitker instead chooses to say:

"You wanna talk about the Tea Party Candidate? It ain't Marco Rubio.

It's Alexander Snitker." 6/17/10 video quote of Mr. Snitker at Florida Society of News Editors Forum

He does not mention he is a "Libertarian Candidate" or the "Libertarian Party of Florida" candidate prior to his Tea Party Candidate comment. He even boasts the video on his official Campaign website.

Many genuine Florida Libertarians are upset with him for being politically misleading.

But most true Florida Libertarians don't really see Snitker as a real Libertarian anyway, the tip off is when he oddly promotes the non-Libertarian "Fair Tax" which goes against the official Libertarian Party Platform favors no income tax and generally less taxes.

On other issues such as abortion and immigration Snitker sounds closer to the Republican Party Platform than the Libertarian Party Platform.

But when it comes to if Alex Snitker is an actual Libertarian Party candidate, Mr. Snitker seems questionable on that issue.

According the Federal Election Commission website, Mr. Snitker is actually listed as "NPA" for "No Party Affiliation" instead of "LIB" for Libertarian Party.

But before any of his supporters can complain... oh the Federal Election Commission must have made a mistake... that is not the case, the FEC made no clerical mistake.

Alex Snitker's original hand-written form (see below) clearly identifies himself again as "NPA" which means "No Party Affiliation" not "LIB" for Libertarian Party.

But understand "NPA" or "No Party Affiliation" do not actually imply being Libertarian either. As a candidate it is black and white. You either run under a Party affiliation such as DEM, REP, LIB, TEA or you run as "No Party Affiliation" there is no such thing as a multi party candidate.

But Snitker seems to being trying to do that too. Adding to the confusion, as I mentioned before, he has also called himself "The Tea Party" candidate -- google "Tea party candidate Alex Snitker" and you will find videos of him saying he's a Tea Party candidate.

There is a current registered Tea Party in Florida.

Also, don't think that Alex Snitker has no option to list himself as a U.S. Libertarian candidate.

That is not true.

Past Libertarian candidates did list themselves correctly as "LIB" for Libertarian Party, not "NPA".

Unfortunately in politics there are extremists who wish to deny the facts even when they are right in from of them.

Republican Hypocrisy about Deficit

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:01:00 +0000

www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett_print.html

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy

By, Bruce Bartlett,

11.20.09, 12:01 AM ET

The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.

This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."

Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history--$475 billion in fiscal year 2004, according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review. But a big election was coming up that Bush and his party were desperately fearful of losing. So they decided to win it by buying the votes of America's seniors by giving them an expensive new program to pay for their prescription drugs.

Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit--by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.

However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote. (See this report by the HHS inspector general and this article by Foster.)

It's important to remember that the congressional budget resolution capped the projected cost of the drug benefit at $400 billion over 10 years. If there had been an official estimate from Medicare's chief actuary putting the cost at well more than that, then the legislation could have been killed by a single member in either the House or Senate by raising a point of order. Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., later said he regretted not doing so.

Even with a deceptively low estimate of the drug benefit's cost, there were still a few Republicans in the House of Representatives who wouldn't roll over and play dead just to buy re-election. Consequently, when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)

Otter and Istook are no longer in Congress, but Franks still is, so I checked to see what he has been saying about the health legislation now being debated. Like all Republicans, he has vowed to fight it with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)

Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.

Of course, there are good reasons conservatives oppose expanding the government, as the pending health legislation would do, even if it adds nothing to the deficit. But anyone who voted for the drug benefit, especially someone who switched his vote to make its enactment possible, has zero credibility. People like Franks ought to have the decency to keep their mouths shut forever when it comes to blaming anyone else for increasing the national debt.

Franks is not alone among Republicans for whom fiscal responsibility never consists of anything other than talk. The worst, undoubtedly, is DeLay, who actually went so far as to attack Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., last year for his principled vote against the drug benefit, one of only nine Republican senators to do so. (By my count, there are still 24 Republicans in the Senate who voted for the drug benefit, including such alleged conservatives as Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona.)

Amazingly, leading Republicans still defend the drug benefit. Just the other day, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., celebrated its passage, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum, former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., berated me for criticizing it. In each case, their main argument was that it ended up costing a little less than originally projected. Somehow, I doubt that Frist or Thomas would feel the same way if their wives thought it was OK to buy a closet full of expensive new shoes just because they were on sale.

