912 Tallahassee

We are Listening to the CBO Not the People

2010-03-15T18:33:00.000-07:00

On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace Rep. Chris Van Hollan (D) Maryland said that one of the reasons the U.S House of Representatives has not voted on the health care reform bill was because “we want to see what the Congressional Budget Office says.”

Really Representative Hollan?

Where was the Congressional Budget Office when the other 12 trillion in debt was being piled up? Crickets…crickets…crickets…

He must not have heard about the almost 60% of Americans who don’t want a big government type of healthcare reform bill signed into law.

I guess you miss things like that when you’re creating “Heaven on Earth.”

You can watch the interview here: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4104796/panel-plus-314#/v/4104895/reps-cantor-van-hollen-on-fns/?playlist_id=87249

When I heard Representative Hollad’s remarks I said to myself, “this is the perfect personification of why ‘we the people’ need to send a resounding message to every level of government.”

They just don’t get it.

With federal, state and even local government budgets seeing more red today than on February 14th, the question should be ‘can this already bloated and inefficient government actually reduce healthcare costs for all Americans?’

I don’t know about you but I’m going with, no.

Over the next several days in Washington will be witnessing a show about what really happens when too many politicians who believe that when you expand the powers of the government it will solve the enigma of the world, win too many elections.

Not only will those in whom we elected continue to ignore their constituents who are widely against this bill and the process, they will continue to suspend their belief and ignore a long track record of one failed government entitlement program after another.

National Parks, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak and the U.S Post Office all come to mind: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That is why “We the People” must gather on April 15th to send a message to our elected officials that we need a lifeline and not an anchor.

We must decide whether our top priority is to “Spread the wealth around” or to cut spending and cut taxes. We must make a choice between falling for phony rhetoric that makes us feel good for the moment or whether we are in search of methods with a proven track record of success in securing freedom and prosperity for all Americans.

Jerome Hudson

Proposed Bill Strengthens Floridians’ Right to Bear Arms

2010-03-14T15:55:00.000-07:00

There is a bill in the Florida House (HB 21) that would make certain firearms NOT subject to federal regulations. This would include firearms that are manufactured and then remain in Florida. The bill contends such firearms that never cross state borders do not constitute interstate commerce and are, therefore, not subject to federal regulations under the authority of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. HB 21 also includes ammunition and firearm accessories as items not subject to federal regulations. There is a similar bill in the Florida Senate (SB 98).

HB 21 appears to be an effort to side step the authority Congress has enjoyed for decades interpreting and implementing the Commerce Clause. However, this bill also includes some strong language regarding the fundamental right to bear arms. Here is an example of such language:

Section 8, Article I of the Florida Constitution clearly secures to the citizens of Florida, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Florida citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection remains unchanged from the original Florida Constitution, which was approved by Congress and the people of Florida, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Florida and the United States in 1845.

Opponents of this and similar bills are likely to claim that certain states would lift all gun regulations allowing particularly dangerous weapons on the market. Not true with this bill. HB 21 as written would not exclude automatic weapons from federal regulations.

Proponents of this bill would point out that state sovereignty is the central issue here. There has long been disagreement about the veracity of the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause as justification to create federal regulations in a broad range of the citizenry’s activities. Ultimately, there lies a long chain of inferences required to demonstrate that gun ownership affects interstate commerce in any tangible way whatsoever.

The fundamental question here is: When are federal regulations warranted?
Link to HB 21: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42148&

Darren Fancher

Get CITIZEN Input in Citizens Charter Review Committee

2010-02-28T18:10:00.001-08:00

Enough is enough. Fifteen fellow Leon Countians have been meeting regularly since last November under the charge to review the Leon County Charter and propose amendments that may be advisable for placement on the general election ballot. With the exception of two remaining public hearings they have completed their work. Other than a couple of housekeeping or clarifying amendments it is unlikely any substantive changes will be recommended.

Yes, it is true the CRC membership is hopelessly inbred with local Democrat Party leaders that can easily block the two-thirds affirmative vote needed to send recommendations to the County Commission but, sadly, real change we can believe in (if I may plagiarize a phrase) was never attempted.

