Congress Decides Constitution is a Threat to National Security (NDAA)

/in /by

The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These principles were among the most fearfully guarded liberties among America’s founders.   If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government (not simply burdensome taxes) that were the primary causes of the American Revolution. Notice the words of these distinguished Americans:

Ø “Trial by jury in civil causes…trial by jury in criminal causes, [and] the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus…all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans.” ~Richard Henry Lee

Ø “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:  For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences” ~Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

Ø “The founders of our nation considered the right of trial by jury…an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a ‘safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign.” ~Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1979

Yet, here we are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental liberties.   As I write this, our Senate debates a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for.

Senate Bill 1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, is the means by which Congress funds the military and is therefore a “must pass bill.”  No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are a so-called conservative.   Those who would be disposed to usurp the Liberties of this land take these must pass bills and convert them into Trojan horses.  This particular Trojan horse puts the due process rights of American citizens in serious jeopardy through sections 1031 and 1032.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of this bill are completely unrelated to the funding of the military.  These sections, we are told, will ‘save us from terrorists’.  The plan is to remove the Constitutional right of habeas corpus and persons deemed to be terrorists will be detained indefinitely, out of the country.  The built-in premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security. 

Who wouldn’t want to stop terrorists? Don’t we all want to be safe?  Aren’t terrorist the very demons we should be fighting today?  If you don’t support this bill you are a terrorist sympathizer.

Am I a terrorist sympathizer simply because I believe that you shouldn’t have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job? Particularly considering the very job description these Congressmen swore to do was to “support and defend the Constitution.”   It is mindboggling that those with the power and responsibility to PROTECT LIBERTY are the very ones who will justify its destruction.  Here are the arguments put forth in favor of these dangerous provisions:

1.       These Sections Specifically Limit Actions Of The Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11

False.  This refers to sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…

I suppose all would be well, if this were the end of this section.  However, the devil is always in the details.  Attorneys are trained to look for loopholes, and those who wrote this bill were attorneys, so they are either ignorant or inserting holes to provide doors for future activity.  Door No. 1:

…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Belligerent act? There you have it, the open door to include just about anyone.  Now don’t think these words are not well planned and don’t for one minute assume you know their definitions.  Remember John McCain and Joe Leiberman’s  “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”?  This act failed, but that has not stopped John McCain.  This Enemy Belligerent Act defines a Belligerent as: an individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent…an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Hostilities? And the door swings wide open.

Next argument:

2.       Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citzens.

False.  Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be “a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Sounds pretty limiting right?  Well, here’s Door No. 2, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”

There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government  determines a “national security interest”.  But those that planted these loopholes are not finished.

The next argument alleges:

3.       Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens

False.  Section 1032(b)(1) states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  Is this the part that is supposed to stop the government from detaining US Citizens?  Any decent attorney would tell you that the “prohibitive language” in this statement is a bit ambiguous.  What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn’t extend to US Citizens.  That means they don’t have to detain them, but what if they want to!  Open Door No. 3, let all who enter beware!

All this sounds a bit alarmist right?  Why do I think the language is cleverly crafted to be more than it appears?  Because those who support this bill do not WANT to protect the liberty of US Citizens.  They will, when cornered with the truth, tell you that any US Citizens who is involved with terrorists “DOES NOT deserve Constitutional rights.”  The idea that US Citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights is a very frightening statement.  But put that in conjunction with the understanding that it is the government, specifically this current administration, that gets to CHOOSE which citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights.

Still sounds alarmist right? After all we are talking about terrorists.  So you don’t like terrorist?  I don’t either.  But I do love Liberty and I do fear the power of unlimited government.  And what happens when the government determines you to fit the definition of a terrorist?  Janet Napolatano says that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion fit the bill. Which US Citizens DO YOU think should not have protections under the Constitution? Which one of our rights is a threat to national security and need to be curtailed or eliminated?  Remember William Pitt’s words, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.   It is the argument of tyrants.  It is the creed of slaves.”

Terrorism is real and we must combat it. But you cannot have peace without Liberty!  According to Benjamin Franklin, “Anyone who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserves neither Liberty nor security”. He specifically said, “temporary security” because he knew that being “safe” is a fleeting feeling.  You may think trading just a small piece of Liberty today is worth feeling safe.  However, tomorrow safety will fly away when a bigger boogey man turns the corner.  Then will you be willing to trade a little more? Remember, the funny thing about temporarily giving anything to the government is that you don’t get it back and they always want more.  Two words: Income Tax.

John Adams stated in his inaugural address in 1797, if “our Government can be influenced by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we the people who govern ourselves.”  He was telling us that when the government operates under the motivating factor of fear, those that scare us rule us.  He continued with his warning by saying, “If we are to have a free republican government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it.”  Our only hope of Liberty, our only hope of peace, is through the Constitution, not by circumventing it.

Congress took an oath to PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; they did not take an oath to defeat terrorism.  They must stick with their oath; because, the principles in the Constitution do not change; the definition of terrorist apparently changes based on political ideology.

Ronald Reagan called America the last bastion of hope.  He was remembering a statement by Daniel Webster, “Hold onto the Constitution and to the republic for which she stands.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6000 years may never happen again.  Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  Our Congress has an obligation to us, an obligation to our children, and an obligation to the world.

We must stand for Liberty today or our children will bow tomorrow.  I stand with Patrick Henry when he said, “Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Giving Thanks for America

/in , /by

Our daughter graduated from a liberal arts college in Maryland.  One day she contacted me amused by the subject matter of some of her liberal arts classes.  We began discussing one of her history classes where some time was spent “learning” about our founding fathers.  What she learned about the founders was all focused on the flaws of these men; whether based in fact or revisionist history.  This teaching reflects the popular view, shared by many university professors and school teachers across America, that America is no different than any other nation on the globe…that our nation is “fundamentally flawed,” after all, look at the flawed men that built it.