I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are any better when it comes to the deficit, although they have a better case for saying so based on the contrasting fiscal records of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.

It astonishes me that a party enacting anything like the drug benefit would have the chutzpah to view itself as fiscally responsible in any sense of the term. As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt. Space prohibits listing all their names, but the final Senate vote can be found here and the House vote here.

Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bruce Bartlett's new book is: The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.

Marco Rubio's Tax Hike History... Not favored by Florida Libertarians

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Like many Floridians, Libertarians don't favor taxes or tax hikes. Yet Florida libertarian Republicans are pushing a false choice with Marco Rubio who has a history of tax INCREASES. Though he claims "I have never voted for a tax increase" his past voting record shows that statement not to be true.

"I have never voted for a tax increase."

Marco Rubio says on his campaign Web site

Marco Rubio's Tax Increase Record

PolitiFact scoured Rubio's nine-year voting history as a member of the Florida House.

PolitiFact also looked through votes Rubio cast in his two years as a member of the West Miami City Commission.

As a city commissioner, Rubio voted twice to raise property taxes.

And in the Florida House, while he pushed to cut property taxes collected by local governments, he also repeatedly voted to force school districts statewide to collect more property taxes, his record shows.

From 2000 to 2008 -- the years Rubio was in office -- the required local effort from Florida's school districts rose about 102 percent, from $4.08 billion to $8.25 billion. Rubio voted for the budget, and the schools tax, each year. Some of that increase was created by new construction, but at least $2.5 billion came in additional property tax payments made by Floridians.

• In 2008, the Rubio-led House originally passed a budget that did not raise the schools tax -- the increase came later during budget negotiations between the House and Senate.

• And in eight of Rubio's nine years, the corresponding tax rate went down. But because of increasing property values, the actual dollar amount -- the figure the Legislature sets -- grew.

The best example of this comes in 2007. As Rubio, Christ and the Legislature were pushing to reform the state's property tax system, they also were passing a budget that increased school property tax collections about $340 million, excluding increases for new construction.

In an interview with PolitiFact this week, Rubio offered two rebuttals: First, that he was only one member of the Legislature. And second, that he wasn't prepared to vote against the entire state budget only to make a point about the schools tax. Earlier this year, Rubio offered another explanation of his schools tax vote, saying that it wasn't a tax increase because the tax rate didn't go up.

"Anybody who voted against those budgets, would have voted against massive tax cuts," Rubio said. "Somebody could have made that claim. That a 'no' vote on the budget was a vote against tax cuts."

But in 2007, Rubio was given a proposal that would have allowed him to support the budget and prevent a school property tax increase. After Crist vetoed about $459.2 million from the 2007-2008 budget, then-House Democratic leader Dan Gelber wrote Rubio asking the Legislature to use that money to reduce the school property tax increase.

Rubio balked, saying it would require a change to state spending practices.

"I share your distaste for the property tax," Rubio wrote in a formal response. "In fact, I wish it would go away totally, at least on homesteaded properties. But as you know public education funding in Florida is a partnership between the state and local school boards. The property tax is the only method of generating revenue we have given school districts."

Though he voted for the increases, Rubio did attempt to replace the required local effort with an increased sales tax in 2007 as speaker. The plan went nowhere in the Legislature, and a constitutional amendment for the tax swap plan was thrown off the ballot the following year by a Florida circuit court judge.

State legislators aren't forced to hold public hearings and publicly acknowledge a tax increase like local governments. Some tax bills refer to the tax only as "School-state" or "School-state law." Other tax bills don't break the state tax out at all.

It's a system, says state Rep. Adam Fetterman, D-Port St. Lucie, that helps perpetuate a belief that Tallahassee lawmakers aren't raising taxes, when they actually are.

Fetterman authored a bill this year requiring tax collectors to tell residents if state legislators were raising school property taxes.

The bill was never heard.

"We had some folks in Tallahassee beating their chest, and nearly breaking their arms, shouting about the largest tax cut in Florida history," Fetterman said. "Then they turned around and forced local governments, specifically school boards, to increase taxes. I am tired and fed up -– as are most of my constituents -– of the saying of one thing and the doing of another thing in Tallahassee."