Two changes that are easily understood and supported by everyday citizens but not recommended are:
#1 Residency Requirements
#2 Term limits

Residency Requirements
I know, I know, you thought there was a requirement for county commissioners to reside in the district in which he or she seeks to represent. That’s because there is. But, apparently, one county commissioner sees residency as an option and has openly resided far from his electorate. Because of reported weak definitions in the charter regarding the definition of residency (who knew residency could be construed other than where you live) and blatant political correctness by governors who could have taken action, this disregard for the law has been allowed to continue. When it was suggested that the CRC should address the problem the response was essentially a no response with a lot of looking at the ceiling tiles or checking for text messages.

But it’s not too late! At the CRC public hearing on March 4th a citizen will stand before the CRC and offer draft language that will define residency, provide a mechanism to enforce residency and a penalty if residency is violated. Should the proposed change not be accepted by the CRC a second amendment to eliminate the residency requirement altogether will be offered. The assumption being if residency is not enforced, why have it and let county commissioners serve Leon County from any district or Georgia for that matter.

Term Limits
Studies show that the only poll group that does not favor term limits are, guess who…. elected officials. It seems that once in office it comes upon the elected official that the job is really complicated and difficult and the only person capable of understanding all its complexities is the incumbent. A highly visible example of this enlightenment is New York City Mayor Michael Blumberg who wants to change that city charter to allow another term. After all he is the only person who can lead New York through these tough financial times.

But there are lots of reasons to have term limits. Let me name just 10 of them:

1. Overwhelmingly, voters prefer term limits. (It's their native common sense!)
2. Term limits favors meritocracy, meaning leadership by talent
3. Increases competition, encourages new challengers.
4. Builds a ‘citizen’ county commission, drives out career politicians.
5. Breaks ties to special interests.
6. Improves tendency to vote on principle.
7. Introduces fresh thinking, new ideas, eliminates 'old bulls'.
8. Reduces power of staff, bureaucracy, lobbies.
9. Creates a natural reduction in wasteful spending.
10. Encourages lower taxes, smaller government

You would think with ten pretty good reason to have term limits the subject might have been at least discussed. But it was not. I wonder why.

But it is not too late! At the March 4th CRC meeting another citizen will make many of the above arguments as the three minute public input clock will allow and ask the CRC to consider placing term limits in the charter. I know, Toto, we are not in Kansas. But the argument has to be made. The official record has to show that everyday citizens understand what it will take to wrest the government from career politicians who have made a citizen board an income stream for life while disregarding the very charter that governs them.

Readers, please consider being an active part of this effort. You can do a couple of things.
1. You can come to the County Commission Chambers of the 5th Floor of the Courthouse at 5:30 pm on Thursday, March 4th and share your thoughts directly with the CRC, or
2. You can click on 2010charter@leoncountyfl.gov and send the CRC an email expressing your concerns.

Let’s get CITIZENS’ input in the Citizens Charter Review Committee.

Against the Law...But Not a Crime

2010-02-20T06:04:00.000-08:00

Who among us was shocked to learn that the extra $22,000 per year our city commissioners voted themselves above the city charter set $35,000 may have violated the charter but is not a crime? Or when one of their fellow commissioners stepped down to take a campaign reward ambassadorship the commissioners closed ranks and appointed a philosophical clone in lieu of holding an election as provided by the city charter. This too was contrary to the charter, but not a crime.

Similarly, just down the street, sitting District One County Commissioner Bill Proctor lists his place of residence as 3109 Wahnish Way but it is fairly common knowledge that he lives somewhere other than in district one; the specific provision in the county charter requiring commissioners to live in the district in which they serve notwithstanding. If he lives outside District One it is black line contrary to the requirements of the county charter. But, again, there is no penalty in the charter for disregarding it so it is not a crime.

Who knew you had to put a penalty in the law to get elected leaders to follow it? Why do we call it a “Charter”? Why not call it “Suggestions as to How We Want Our Elected Officials to Behave”?

In the case of Commissioner Bill Proctor why does Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho accept Proctor’s “Qualification for Office Forms” when his place of residence is in doubt? What is the point of haveing a “supervisor of elections” if the “supervisor of elections” doesn’t supervise?

Okay, so the supervisor of elections gives a wink and nod to the charter that requires the candidate to reside in the district. After all there is no penalty for violating the charter. Under this same “In the law, but not crime” philosophy does this also allow Supervisor Sancho to permit Commission Proctor to file a false legal document called a “Petition Checking Undo Burden Oath?” This legal form permits Commissioner Proctor to qualify to run for office by submitting a petition of signatures without paying the fee required by law to check the names of the petitioners.