For example, what my daughter remembers about Alexander Hamilton, one of the primary founders of this nation, is that he was a womanizer.  Not only a womanizer, explains her feminist professor, but a hypocrite at that.  After all, how could a man who is free to have affairs with other men’s wives feel that his sense of morality is at stake over a duel with Aaron Burr?  These questionable accounts are all too typical in America’s classrooms and textbooks.  I have read the same type of story about George Washington, claiming a torrid affair with his married friend Sally Fairfax.  Most credible sources will tell you that is a terrible lie.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have.  We must understand that our nation was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me.  However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring nation must be liberty moored in morality.    Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted.  He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original)
The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW.  Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom.  Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder.  Pure freedom is anarchy.  At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone.  Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy.  Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion.  Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents.  When we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

As an exceptional nation built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God.  Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that our nation was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity.   This is the nation that opens its arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.  No other nation can claim this legacy, no other people has this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us this nation, but on the exceptional nation that they gave us.  We have an exceptional nation where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.”  A nation birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people.  A nation that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”   A nation that has prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status.  A nation that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

So in this time of Thanksgiving, let us maintain a true focus on what is important.  In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw.  Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism?  Why not embrace what makes us different from every other nation on the globe?  America is an exceptional nation because we are built on exceptional principles.  Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.

May God continue to bless this America, established upon the principles of Liberty.

The Divine Right of Obama

/in /by

In the finest tradition of tyrannical Kings from whom the people wrestled liberty throughout history, President Obama has declared ultimate executive power. On Monday to an audience in Nevada, Obama said, “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress…”

This is nothing new for Obama, nor is it new in the struggle for Liberty. In 1213 Archbishop Stephen Langton stood with the 1100 Charter of Liberties in hand and boldly resisted the tyrannical actions of King John I. Two years later, in 1215, the Magna Carta was born, and a group of 25 barons sowed the seeds of representative government.

The idea that the people could somehow restrain the power of the King, through representation and a written declaration, was an affront to the King. The King believed it was his God-given right to dictate to the ignorant masses what was best for them. The Kings, in fact, believed that documents like the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta and the Grand Remonstrance were “fundamentally flawed.”

Fortunately, the people knew that Liberty was a fundamental gift from God and they stood against tyranny and gained greater protections with each successive battle, all the way from 1100 through 1776 and beyond. This has been a continual struggle. From King John, to King Charles I, to King George III the tyrants continued to ignore the foundational documents of liberty and disband the parliament when the King’s personal whims were not served.

The current American executive from his castle in Washington, D.C. is apparently asserting his own Divine Right to shape the nation according to his will. His assertion that he will, in effect, enact legislation “without Congress” is a de facto dismissal of the Legislative branch in the finest tradition of Charles I.

Charles dismissed his first two Parliaments under Royal Prerogative during the Eleven Years Tyranny. He continually imposed forced taxes on the people without the consent of parliament and began to dictate in the area of religious liberty. He dismissed the third Parliament who opposed his inclination to fund his unilateral military engagements. Charles ultimately lost his head and his reign of tyranny came to an end.

There was a reason for the sweeping defeat in the 2010 elections. We put representatives in office who would be a roadblock to the destructive policies that have steamrolled their way over liberty and prosperity in America. King Obama is once again lawlessly sidestepping the people’s roadblocks. Your Highness, trespassing is only tolerated for so long! We will end your reign of tyranny in the ballot box of 2012!

The Death of a Terrorist

/in /by

I couldn’t be happier that there is one less terrorist leader in the world. Some have asked me what I think about the Constitutional significance of this action. So here goes. Let’s start by focusing on the problem that brought us here, the 800lb gorilla in the room, if you will; Al-Awlaki’s citizenship. Al-Awlaki’s parents are from Yemen and are NOT US citizens. His father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, served as Agriculture Minister and as President of Sana’a University, and is a prominent member of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s ruling party. Al-Awlaki was born in the United States, but in 1978, when he was seven years old, he and his family returned to Yemen. He then lived in Yemen for 11 years, and studied at Azal Modern School. Al-Awlaki returned to the U.S state of Colorado in 1991, at 20 years old, to attend college on a foreign student visa and a government scholarship from Yemen, apparently by claiming to be born in that country. Al-Awlaki was classified as a person of dual citizenship, his only claim to US citizenship is the good fortune that he was born on this soil. There was NOTHING in Al-Awlaki’s life or his parent’s life that indicates any loyalty to any country other than Yemen. Our founders made it clear that the most important aspect to US citizenship is LOYALTY to America. Why do we continue to assert that the offspring of foreign nationals have citizenship in America simply due to location of their birth? Al-Awlaki was not a threat to America because he was a citizen of the United States; he was a threat because he had no loyalty to America. It is our failed immigration system that is the enemy of Liberty.

Looking at the activity of Al-Awlaki, we see further evidence of our failed immigration system. Al-Awlaki’s activity with known violent terrorists was well documented. He was being actively watched by the FBI and was a subject of investigation since at least 1999. Yet, in 2002 he was the first Muslim to conduct a prayer service at the Capitol. After at least 3 years of active investigation by the FBI for known terrorist ties, the FBI did not feel that they had enough evidence to arrest Al-Awlaki and bring charges against him. In 2002, his name was added to the federal terror watch list, and an arrest warrant was issued by a Judge for passport fraud. Later that year, the warrant was withdrawn after they decided they did not have enough evidence due to the 10 year limits on the statute of limitation. This allowed Al-Awlaki to travel freely back to the States which he did. Al-Awlaki moved back to his home nation, Yemen in 2002. This is the exact issue, the exact same problem, and the same result that I wrote about in June of 2010 when discussing the threat of our failed immigration system and Faisal Shazhad, the failed Time’s Square bomber. Eric Holder has made it clear through his response to “Fast and Furious” and Faisal Shazhad that he believes it’s our Constitutional Rights that need to be “more flexible”. This administration has no intentions of fixing our failed immigration system.