Old city votes Rubio also voted in 1998 and 1999 for increases in property tax collections as a member of the West Miami City Commission, West Miami records show.

PolitiFact tracked down the final budget resolutions for both years. Without getting too technical, they say the city of West Miami, without raising tax rates, was increasing property taxes -- 1.402 percent in 1998 and 5.545 percent in 1999. The roll call has then-Commissioner Rubio as voting "Y" both years.

It's worth noting that Rubio later argued as a member of the Legislature that local governments were raising taxes while being able to claim they were keeping the tax rate the same.

Rubio said this week it's a sign of a flawed system. Something he attempted to correct.

"The essence of our campaign is that property taxes are an inherently unfair way to generate revenue," Rubio said. "There were very likely years that people were taxed more even though they were earning less."

Back to Rubio's original statement.

Though he claims to have never voted for a tax increase, we found that he has several times.

As a commissioner in West Miami when he approved an increase in property tax collections,
then as a state legislator when he voted year after year for budgets that forced school districts statewide to collect more property taxes. School districts were simply the middleman, in charge of collecting the money, but they did it at the behest of legislators.

Maybe the votes could be considered appropriate. Or reasoned. Or even necessary.

But they were votes to raise taxes -- and Marco Rubio did say "never."

This Article is for provided for "Fair Use" Educational purposes

Read Full Article at:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/25/marco-rubio/battle-out-conservative-charlie-crist-marco-rubio-/

Alex Snitker not saying he's Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate... Why?

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:20:00 +0000

Is Alex Snitker really the Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate?

He publicly says he's "The Tea Party Candidate" on YouTube.

He filed his official campaign form as an "NPA" (No Party Affiliation).

He won't even call himself the Libertarian Party candidate on his own campaign website. Instead he says he's a "Liberty Candidate".

What gives?

Not too long ago, a Libertarian Party of Florida candidate would be identified as a Libertarian Party of Florida candidate or at least a Libertarian Party candidate for short -- not as a "Liberty" candidate or "Tea Party" candidate. These are not official Libertarian Party identifiers.

There is (at Daily Paul) a Liberty Candidate link to their website. There mission is in sync with [Republican Ron Paul's] Campaign for Liberty from whence the Liberty Candidate questions evolved.

In fact, the term "Liberty Candidate" has its origins as a name devised by conservative Libertarian Republicans and members of the [Ron Paul Chaired] Republican Liberty Caucus who leaned a little more libertarian on some issues compared to the more right Republican Party.

But in 2010, Alex Snitker seems to be either too new and confused to know he should be calling himself a Libertarian Party of Florida candidate (which I doubt)or he's deliberately rejecting the title because he wants to push his personal conservative agenda of anti-abortion and Fair Tax more than the official (more liberal) Libertarian Party positions.

Frankly, Mr. Snitker seems more aligned with Republican Party platform and issues than with the Libertarian Party's platform.

Alex Snitker is not much different than his ultra conservative competitor Marco Rubio when it comes to issues and values.

Neither seems very Libertarian.

Florida Libertarians, don't favor Marco Rubio or Alex Snitker because both have issues with taxes.

http://www.fllibertarian.org/apps/blog/show/2785060-marco-rubio-tax-hikes-not-libertarian

On June 17, 2010 Alex Snitker had his chance to finally got some high profile press coverage (though negative) for busting into a Florida Society of News Editors press forum that Mr. Snitker was not invited to.

But he had his own press entourage ready to capture the carefully staged moment.

Mr. Snitker was allowed to rant for awhile but what I found most odd is that he said he was the "Tea Party" candidate with no mention of being the actual Libertarian Party of Florida candidate or even being Libertarian for that matter.

SEE VIDEO

Tea party candidate Alex Snitker filmed by WMNF News 17 June 2010 Sarasota http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5sFkMXYlFE

Also, there's an official Florida "Tea Party" registered with the Florida Division of Elections. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/committees/ComDetail.asp?account=50730 that Mr. Snitker is not actually running as a candidate for.

At present, Mr. Snitker is listed as a "LIB" or a Libertarian Party of Florida candidate at the Florida DOE.

But at his official campaign document filing site, the Federal Election Commission website, his filed candidate forms show him as an "NPA" or No Party Affiliation. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_29020221384+0

But there are other problems that contributed to this.