On April 10, 2009, Commissioner Proctor certified he is unable to pay the .10 cents to check each signature as required by law without imposing an undo burden on personal resources otherwise available. We know Commissioner Proctor signed the form as it was notarized by National Democratic Committee man Jon Ausman.

But is it a true statement as required by law? He is an incumbent commissioner so it is known he makes at least $72,000 per year. He allegedly teaches classes at FAMU for which he probably is paid something. A check of property records indicates a number of properties in his name so it is likely he has income from rental property. So why is he permitted to sign a statement certifying, which means "attesting to being true", that he is unable to pay the .10 cents per signature required of those using petition to access the ballot?

Oh…I know why. Because such a statement is required by law but there is no penalty for lying and no one supervising the election to insure the law is followed.

Clearly, we need higher quality elected officials. We need elected officials who will follow the law even though there is no penalty for not following it. I have no idea those running for office against incumbents in the next election are any better at following the law, but they sure could not be any worse.

Citizens' Charter Review Committee Recommedations

2010-02-17T07:09:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, February 18th at 5:30 pm in the Leon County Commission chambers the Citizens Charter Review Committee will hold the first of three public hearings on nine recommendations being considered for approval by the CRC. These recommendations were developed during the 13 meetings held by the CRC since being named in November 2009. Assuming public input doesn’t change the consensus of the CRC, and the proposed recommendations can garner 10 votes of the 15 members who will be voting after the third public hearing on March 18th, the following is a brief summary of the recommended changes.

1. A house keeping charter change clarifying current practice of the relationship between the Tourist Development Council and the county administrator.

2. A substantive change that will permit the county commission to adopt environmental ordinances that are effective county wide thus eliminating different standards and regulations between the county and the city.

3. A change that will require a super majority vote of the county commission to hire and fire a county administrator.

4. A stated prohibition of county commissioners giving instructions or directives to employees under direct control of the county administrator

5. A lowering of the number of signatures required of petitions proposing ordinances or charter amendments from 10% county wide and within each district to 7% county wide and at least 5% in each district.

6. Changes the term of future CRCs from 12 months to 15 months and requires the county commissioners to consider diversity with the community when appointing. This proposed change will also allow recommendations to go forward to the county commissioners with nine CRC votes and directly to the ballot and vote by the public with 12 votes of the CRC.

7. Allow the county clerk to conduct audits of the county commission books pursuant to a work plan by the audit committee and also allows performance audits upon the approval of the county commission

8. Creates a Utility Advisory Board of seven members that are tasked with making recommendations to the county and city on utility rates, planned expansion of utility service areas, as well a utility maintenance.

9. A reduction of campaign contribution for county offices from $500 to $250 per election cycle.

Of those recommendations the one creating county wide environmental standards will likely receive the most attention as the city has indicated it was not supportive of the ordinance.

Judging from presentations by the clerk and members of the audit committee before the CRC meetings, the proposal relating to audits by the clerk may also be controversial.

The most curious of the recommendations is the proposed change to the charter to create a Utility Advisory Board. It appeared this proposed change was born out of universal frustration with high utility rates and it is not clear what power this board would actually have.

Subjects discussed but failing to get a majority vote of the members to bring them forward for recommendations include:
· Consolidation of growth management functions
· Strong county commission chairman as opposed to rotating chairman
· Redistricting of commission districts to create more and smaller districts
· Return to county elections on a partisan format
· Changes in annexation policy
· Providing charter language relative to protection of water supply
· Changes to constitutional or charter officers duties
· Creation of human rights policy in the charter

Inasmuch as the CRC is appointed by members of the county commission
and this particular CRC was heavily populated with political insiders it is not reasonable to expect them to offer substantive changes to the county charter. Those not satisfied with the status quo in the county leadership and seek changes that will not allow the same old, same old, to perpetuate can seek term limits and other game changing amendments to the charter through the new and improved petition process.