The only reason Al-Awlaki is labeled a citizen is because of our failed immigration system. But because our system has failed us, because it has conferred a privilege on someone who neither wanted it, nor deserved it – our very Liberty is under attack.

Since he has been granted citizenship status, the government is now bound to afford him all legal protections under the US Constitution. It is absolutely tyrannical and illegal for a president to unilaterally take the life of a citizen of the United States without due process, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Liberty must mean more to us than that! If we don’t wake up and fix the real problem, Liberty is lost.

What is wrong with the Executive branch of a government engaging in the assassination of our citizens, who are engaged as combatants against this country, absent due process? First, we are trusting the government to convey truthful and accurate information to justify their actions. However, our founders were intimately aware that the governments often have their own perspective on things and have the power and tools to justify their actions at all levels. Their point would be that a government not only has an agenda, but also has the power to control and manipulate information. Richard Henry Lee stated that we must not only guard against “what men will do, but what they may do.” They knew the power of the government must be closely guarded in favor of Liberty.

Secondly, have we not already seen the threat of redefining a “terrorist”? Just look at Janet Napolitano’s report, as head of the Department of Homeland Security, warning America regarding who is a terrorist; “rightwing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms – and returning war veterans.

 “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

What if you have been identified as falling into this category and you take a trip to some Middle Eastern country (Israel, for instance)? …

Our founders knew that in a government that has the ability to define the enemy, and the uninhibited inclination to define its own citizens as terrorists, tyranny is already established. Unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people.

Our founders also knew some things that we have forgotten, or more likely, have never been taught. First and foremost our founders knew deep in their soul that “Liberty must be supported at all hazards.” (J. Adams, 1765), It is Liberty that is the most important asset to any peace loving nation. Benjamin Franklin is quoted to have said, “Those who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor security.” How could he make such a bold statement? Because he knew from history that trading Liberty will NEVER result in greater security and once Liberty is traded, you never get it back. You simply trade something that is more valuable than your life for a vapor, a false object, and get absolutely NOTHING in return but less Liberty. I find it very telling that our founders never said, “Peace must be supported at all hazards.” Eliminating enemy combatants – good; giving enemy combatants citizenship – not good; assassinating US citizens…a destructive assault on Liberty. This is the Constitutional quagmire we have created by maintaining a completely failed immigration system maintained by a completely inept political administration.

Conservative Republican? Really?

/in /by

My dear friend, Frantz Kebreau, has dedicated his life to saving of America…twice. The first time, Frantz pledged his life for our country as a member of the United States Air Force. More recently, he put his life on hold, sacrificing his career and time with his family to travel this country to teach us all the importance of a color-blind society. His call is an honorable one, and he is not alone. My heart is stirred by several others, who have become dear friends, as well. Pastor C.L. Bryant has given his life to “warn the world of economic slavery, to unlock the shackles of tyranny by teaching Liberty” through his message and his film, Runaway Slave. My new friend, K. Carl Smith, founder of the Conservative MESSENGER, dedicated his life to advancing the message and movement of the Frederick Douglass Republicans. There are so many more that fight daily to save America from tyranny and convince us not to give into the chains and slavery of racism and class warfare.

Given my belief in these dear men and their mission, you can imagine how my heart wept over the statement Florida Commissioner of Agriculture made to reporters recently. Mr. Putnam stated that he was “disappointed”in the current composition of the Department of Agriculture, indicating his Agriculture Department being 78 percent white was “not acceptable”. I fail to understand how he can simply look at the “color” of his employees and determine that their employment is “not acceptable.”

Is Mr. Putnam saying that the Commissioners of Agriculture before him engaged in discriminatory hiring practices? Is Mr. Putnam saying that he can look at the color of someone’s skin and determine that they are not qualified for a job? I would not consider this a historically Republican thought process.

Mr. Putnam made the statement to reporters, “I was disappointed, but not shocked,” Putnam said of the department’s demographics. “I came into this knowing we weren’t where we need to be.” Funny, I don’t remember Mr. Putnam mentioning affirmative action principles as a platform for his election to the Commissioner of Agriculture in 2010. I was fairly active in that election term, attending many rallies across the state, hearing many campaign stump speeches, even hearing the same speeches multiple times. I had heard Mr. Putnam speak in many forums; he is quite a dynamic speaker, actually. However, I never heard him express his disappointment with the racial composition of the Department of Agriculture, nor did I ever hear him campaign that he was going to make it his mission to“diversify” the Department. As a matter of fact, Mr. Putnam ran a campaign on conservative Republican principles, I am SURE that if this had been a campaign promise made by Mr. Putnam, it would have been something of great interest.