A few years back the Libertarian Party of Florida did not actually have to be in the primaries. We chose are Libertarian candidates directly at our annual conventions. This offered the actual Libertarian Party of Florida members more direct control over who they approved as a Florida Libertarian Party candidate.

Not everyone made the cut.

We always attracted some kooks who the majority felt would make the Libertarian Party of Florida look bad.

One such problem "kook" candidate was John Wayne Smith who originally pushed the volatile Mr. Alex Snitker to run as an unknown Libertarian Candidate for 2010.

Because Alex Snitker's even more volatile mentor, John Wayne Smith was rejected at many Libertarian Party of Florida conventions as a candidate, he ended up working against the Libertarian Party of Florida by pushing LPF By-Law changes and Florida legistlation that took away the choice of Libertarian Party of Florida members to reject "kooks" and problem candidates before they could make the party look bad with crazy public stunts.

The big fact that is missing from Alex Snitker's "I can't get press myth" is that done correctly,

a legitimate Libertarian Party candidate in Florida can get plenty of positive press when they make an honest effort.

SEE PHOTOS OF POSITIVE PRESS ARTICLES

http://www.fllibertarian.org/pressmentions.htm

Libertarian Party of Florida Convention 2010

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:00:00 +0000

2010 Libertarian Party of Florida Convention

WHEN:

Start: Saturday APRIL/24/2010 - 9am-?

End: Sunday APRIL/25/2010 - 9am-6pm

WHERE:

Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 N Hwy 231, Panama City FL (Bay County

850-392-1093

Reservation Code: LIB

Hotel Room Rates

Single $89.00

Double $99.00

Triple $109.00

Suite $119.00 + Tax

AGENDA TBD

SPEAKERS TBD

For updates about LPF 2010 Convention Agenda and Hotel Details Check website below.

Libertarian Party of Florida Website: http://www.lpf.org/

LP Website: http://www.lp.org/event/libertarian-party-of-florida-2010-convention

***********************************************************************************

Libertarian Party of Florida Convention Delegate Requirements

Be a Florida Registered "Libertarian" Voter AND

Be a Member of the Libertarian Party of Florida

60 days prior to LPF Convention.

***********************************************************************************

By-Laws of the Libertarian Party of Florida

Section 5. Annual Conventions

A. The Executive Committee shall APPOINT the committees and host affiliate at least one hundred eighty (180) DAYS before the date of the annual convention.

The Executive Committee shall also NOTIFY the state party members at least 60 DAYS

before [Feb 24, 2010] Annual Business Meeting.

---------------------------------

Alex Snitker: Sounds More Like GOP than Libertarian Party

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:44:00 +0000

Around Florida I keep hearing the same concerns about Alex Snitker, is he really a Libertarian?

ISSUE: Taxes

GOP: Fair Tax legislation was originally proposed by Republican John Linder (R-GA).

SNITKER: Also favors Republican proposed Fair Tax (a 30% National Sales Tax)

Official LIBERTARIAN PARTY Position:

Does NOT specifically favor or suggest using Fair Tax. www.lp.org/issues/taxes

ISSUE: Immigration

GOP:

SNITKER: strong illegal immigration reform, border control

Official LIBERTARIAN PARTY Position: Our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration. When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place. www.lp.org/issues/immigration

ISSUE: Abortion

GOP: Pro-Life (States Should Decide)

SNITKER: Pro-Life (States Should Decide)

Official LIBERTARIAN PARTY Position: we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person.

John Wayne Smith Quits Libertarian Party of Florida ... Again

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:00:00 +0000

If you call yourself a "Libertarian" being a member of Libertarian Party is a logical step. However quitting the Libertarian Party and denouncing may make longtime Libertarians wonder if you were ever a true follower.

John Wayne Smith makes many longtime Florida Libertarians and Libertarian Party of Florida members wonder about him. He has a habit of quitting the Libertarian Party of Florida every few years then rejoining then a few years later qutting.

At various times over several decades Mr. Smith post his "resignation letters" (see below) at random websites as some grand announcement that he wants people to notice, but seems get rather upset when Libertarians do notice his quitting and point out his inconsistant behavior as a "Libertarian".

John Wayne Smith: "I had to leave the Libertarian Party.... I now have taken up direct opposition to them"... according to a September 7, 2008 article in the Last Free Voice.