Illegal Immigration: The Cost and Why It's Hard to Fix

2010-02-15T05:16:00.000-08:00

Illegal Immigration: the Cost and Why It’s Hard to Fix

Reading a recent publication on the cost of illegal immigration to all Floridians put out by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) will make blood shoot out of your eyes, if I may quote you-know-who. The flyer is full of gee-whiz numbers, not the least of which is an annual cost of illegal immigration to each Florida household of $678.00. You could almost pay your last City of Tallahassee utility bill or feed a teenage boy for a week (if you didn’t count snacks) for that amount of money.

Working the math backwards that translates to $3.8 Billion-with-a-B dollars and that’s just what is spent on education, health care, and incarceration. FAIR points out that 8.7 percent of all K-12 public school students are children of illegal aliens and over 250,000 of them are in special English instruction classes that cost $2200 per student per year. In the area of health care, Florida taxpayer’s unreimbursed medical cost to illegal aliens amounts to more than $290 million of which $190 million is just for costs associated with having babies. When it comes to incarceration, Floridians pay about $88 million per year to lock up 5400 illegal immigrant inmates.

But let’s be fair and FAIR is fair, (I’m sorry, I just could not pass that up) illegal immigrants work hard and pay taxes too. That is correct; however, the amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrants is estimated to be $1.6 billion, leaving a net difference between taxes paid in and benefits paid out at $2.2 billion dollars.

So… what is our state legislature doing to solve Florida’s illegal immigrant problem and allow its citizens to keep that $678.00. Senator Nancy Detert (R-SW Florida) and Representative Sandy Adams (R - Oviedo) have filed companion bills, S1880 and H219, called the Florida Security and Immigration Compliance Act. In addition to beefing up law enforcement, the guts of the legislation is designed to keep agencies from entering into a contract for contractual services with contractors not registered and participating in a federal work authorization program. This federal work authorization is essentially an electronic form an employer must complete to determine if a prospective employee is a legal resident. Presumably, the form will be reviewed against a data base and the employer will be told if the applicant is a good hire as far as immigration is concerned. If he uses the program and the employee turns out to be illegal the employer gets a get-out-of-jail-free-so-to-speak pass and cannot be prosecuted.

What’s not to like? According to the Florida Chamber of Commerce, a lot. The stated reason is that what is being asked is just another form and another intrusion by the government into the work place. Certainly a good reason not to do most things the government wants business to do. But the real reason probably has more to do with business really wanting to hire illegal aliens. Why wouldn’t they? Those employees are “off the books” as far as workers comp and unemployment insurance is concerned. Plus, illegal aliens can usually be hired below the prevailing wage rate and, according to some employers who have never used illegal aliens but know other employers who have (wink, wink), the illegal aliens are damn hard workers and do good work.

So, you have usually conservative Florida businesses teamed with usually liberal churches and social groups liking the status quo of not deporting those in the country illegally pitted against the garden variety, non business owning, conservative taxpayer wanting the state to reduce their tax burden by $678 and seeking passage of S1880 / H 219 to accomplish that goal.

Who will prevail? It is true that the average citizen has had a belly full of the illegal alien problems as evidenced by the massive uprising against the McCain-Kennedy legislation to provide amnesty two years ago. However, that muscle was flexed in killing legislation and passing legislation requires a greater magnitude of power. Certainly, if enacted, the legislation proposed by Sandy Adams and Nancy Detert will help solve the problem and we should be appreciative of their efforts. Hopefully, the “do what’s right” will be heard over the “do what’s expedient” and the legislation will pass.

Does Cliff Thaell Really Want to Limit Contributions

2010-02-12T09:25:00.000-08:00

If you don’t have a life and have been following the work of the Citizens Charter Review Committee then you may have heard that incumbent At-Large County Commissioner Cliff Thaell asked the committee to consider an amendment to the county charter that will limit campaign contributions to $250.00. His surrogate on the CRC argued that such a limitation is good policy as it will force candidates out into the community to meet more people and hear more and diverse concerns.

Okay, sounds good.

However, if reducing campaign contributions from $500 to $250 is a good idea for the charter why not start with the 2010 Re-elect Cliff Thaell to the Leon County Commission campaign? Candidate Thaell could easily impose a self limitation of $250 right now and not wait for a change to the Leon County Charter. Self imposed campaign contributions are not unheard of. Recollection is that Lawton Chiles self imposed a $10.00 limit on one of his campaigns. I agree, I should not be linking Lawton Chiles and Cliff Thaell in the same blog entry but the point is the theory must have worked as Chiles was the master of pressing the flesh in the community of Florida and, of course, he never lost an election.