Running as a Conservative Republican, Mr. Putnam had to know that picking up the affirmative action mantle would not have been a popular stance. Those who believe in the truly “republican” America (as a principle not a party) know that the fight for a color-blind America has been a battle that lovers of Liberty and Freedom have engaged in for decades. One of those great fighters was Frederick Douglass. Mr. Douglass was an anti-slavery orator and writer. He described himself:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intended to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

Mr. Douglass gave a speech in Washington, D.C, at the 24th Anniversary of the Emancipation (1886), and said:

“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”

Mr. Douglass fought for equality of men through a colorblind society. He also fought for the equality of women, championing the motto “Right is of no sex—Truth is of no color”. Mr. Douglass was the embodiment of the fight for a colorblind society and plowed a path for another great man, whom many are more familiar with, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King dreamt of nation where all are equally free, judged by their CHARACTER and not the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN. In this battle for a colorblind society, Dr. King stated,

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

Dr. King, as a Republican, was fighting for a day where the world would shed the desire to engage in an affirmative action, a philosophy “where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress”. Yet, here we are today, still promoting this race warfare mentality and it comes from a surprising source; a Republican Commissioner of Agriculture of Florida.

The men that I have mentioned above are champions of this cause. These men, since the founding of our nation have been fighting to educate the people. James Madison stated in an article written for the National Gazette, December 20, 1792:

“Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant – they have been cheated; asleep – they have been surprised; divided – the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? …the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it…. It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.”

When are we going to embrace the understanding that equality demands, equal standing in the eyes of the people? When are we going to understand the battles that have raged for over a hundred years are still being promoted today through the teaching of racism through the affirmative action agenda? We must understand that we have a great stolen history. If we are ever to have Liberty that understands that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. We must shed the chains and slavery of the racist agenda of class and race warfare.

We must educate ourselves on the essential principle of Liberty that demands a colorblind society. We must watch our government as James Madison demanded. We must tell our elected representatives, like Mr. Adam Putnam that we will no longer tolerate the propagation of slavery and racism embodied in the principles of affirmative action. We will not tolerate anything less than a government that believes that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and are all entitled to Liberty and Justice.

As a final observation to this thought. When you are searching for this information you will find that there are only THREE media outlets that reported on this issue, one of which simply refers to the other. I am grateful to my local media source WJTK 96.5 “The Jet” for reporting this issue and bringing it to our attention. What is going on in the media when we cannot find journalists who are willing to report the truth? This is exactly the archaic thought process of the establishment that has hijacked our nation and that we are trying so hard to overcome. We The People must inform ourselves on the truth about our elected representatives. Listen to what they say and over their term they will show their TRUE NATURE. You may ask why am I so angry at Adam Putnam? Simply, because I am beginning to believe he stole my vote, and nobody likes a thief.

21st Century Slavery

/in /by

“Our tax code is the 21st Century version of slavery…the IRS has become the overseer of the American People.”  To many, this seems like an absurd radical statement; but, when you look at this statement from an historical perspective, you might just come to a different conclusion.

Throughout history, taxes have been a way to control the people.  My Bill of Rights presentation begins with the year 1014.  England was constantly being plagued by Kings who were greedy or wanting to finance their own adventures through the taxation of the people.  Although the oppression of taxation is evident throughout history, the best place to analyze this statement on modern taxation begins with King John and his reign in 1189.

King John, popularized by the tale of Robin Hood (who by the way was not robbing the rich and giving to the poor, but returning oppressive taxes back into to the hands of the people), took over while his brother Richard the Lion-Heart was fighting in the Crusades.  It was said of King John that he “plundered his own people”, he was “cruel towards all men” and “Hell itself was fouled by the presence of John”.  In 1207 King John introduced the first income tax in England.  Taxation at that time was established at one thirteenth of “rents and moveable property”.   Taxes were collected locally by sheriffs and administered by the Exchequer.  His brutal policies and excessive taxation brought him into conflict with his barons, the land and business owners. Taxes imposed by King John were excessive to the point of oppressive.  This did not matter to the King as these taxes served to double his income for the year, and served to finance his adventures.  Even though the taxes levied by King John were exorbitant, he is most known for his punishments against defaulters.  He was ruthless, showing favor only to those who suited his needs.  The taxations of King John lead to a rebellion of the barons.  A direct result of this rebellion was the adoption of the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta of 1215 made the King promise that no taxes except the regular feudal dues were to be levied, and except by the consent of the Great Council, or Parliament.

All the way back to 1215 people agreed that excessive taxation was an evil and oppressive form of government.  That did not stop Kings from becoming tyrannical with taxation.  In 1628, to end rebellion and secure the crown, Charles I had to sign the 1628 Petition of Rights, once again, promising that there would be no taxation without proper representation.  Again, in 1689, as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the fathers of our founders made William of Orange promise to not impose taxation without proper representation.

The fundamental importance of this brief trip through history is to first to recognize throughout history that taxation was often used as a tool for oppression.  Secondly, we must understand that our founders, when coming to this continent, carried with them not only their Bill of Rights of 1689, but all the promises of each King contained in each of these documents listed.  These promises all recognized the evil and oppressive nature of excessive taxation and the promise of each King to not abuse this tool of government.

So when George III began engaging in the very behavior of oppressive taxation, that each of these documents guaranteed he would not do, our founders called it like they saw it.  Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute…What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue…

Take note of the long tradition of tyrants to use the word “revenue” to describe their oppressive acts.  Terms like “greedy” and “plunder” were not the end of the strong language used by our founders.  Sam Adams made the following observation in his response to King George III’s taxes invoked in the Stamp Act.

…for if our trade may be taxed, why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands and everything we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our charter right to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our fellow-subjects who are natives of Britain. If taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves?

The women of the Revolution were not foreign to this understanding either.  Over 50 women, led by Penelope Barker, signed this oath in opposition to the oppressive taxation of George III:

 “We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such a time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

Hannah Winthrop, while observing the destruction of Tea in the Boston Harbor, a direct protest of the oppressive taxation of George III, stated:

Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard.