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/boston-tea-party-comments-on-libertarian-national-committee-meeting/

FULL ARTICLE at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FloridaLibertarian/message/15

From John Wayne Smith's July 13, 2008 Resignation Letter

In 2003 I found that the Florida and National Libertarian Parties were leaving me behind.

They were abandoning their principles and purpose.

They were becoming domesticated pets. With incompetent leadership and specific attempts to change the libertarian party into a mainstream party, people like Mike Barr, Jack Tanner, and Roderick T. Beaman intentionally neutered the Libertarians of Florida.

The so called Reform Caucus effectively neutered the national Libertarian Party and chose a candidate who will be going back to the Republican Party in June 2009 to begin a Republican run for President in 2012.

While I may return to the Libertarian Party at some time in the future, I am now forced to remove myself from the Libertarian Party because it has been domesticated and neutered, with no principles or backbone.

I will become the chairman of the Florida Boston Tea Party and its Florida favorite son Vice Presidential Candidate

John Wayne Smith

203 W. Magnolia St.

Leesburg Florida 34748

John Wayne Smith Joins "Tea Party" Quits LP

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:00:00 +0000

FULL ARTICLE at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FloridaLibertarian/message/15

From John Wayne Smith's July 13, 2008 Resignation Letter

In 2003 I found that the Florida and National Libertarian Parties were leaving me behind.

They were abandoning their principles and purpose.

While I may return to the Libertarian Party at some time in the future, I am now forced to remove myself from the Libertarian Party because it has been domesticated and neutered, with no principles or backbone.

I will become the chairman of the Florida Boston Tea Party and its Florida favorite son Vice Presidential Candidate

John Wayne Smith

203 W. Magnolia St.

Leesburg Florida 34748

2008 Libertarian Party of Florida Annual Business Meeting

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:00:00 +0000

The 2008 Libertarian Party of Florida Annual Meeting in Orlando.

ORLANDO--Perhaps it was the high price of gas and everything else that created the low attendance at the 2008 Libertarian Party of Florida Annual Business Meeting, but even though attendence was modest, those who did make it to Orlando, were certainly the most dedicated Florida Libertarians and Party members who got much done. The 2008 LPF Convention had a count of 39 attendees who were a mix of LPF "voting" delegates and non-voting attendees-(spouses, a student, and visitors from the Republican, and Independent Party and a No Party Affiliate.)

The 2008 LPF Convention Agenda was:

Call To Order
Roll Call
Adoption of Agenda
Approval of Previous [2007] Convention Minutes -- Note copies these minutes were not available or viewable in the paper form to delegates but there was an offer to view them via computer.
Approval of Treasurer's Report -- Note copies of the LPF Treasurer's Report was not available or viewable in the paper form to delegates but there was an offer to view them via computer.
Committee Members Reports (Submitted in writing prior to meeting)
Election of Officers & Executive Committee Members (Treasurer, Secretary, At-Large Director 2, Regional Representatives)
Changes to By-Laws, Standing Rules, LPF Constitution as per Florida Statutes -- (Membership Dues)
Candidates for Public Office -- 2008 see www.LPF.org/Candidates.htm
State Legislatures Issues
Adjournment

Some notable changes and resolutions

Standing Rules, Article I - Membership - Section 4 - CHANGE All General ($0) to Sustaining Membership ($25) and remove Associate Membership ($10) NOTE: For 2007 there were (861) Florida LP Members down from 2005 (933)-LP Members
The LPF Chair will not exercise power (via Florida Election Statute) to remove an LPF member without cause.
Complete List of Changes will be noted in the 2008 LPF Convention Minutes.

Documents handed-out at March 29, 2008 LPF Convention

LPF ED Report -- accepted at 3/29/08 LPF Convention
LPF Newsletter Editor Communucation/IMP Report -- accepted at 3/29/08 LPF Convention
The FL Libertarian Activist Newsletter -- handed out at 3/29/08 LPF Convention
LPF 11 Regions MAP -- handed out at 3/29/08 LPF Convention

2008 LPF Convention Stuff

Libertarian Party of Florida Officers at LPF Business Meeting included:

Chair - Karl Dickey
Vice-Chair - Neil Evangelista
(acting) Secretary John "JJ" McCurry
Treasurer - Jack Tanner