This assessments of our government’s policies on taxation, especially under this current administration, are not so radical after all.  Many of us have come to these conclusions on our own.  Understanding that oppressive taxation is a direct assault on Liberty should give us a boldness and courage to stand against this popular form of tyranny.  Sam Adams gave this challenge in 1771 that seems rather relevant today:

Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom!  It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that MILLIONS YET UNBORN MAY BE THE MISERABLE SHARERS IN THE EVENT.”

Maybe we should be asking the same questions of our neighbors that Patrick Henry asked of his in 1775:

“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”

Heroines of the New Revolution

/in /by

Liberty Leaders, Liberty Fighters, Liberty Lovers, Liberty Ladies

Attending the CNN Tea Party debate was a very interesting experience.  I have to congratulate Amy Kremer for elevating this event to a level that allowed the Tea Party people, the heartbeat of this nation, a respectable forum for debate.  I am very proud that Billie Tucker was able to show the world the spirit of the strong, educated, and God emboldened women that make up the Tea Party movement. Anyone who would argue that the Tea Party is not a movement of the women hasn’t been watching very closely the last two years.

I had every intention when I sat down to write, to give my impressions of the candidates in the debate.  I suppose I’ll leave that to the pundits, because seeing Amy, Billie, and many other lady patriots in this movement do what they do, reminded me of the great women who were involved in the founding of our great nation.

Too many times we get fixated on the men, but that phenomenon is nothing new.  But the women that founded our nation suffered just as much, if not more.  The women that founded our nation sacrificed just as much, if not more.  Yet, what do we know about them?  Why do we write volumes upon volumes about Samuel Adams, yet hear very little of Elizabeth, his wife?  We are constantly reminded of Thomas Paine and his writings, but I have met very few that have ever heard of Mercy Otis Warren.  Why do we, even in the Tea Party movement, loudly and proudly proclaim the victories of Samuel Adams, yet I meet a miniscule portion of the population that have ever heard of Penelope Barker?  I am not a women’s libber, so I’ll not jump to various conclusions to answer these questions.  I do believe there are certain principles inherent in the nature of men and women that underpin our behaviors.  I believe that the women are the “heart” of our societies, whereas the men are the “brawn”.  It is a lot easier to recognize the muscle in the action, than the heart that drives it.

Regardless of human nature, throughout time, women have taken up the “sword” to fight for Liberty. Women have often recognized a principle that has become popular again through Sarah Palin’s vocalization of the understanding that women are naturally, extremely protective of their children.  Where men might fight for the temporal; land, money, family — women will fight more often for posterity.  They see attacks upon Liberty not as attacks on themselves, but as attacks on their children, their grandchildren, and generations to come.  This is the nature of the woman’s heart.

When I see my friends, Amy Kremer, Chair of the Tea Party Express and Stephanie Scruggs, co-founder of the National 9/12 movement, I think of my hero Penelope Barker.  Penelope Barker was the leader of the second Tea Party push.   Just ten months after Sam and his boys dumped tea all along the coast, Penelope Barker brought the women together with this statement:

“Maybe it has only been men who have protested the King up to now.  That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard.”

Penelope Barker was so grieved at the way her mother country was treating the colonies, that she could stay silent no longer.  She had to make a statement.  She had to share that statement with the world, and did so with an unyielding boldness that so identifies the women of the founding of our nation and the women reclaiming our nation today.  She continues:

“We are signing our names to a document not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party. The British will know who we are”.

Penelope could not effectuate a movement on her own; she had to have friends to help.  She found women who shared her passion and who were willing to give their lives and their homes to the holy cause of Liberty. Elizabeth King gave her home and her life to share in the battle for Liberty.  In the home of Elizabeth King, over 50 women met and signed an oath, pledging their lives to Liberty:

“We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such a time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

These women, so outraged at the oppression of an overbearing, Liberty-robbing, government, did not concern themselves with direct consequences.  These women were willing to put their lives and reputations on the line for their children.  But an even greater sacrifice is not well known.  A good number of the women who signed this pledge had husbands who were English Merchants.  They had to know that once word of their boycott got to England, their husbands would suffer the consequences.  These women decided that Liberty- the battle against tyranny- was more important than their husbands’ paychecks, or even their lives.

Our Penelopes have friends as well.  I assure you, every one of us knows women whose gift is to connect people, bring people together, and organize.  What about those who work diligently without that name recognition?  What about Debbie Ringhaver-Lane and the ladies of the Abigail Adams Project?   What about Barbara Samuells and the women of the 9/12 Super Seniors, Patricia Sullivan and the ladies of the Florida Tea Party Network, Linda Harper and the women of North Carolina, or Toby Marie, Katrina Pierson and all the ladies working so hard in Texas?  There are so many women who carry the spirit of our founding mothers.  I cannot possibly name them all.   They populate every state, every city, and every town. They have decided that Liberty is more important than a paycheck.  Just like our founding mothers before them, they have decided that they fear not what any man can do to them; Liberty belongs to their children, and they will not see it go without a fight.

I would be terribly grieved to not recognize one of my greatest heroes of the Revolution. Please, let me introduce you to Mercy Otis Warren.  Mercy had a passion that I can relate to that was sparked by a love that I share.  Mercy was the heart and the writer of the founding mothers. Although Mercy’s friend, Abigail Adams wrote many letters to the love of her life, John Adams, Mercy wrote many documents about the love of her life – Liberty – and the colonies that embodied it.

Mercy was a prolific author of anti-British propaganda plays and essays and an historian of the American Revolution.  Her friend, Abigail Adams, said in 1773 that Mercy was “a sincere lover of [her] country” It was said that Mercy was so grieved by Great Britain’s actions that she wept over the knowledge that the colonies were “oppressed and insulted”.   Mercy wrote:

“America stands armed with resolution and virtue; but she still recoils at the idea of drawing the sword against the nation from whence she derived her origin. Yet Britain, like an unnatural parent, is ready to plunge her dagger into the bosom of her affectionate offspring.”

Mercy’s heart was wounded at the idea that England would enslave the very people that loved her most.  I know many out there have wept with me in the spirit of Mercy Otis Warren.  My dear friend Debbie Gunnoe (Lt.Col, USAF ret.) and I have had such moments in conversation.  My dear friend, Carmen Reynolds (Lt.Col, USAF ret.) and I have spent so much time weeping and writing over the dagger being plunged in the bosom of American Exceptionalism.

But like the great women of the Revolution, we know the true strength of the America Spirit. We know the true source of Liberty. Mercy proclaimed they were…

“ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen claimed by Americans from the sacred sanction of compacts.”

We understand that when God gives a gift and His people embrace and fight for that gift, victory is certain.  Even though victory is certain, we women must be acutely aware of the fears that we hold. I do believe Mercy said it best:

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; and I should blush if in any instance the weak passions of my sex should damp the fortitude, the patriotism, and the manly resolution of yours. May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

Our founding mothers KNEW that they were engaged in a battle not just for themselves but for their children’s children.  They KNEW that nothing was too much to sacrifice so that gift of Liberty could be passed to their posterity.  They KNEW that if they did not stand, their children would bow.

So let me cry loud and clear the words of another great founding mother, Hannah Withrop:

“And be it known unto Britain, even American daughters are politicians and patriots, and will aid the good work with their female efforts.”

I would like to humbly dedicate this article to ALL the great women in the movement to restore America, to its founding principles and to the women of our Armed Forces who fight every day for Liberty.  God bless you and God bless America! ~once a Beachnut…~

U.N. Aquires More of the Everglades

/in /by

On August 22, 2011 I wrote about the current collaboration of our state governments with the USDA, DOI, and UN to take private land ownership from the citizens of these states and turn it over to UN management. I specifically referenced a current effort in Florida where farmers and ranchers are “asked” to participate in a USDA program to increase the conservation easements that surround the Florida Everglades. Let me be abundantly clear, I am not opposed to the preservation of our natural resources. I am not opposed to the protection of Florida’s Everglades. What I am opposed to is handing over this land management to the UN. Let Florida protect the Everglades. Let Florida protect its natural resources. Then if there are trespasses on Liberty, Floridians then have recourse with their own representatives. Today, we have such little voice in DC, how less a voice will we have with the UN? Why is Adam Putnam, in his own email response, so eager to turn over the management of Florida to the UN through the USDA?

Informed Floridians, in an effort to protect private land ownership and prevent UN management of Florida property, contacted Adam Putnam’s office. (Bravo to these Floridians on becoming the engaged citizens our founders demanded.) Adam Putnam’s office has issued a statement to justify their non-involvement in this land grab. Since I am convinced that Mr. Putnam didn’t write this statement himself, I want to go through this statement so everyone can learn from this.

We should be so thankful to our anti-federalist founders for their insistence on greater state sovereignty. It is this very sovereignty, unique to the United States, which prevents a global takeover of the US by the UN, as it has done in every nation in Europe. These incremental land grabs are a global effort to remove state sovereignty, and join us with the rest of the world to be owned, managed, and operated by the UN. Unfortunately, Florida’s Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, is completely ignorant of the intentions of our founders, the value of state sovereignty, and his role in protecting this vital principle.

Looking at the list of UN managed properties in the United States, I fear this is not an isolated occurrence, but an epidemic of ignorance of the people tasked with the very obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and their respective States.

I say ignorance, because I still maintain a bit of hope that these efforts are not willfully collaborative. I do not want to believe that the very people that we trust to protect our property interests are knowingly giving it to the UN. You can call me naive if you like, I just understand how long we have failed to teach the truth and how miseducated our society truly is. As the engaged citizen government we are tasked to be educated on history and the truth. We must educate ourselves and educate our elected persons to maintain Liberty. James Madison warned us, “Only a well-instructed people can be a permanently free people.” My friends, we are far from free because we are far from being well-instructed.

Let’s get instructed. Mr. Putnam states in his response to the peoples’ attempt to instruct him that:

“This effort is part of the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), a federal program administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that requires no state approval or acceptance. (emphasis added)”

This admission of the complete surrender of state sovereignty puzzles me. Mr. Putnam appears to believe this is a justification for his office to be uninvolved in these matters. How can any action between the federal government and farmers or ranchers of the state of Florida be conducted outside the oversight of the state? Where is the shield that our founder’s established to protect the people from federal abuse? James Madison, in a speech to Congress on June 8, 1789, pointed out that “the greatest opponents to Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s Liberty.” If our “sure guardian” can just “check out” of the process, who will stand between the people’s Liberty and the Federal Government?

Mr. Putnam then continues and states:

“The NRCS negotiates directly with willing landowners that express an interest in participating in the program.”

This statement ignores the fact these lands will become conservation easements regardless of the “willingness of the participant”. The willingness revolves around the landowner’s desire to keep and maintain the easement or sell the easement to the Federal Government. It also ignores the fact that these easements will not be maintained by the State of Florida or the Federal Government, but by UNESCO based upon the UN committee’s assessment of the proper management of those lands.

Continuing with his justification of UN management of our land, Mr. Putnam all but admits that he and those tasked with the protection of Florida land are incapable of doing so. Therefore, in the words of Mr. Putnam, we must hand over these easements to the UN for management.

“Conservation easements yield significant economic benefits. Unlike past programs that took land off the tax rolls, out of production and were poorly managed by government, conservation easements help keep agriculture on the landscape and contributing to the economy by providing an incentive for families to keep land in production.”