Delegates and (non-voting) Attendees by LPF Region

LPF Region 1

Audrey Capozi - (Martin County)
Karl Dickey - (Palm Beach County)
Neil Evangelista - (Palm Beach County)

LPF Region 2

Steve LaBianca - (Hillsborough County)

LPF Region 3

Regional Rep - J.W. Smith - (Lake County)
Wayne Jackman - (Orange County)
Alma "Vicky" Kirkland - (Orange County)
Larry Lawver - (Seminole County)
Sean Concannon - (Seminole County)

Attendee Rick Gaber - (Orange County)
Attendee-Lisa Bullion-(Republican)

LPF Region 4

No LPF Delegates

Attendee - Richard Moroney-(NPA) Alachua County

LPF Region 5

No LPF Delegates

LPF Region 6

No LPF Delegates

LPF Region 7

Regional Rep - Doug Klippel - (Duval County)
James "JJ" Jensen - (Duval County)
Curtis Wolf - (Duval County)
Jeff Hunt - (Duval County)
Luke Hopper - (Duval County)
Stacy Dennis - (Nassau County)
Darrell McCormick - (Suwanee County)

Attendee-Joe Andrews-(Republican) - (Duval County)
Guest Speaker - Adam Guillette-(Republican) - (St. John's County)
Attendee - Nikki Guillette-(Republican) - (St. John's County)

LPF Region 8

Tom Clark - (Lee County)
Jack Tanner - (Lee County)

LPF Region 9

Regional Rep - Michael Gilson - (Pinellas County)
Julie Gilson - (Pinellas County)
Attendee - Kennon Gilson - (Student, Pinellas County)
Ralph K. Swanson - (Pinellas County)
William "Mark" Clifford - (Highlands County)
Bill Van Allen Jr. - (Sarasota County)
David Kahn - (Pinellas County)

Attendee - Brenda Kahn -(Independent) Pinellas County

LPF Region 10

Andrew E. Reid - (Broward County)

LPF Region 11

Jeff Bouffard - (Brevard County)

LPF Convention 2008 Guest Speakers

Adam Guillette - (Republican) - www.AmericansForProsperity.org/
George Phillies - LP Presidential Candidate - http://Phillies2008.org/
Mary Ruwart - LP Presidential Candidate - http://votemary2008.com/
Daniel Williams - LP Presidential Candidate - www.TheNewLibertarian.org/
Bob Barr - LNC Region 4 Representative - www.BobBarr.org/

What is the IMP?

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:00:43 +0000

by Michael "M.G." Gilson

Libertarians have experimented with ways to turn ideas into action, develop long-term plans and stay focused while trying out different things. There has been a lot of discussion about tying in management, planning, and social interaction in a very Libertarian way. In December of 1999, Florida Libertarians adopted a new Libertarian Social Process for getting things done called the IMP which stands for "Improvement Management Process." The Executive Committee voted to adopt it, and serve as a resource for county use, after a presentation sponsored by the Libertarian International Organization and considerable effort looking at different member suggestions. Here is what is going on.

The IMP was developed and successfully used in several Fortune 100 companies-and even the US government-with superior results. Libertarians can now actually say that the developing standard for managing correctly is Libertarianism.

A political party without politics? The IMP is a way of managing things openly to match our politics. The IMP is basically a turbo-charged to-do list that automatically highlights areas that need attention. The to-do list is created by the membership's own suggestions. As a social process it involves first getting everyone's ideas out on the table ("the desirable process") and then encouraging people to self-assign. This is the exact reverse of how most of society works, where ideas are acted on one-at-a-time from above or by vote.

Benefit of Open Agendas. The idea? Learning to better work together on a non-authority basis, working with instead of against the Libertarian self-autonomy ethic, and start by putting various agendas "on the table" where everyone can discuss them. It automatically develops strategic planning and institutional memory, a growing worry, because all those ideas force everyone to sit down and plan long-term. The hope is to perfect it to make it a tool for all Libertarians. Among the things that are happening in Florida:

* An Ongoing Suggestion Process. Over 600 of your suggestions were collected since the convention, and boiled down into 240 action areas.

* Best Practice Comparison. To complement your ideas, since the convention the Executive Committee looked at the "best practices" of Libertarian groups here and abroad-no more "re-invent the flat tire." We've looked at things like how to win elections by having passive candidates, double the Libertarian vote by having poll-watchers, and how to prevent activist burn-out. In the works: a Florida-Specific Think Tank and candidate training.