It escapes me this idea that these farmers and ranchers will maintain some semblance of autonomy in the management of their lands. It is absolutely clear on the UNESCO World Heritiage Center website that when Florida allowed the Federal Government to declare the everglades a World Heritage site we established that Florida, and the land owners, must submit to the monitoring of these sites by the UNESCO. It also established that UNESCO then has the power and authority to seize control these sites if the World Heritage Committee determines intervention is necessary to properly maintain the sites. That mutable definition of “properly maintain” is now left solely to those who have proven to have no respect for state sovereignty, no respect for private land ownership, and an overwhelming goal to eliminate productivity in the name of global preservation. Why else would we need an organization whose entire objective is to protect geographical areas that have a global environmental or cultural significance? Let there be one endangered lizard or owl, one perceived danger in the use of fertilizers, one farmer growing a crop that is not environmentally symbiotic, or one rancher with too many cows per acre and we will see how much autonomy these ranchers and farmers really have. Mr. Putnam admits this very argument in his explanation of benefits for this program.

“These benefits include the protection of our valuable ground and surface water resources, critical habitat for endangered and threatened species and wildlife corridors that connect migration and foraging pathways; all while supporting jobs, communities and feeding our nation without depending on other nations.”

Never, in the history of UNESCO environmental management have these two clauses been compatible not only with each other, much less with the autonomy of private land owners. History and experience have PROVEN these ideas to be incompatible in the eyes of the UN and the environmentalist that serve on the World Heritage Committee. Alexander Hamilton is quoted to have said, “Experience is the oracle of truth, where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be held to be sacred.” How is it that our founders knew and understood these principles and yet we are doomed to not only repeat their history but even our own?

I am not trying to single out Mr. Putnam. I believe that he could very well want what is best for Florida’s farmers and ranchers. But because he has allowed Florida to relinquish its obligated oversight, he has removed the ability to properly intervene on behalf of Floridians, without a significant legal battle and significant cost to the people of Florida. I believe he is misinformed, miseducated, and falsely persuaded. It is the absolute duty of those who have the truth to educate our members of the Legislature. Samuel Adams so aptly stated, “If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our Liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.”

My sincere desire is that Mr. Putnam and others tasked with the protection of Liberty will learn from the warnings of our founders and heed to experience as the “oracle of truth”. Please, dear Legislatures, listen to the warning of John Adams, given in his inaugural address, and hear the voice of your people.

If our Government is negligent of its limitations, inattentive to its people’s recommendation, disobedient to its authority…if corruption is to overcome our Government and can be influenced by foreign nations..the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves.

Since I received a few unjustified or misplaced “criticisms” for my original post and this position, I will leave the critics with a quote from James Otis, Jr. Mr. Otis made this statement during his passionate argument before the State House against Writs of Assistance.

 “But I think I can sincerely declare that I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience’ sake; and from my soul I despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The only principles of public conduct that are worthy of a gentlemen or a man are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country.”

Florida's Sovereignty Eroded

/in /by

The United States has a sovereignty problem.  Shocking enough, this is a problem that is being perpetrated by the very people who are tasked to protect our sovereignty.  Floridians have recently become aware of further efforts to take land from US citizens and turn it over to the United Nations.  All US citizens must learn from this because, if it hasn’t already, it is coming to a city near you.

Senator Bill Nelson has joined with the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Interior to take farm land and ranch land from Florida farmers and ranchers and sell it to the Federal Government so that they can hand it over to the United Nations for management and control.  Florida should have a saving grace.  Florida has a Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, who is tasked by Floridians and the 9th and 10th Amendments to protect the very land and industry under attack by this “deal of the century”.  The real problem is that Adam Putnam is “on board” too.  Mr. Putnam issued his own statement, heralding this deal as “a model for smart environmental protection.”  Before you accuse me of donning my tinfoil hat, let’s look at the facts.

On August 11, 2011 Senator Bill Nelson sent out an email to his constituents in which he attached a letter that he apparently sent to Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture and Ken Salazar, Secretary of the US Department of Interior.   In this email, Nelson states

 As we discussed some months ago, conserving land to the north of the Everglades is vitally important to the restoration effort that is finally underway at this World Heritage site. Today’s announcement is another signal that the administration is fully behind restoration of the River of Grass. (emphasis added)

In this first paragraph of Nelson’s email, those three highlighted words seemed very peculiar to me.  Mr. Nelson is referring to the Florida Everglades as a “World Heritage site”. Being somewhat new to this idea, I had never heard those terms before and began to do some research.  What I found, I believe, will be very new to many in Florida and the rest of the country as well.

A World Heritage site is a geographical area that is of global environmental or cultural significance.   Declaring an area a World Heritage site establishes that governments must submit to the monitoring of these sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).  UNESCO then has the power and authority to seize control these sites if the World Heritage Committee determines intervention is necessary to properly maintain the sites or some “crisis” has occurred that requires intervention.  Apparently, Florida’s everglades are listed as a World Heritage site.  The Everglades are number 76 on a list of sites worldwide.

Something that I found very interesting was the history of the Everglades as a World Heritage site.  The World Heritage Center gives this history:

 “Declared a national park on 6 December 1947 under the May 1934 Act of Congress. The park was accepted as a biosphere reserve in 1976, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979, and was designated a Ramsar site (Wetland of International Significance) in 1987. The total area of the national park was increased in 1989 from its original size of 566,788ha to its current size.”

Now that we have the understanding that the Everglades are already monitored, protected, and arguably maintained by the UN, what does this federal grant mean to Floridians?  Bill Nelson’s email explains:

 “Specifically, I am referring to the announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that 24,000 acres of working ranchlands within the Northern Everglades will be protected in conservation easements.”