* A Simple Management System. The IMP involves a simple management system that "highlights variances" when we wander from agreed goals, and on a timely basis. Using your ideas, we are now looking at areas to increase funds, clarify staffing tasks, and make numerous simple, high-payoff improvements. One exciting idea is the "Financial Tank," a way of permanent funding using trusts or endowments; another an "Action Needed" program for your continuing ideas.

* IMP Teams. All this activity is focused by open IMP Teams. Anyone can sign up or contribute their ideas, or take responsibility for a task. The Teams are working in areas such as Newsletter and Communications, Database design, Fundraising, and Operation Hammerlock-to keep Libertarians in government once elected, and help them communicate their successes.

* Opportunities, Goals and Plans. IMP teams commit to working with each local Libertarian group, to help them communicate needs, developing from the counties a 5-year plan including specific, measurable acts-critical tasks-that are known to work well: OPH Booth, Potluck meetings, Campus and High School Outreach, Targeted Fundraising, along with Campaign methods. A pilot Sister-Party program of activist mentoring with Serbian Libertarians is also being looked at.

* Remembering What We're Doing. A plan gives us a backlog that is organized, so suggestions not immediately feasible are not forgotten, and better continuity in the future. The IMP will help new members be Libertarian-by showing a dynamic fellowship that works by working with them, and that is focused, with tasks at hand for people to self-assign.

Amazingly, after the initial LIO grant, the IMP costs nothing, and is actually showing ways to liberate Volunteers' time and increase funding. There will be a manual on the Internet anyone can download.

* A Tool for Ambitious Goals? The IMP is being studied in local groups already, but is available for use everywhere. Besides helping with the Teams, we are asking Libertarians to sign up as Passive Candidates, by merely allowing the LP to place their name on the ballot with all the actual filing and other work to be handled by the State LP. Why? People respond when they see a large LP slate in the polling booth. This worked tremendously well in New Hampshire, where 29 Libertarians were elected after one-third of Party Members signed up-which, adjusted for population, would be like 480 here from a membership of 6,000. Can we even come close to that in 5 years? Each county taking advantage of your ideas is the first step.

To Participate: The IMP is not a State program, or a county program, or even strictly political. It is an ongoing tool that belongs to the membership, and that everyone can learn about, improve, and use. It is there to help people work together in a Libertarian, long-term way. Start by adding your suggestions to our growing list, and if there is an opportunity that you want to own, and investigate for your Libertarian group. The IMP teams are for everyone. We want you! Contact your local chair or Regional Rep, or the IMP Coordinator at 727-344-1038.
------------------------------

Free market solutions best for water issues

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:00:00 +0000

By LEE COUNTY Libertarian Donald "Kim" Hawk

Two questions are commonly asked of me as a board member of the Lee County Soil and Water Conservation District.

What is the Lee Soil and Water Conservation District and
Why does it exist?

I was able to condense my answer to the first question into one sentence: Our agency is a taxpayer-funded charity. As I formed those words I realized I had described most of the government programs in existence today.

Until we ended the program in January 2007, our main charity was a "free" lawn sprinkler check up. "Free" meant other taxpayers were picking up the tab to the tune of $500 per visit. Dozens of private companies in Lee County provide thousands of inspections for $30 to $80 per visit.

The answer to the second question requires more explanation. The year was 1937 and Franklin Roosevelt seemed to believe that if he put enough people to work for the government, the depression would end. Thousands of government programs including soil and water districts were created, employing millions of Americans.

Little attention was paid to the burgeoning debt.

Fast forward to today and we have a virtual alphabet soup of overlapping and competing federal, state and local agencies vying for and often suing each other over control of water and soil.

Our money came from a variety of taxpayer funded sources including the USDA, Florida Department of Agriculture, SFWMD, Lee County government and Cape Coral city government.

We eliminated our budget because there is no logical reason to maintain these vestiges of the "New Deal." Soil and water districts across the country are bureaucracies in search of a mission and should be discarded. I believe the most effective strategy for conserving water is to promote private ownership of water utilities.