If you recall, the Everglades’ boundaries are already established on the World Heritage Center’s description.  It was noted in this historical description that its boundaries were expanded in 1989.  Now, according to Nelson, these boundaries will be expanded once again by 24,000 acres and turned into “conservation easements” that will be permanently maintained by the UN.

When I called Adam Putnam’s office about this, his aid offered the explanation that the farmers and ranchers do not have to sell their land in this grant; they could keep their land.  However, at fear of pointing out the obvious, if they do not sell, the land will still become a “conservation easement” maintained by the UN.  The farmers will be required to pay property taxes and carry insurance on land that they do not really own and can never use to create revenue.  Even more disturbing is the fact that if the World Heritage Committee does not like the way the farmer or rancher is maintaining his land, Putnam has given the UN his blessing to come dictate land management to a US citizen, and citizen of the state of Florida.

Putnam’s aid told me that this is a federal program and that Putnam has no control over it, claiming not to know very much about the grant (in spite of the fact that I spoke to the aid on August 12 and Putnam had issued his press release on August 11).  He suggested that if I wanted to know more or have concerns that I should contact the USDA.  I thought it was Putnam’s job to protect Florida from Federal (and international) encroachment.  That’s what James Madison intended to be his job under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

My problem with Putnam’s aid’s explanation is that it is no explanation at all.  Are we to understand that Mr. Putnam is handing over the very land Floridians have tasked him to protect with very little knowledge or concern?  I do appreciate the environmental concerns over water management.  I do not understand why Mr. Putnam feels that Floridians cannot conserve their own land and water and that the United Nations would do a better job.

This is not a Florida problem; this is a United States sovereignty problem. Currently the UN controls 21 geographical areas in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Philadelphia, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.   Our founders warned us of the destruction brought by foreign governments.  John Adams, in his inaugural address of 1797 warned that if we were not careful, if our Government could be “influenced by foreign nations, by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue, the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we, the people, who govern ourselves.”

We had better wake up America.  Our sovereignty is being eroded.  We are quickly becoming a government ruled by foreign nations.  This is but one example.

Floridians concerned over Mr. Putnam’s either ignorance over the facts or lack of concern for Florida’s sovereignty should call him immediately at (850) 488-3022.     

DOE Subverting First Amendment

/in /by

The First Amendment is under attack once again by a government agency in Florida.  Former Florida Teacher of the Year, Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was suspended while school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted on his personal FaceBook page was anti-homosexual.   Unfortunately, we should have seen this violation of the First Amendment coming.  The Florida legislature and Florida Department of Education have been on the forefront of subverting the Constitutional rights of school personnel, and have been laying the groundwork for this very case since 2008.

On July 1, 2008, the Florida legislature enacted Senate Bill 1712, the Ethics in Education Act. This act created rules and regulations regarding the actions of Florida school administrators, principals, and teachers.  Notice, it is not specifically applicable to public schools.  This act governs all schools, public and private.  Private schools are brought under this absolute control if they accept McKay Scholarships or Corporate Scholarships as defined in Florida Statute. Every applicable school, as a result of this Act must implement an “Ethics in Education Policy” that is in compliance with the Act else lose their funding.

Not much fervor has erupted over this governmental intrusion of Constitutional rights of teachers and parents, because the Act seems rather reasonable and innocuous on its face.   However, it isn’t until the Florida Department of Education’s goals in implementing this Act are understood, that the driving force of this Act is understood.

The Ethics in Education Act is over 32 pages long, full of legislative speak that is guaranteed to put any over worked administrator in a state of frustration.  In an effort to make the transition to this Act easier for the schools, the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) issued a notice to all applicable schools, public and private, informing them of the Act and giving them a FLDOE suggested policy for compliance with the Act.  Although this may seem as an honest service to the schools, it is through this suggested policy that the real goal of the FLDOE and this Act becomes evident.

Under the heading WORKPLACE STANDARDS AND POLICIES; ETHICAL CONDUCT OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, the suggested policy states:

As a representative of the school and district, personnel and administrators must demonstrate and uphold standards of ethical conduct both in and outside of the classroom. As a public employee and a role model to students, instructional personnel and school administrators have a duty, at all times, to: (emphasis added)

The provisions of this policy that specifically applies to Mr. Buell’s situation are found in same section.  The policy states that applicable personnel must “Uphold the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida” and then sites Department of Education Rule, 6B-1.006, F.A.C.  The policy then specifically requires personnel to assure that students are not discriminated against based upon a list of factors:

g. Shall not harass or discriminate against any student on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition, sexual orientation, or social and family background and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment or discrimination. (emphasis added)

The policy then defines “harassment and bullying” to include a virtually unlimited avenue of censorship:

Harassment means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed against a student or school employee

The policy adds the boiler-plate catch-all to include just about anything that could be conceived as contrary to the policy as harassment or bullying:

c.  Acting in a manner that has an effect substantially similar to the effect of bullying or harassment.

Unfortunately, I believe this policy opens the door to the argument that qualified personnel have knowingly waived their off duty Constitutional rights. Although the purpose of the policy may now seem clear, the question really is, how many schools, both private and government, adopted this policy without real thought of the limitations on its personnel’s Constitutional rights?  What is the accountability of our Legislators and Department of Education for taking away the Constitutional rights or the private and public school teachers?  As public sector employment increases, policies like these will serve to eliminate the voice of the people.  It may just be the call of our time to stand against such tyranny.

John Adams stated in his inaugural address of 1797:

If we are to have a free Republican Government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it.