Most Americans don't realize that the essence of every economic policy debate is one of capitalism vs. socialism. Many people I have met and virtually all politicians are what I call "selective socialists." They argue that some things are too precious to be entrusted to greedy capitalists. They include healthcare, K-12 education and water distribution but paradoxically leave food, shelter and clothing to the ruthless profiteers.

Water is a commodity and should be treated as one. Water is like electricity in that we are captive customers and therefore have no choice of provider. The difference is that electricity is supplied by private companies whose prices reflect the cost of production. Cost to the consumer is proportional to the amount used which explains why we don't have an electricity conservation board. Conservation is promoted by the pocketbook.

Media hype and alleged crises of dwindling water supplies would be comical if they weren't taken so seriously. Hysterical claims of water shortages grab headlines and promote fear but sidestep the actual problem which is government mismanagement.

We Americans will never run out of drinking water although we may run out of free or cheap supplies. I realized this a few years ago when people began casually dropping a dollar for 12 ounces of bottled H2O. The end of the era of government water pumped to your home for a penny a gallon (5,000 gallons for $50) does not mean our Florida lifestyle is over. Recycled and brackish irrigation for golf courses and lawns in concert with tolerant plants and grasses will become common and reverse osmosis is already well established in our area. Where there is a will there is a way.

The elegance of the free market is its ability to adapt and innovate. It always finds a solution to even the most intractable problems without throwing people in jail or turning neighbors into snitches. Whether or not we accept it, history has shown us that capitalism is the only method which works in the real world.

Although Roosevelt began our descent into debt, we are now in a full blown dive as we scream past the $9 trillion mark, with no end in sight. We absolutely must put an end to this madness.

The Libertarian majority at the Soil and Water Board is taking the lead in Lee County. I hope others will follow.

- Donald "Kim" Hawk is a member of the board of the Lee Soil and Water Conservation District.

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080202/opinion/802020373/1015

John Wayne Smith NOT approved by Libertarian Party Delegates

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:06:00 +0000

If you happened to be a delegate at the 2006 Libertarian Party of Florida Annual Convention and Business Meeting held in Palm Beach Florida you may have been wondering if John Wayne Smith actually wanted to be chosen as the Libertarian nominee for the Florida Governor race.

At minimum he could have at least worn a suit, but he did have a memorable campaign speech if you could even call it that after proclaiming how he was an "a**hole" (yes... really he said that) and at some point mentioned something about wanting to destroy the Libertarian Party.

After a performance like that, it was no surprise John Wayne Smith was not approved by the Libertarian Party of Florida Convention as a "Libertarian" candidate nominee for Florida Governor.

Though his inappropriate campaign speech was apparent to attendees present, Mr. Smith became quite angry about not being nominated and stormed out of the convention not long after his speech.

According to the Florida Division of Elections website (info below) John Wayne Smith is running for Governor, but as "No Party Affiliation" (NPA).

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/candidate/CanDetail.asp?account=41869

Candidate Tracking System

2006 General Election

Governor

John Wayne Smith

No Party Affiliation

Running Mate: James J. Kearney

Website: www.members.aol.com/jwsmith42000

Address

203 West Magnolia Street

Leesburg, FL 34748

Phone: (352)787-5550

Campaign Treasurer

John Wayne Smith

203 West Magnolia Street

Leesburg, FL 34748

Status: Defeated

Date Filed: 09/12/2005

Date Qualified: 07/19/2006

Method: Paid Qualifying Fee

John Wayne Smith admits ARREST for bigamy and jail time

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:00:00 +0000

On his 2006 NPA website for the Florida Governor race, John Wayne Smith oddly enough declared his varied criminal record of arrests, and jail time.

Below are notable excerpts from John Wayne Smith's 2006 NPA Governor Campaign website archived at: http://2006jwssite.url-site.com/

Between 1976 and 1980 I was arrested numerous times for not having the proper permits from the state to operate taxicabs and buses. I have never been an angel and claim my mistakes as well as my successes. I have been divorced 3 times, fathered 4 children, and raised many more.

I have been arrested for bigamy once (adjudication withheld-$502 in court cost.

My only other arrest has been for civil disobedience, too many times to tell. I spent 6 months in the Marion County Jail for refusing to buy a taxicab permit. I declared bankruptcy in 1978 and have over the years refused to pay some bills that I thought were unjust. I have made my share of mistakes and have tried to learn from all of them.