Apparently, candidate Thaell likes the theory (and the press coverage) of limiting campaign contributions but is not a true believer in the actual practice.

Below are those persons and companies that have contributed the currently maximum allowed $500. Certainly candidate Thaell is not disingenuous in his promotion of a $250 campaign limitation so all these folks can probably expect a refund check for $250 any day now. To save you the arithmetic the $500.00 contributions add up to $33,000 of the total monetary contributions of $67,631.

Oh, by the way, candidate Thaell does believe in limiting campaign contributions personally as he has ponied up only $76.83 in “in kind” contributions and zero dollars in monetary contributions.

Emory Mayfield Construction $500.00
Corry & Kennedy Law Firm $500.00
John Lewis Investor $500.00
Blank & Meenan Law Firm $500.00
Phil Blank Attorney $500.00
James Smith Attorney $500.00
Winston Howell CPA $500.00
William Peebles Attorney $500.00
Michael Sheridan Rev. Trust. Insurance $500.00
Mainline Disaster Recovery Technology $500.00
Hillside Building Property Management $500.00
Summit East Management Property Management $500.00
Mainline Financial Services Financial Services $500.00
Williams Wilson & Sexton Law Firm $500.00
Carlton Fields Law Firm $500.00
Pro Steel Buildings Construction $500.00
HCA West FL Good Govt Health Care PAC $500.00
HCA North FL Good Govt Health Care PAC $500.00
HCA Jacksonville Good Govt HealthCare PAC $500.00
AIM Underwriters Underwriting Company $500.00
Aaron Boyette Construction $500.00
Charles Matthews Retired $500.00
Rose Sundstrom & Bentley Law Firm $500.00
PBA Tallahassee PAC Law Enforcement PAC $500.00
FL PBA Law Enforcement PAC $500.00
Don Hinkle Attorney $500.00
Kenneth Brummell-Smith Physician $500.00
SNA Aviation Aviation Company $500.00
Pittman Law Group Law Firm $500.00
John Ness Physician $500.00
Larry Polivka University Faculty $500.00
Talcor Properties Real Estate $500.00
William Montjay Attorney $500.00
Jon Moyle Attorney $500.00
James Stockwell Physician $500.00
Abigale Stewart Homemaker $500.00
Chazbury Square Real Estate $500.00
Main Street Shopping Center Real Estate $500.00
Premier Construction Builder $500.00
Kurt Spitzer Government Relations $500.00
Jason Ghazvini Real Estate $500.00
Tom Asbury Developer $500.00
Williams Muldrow Contractor $500.00
Lottie Muldrow Educator $500.00
Fregly / Oertel / Skelding Government Relations $500.00
PBS&J Engineering Firm $500.00
Pinnacle Construction Construction $500.00
Ajax Construction Construction $500.00
Smith, Bryan & Myers Government Relations $500.00
FL Intermodal Transportation Assoc. Trucking $500.00
Coral Sky Development Developer $500.00
Jeff Sharkey Government Relations $500.00
Sharkey’s Coffee Company Food Services $500.00
Flightline Fix Base Operator $500.00
Laura Newton Educator $500.00
Halcyon Underwriters Insurance $500.00
McDuff America Insurance $500.00
Brown & Brown of FL Insurance $500.00
Mc Duff Underwriters Insurance $500.00
Risk Management Assoc. Insurance $500.00
Brown & Brown Ins. Insurance $500.00
Greenberg Trarig Law Firm $500.00
Waste Management Waste Collection $500.00
JBK Insurance Insurance $500.00
Ajax Builders Construction $500.00
Jeff Phipps Investor $500.00

Leon County Asks for $2,000,000 We Do Not Have

2010-02-10T04:52:00.000-08:00

The Leon Count Commission recently voted unanimously to submit a Health Care Earmark request to the Second Congressional District’s Health Care Council in the amount of $2 Million dollars for the construction of a new building to house primary healthcare services to be provided by the Neighborhood Health Services, Inc. Not only was the vote unanimous but the item was on the consent agenda and was not even discussed.

Of course there is no argument that the current services provided in the old Lincoln High School would be better in a new facility with 10 exam rooms, a mental health clinic with six rooms for therapy, a dental clinic, a diabetes care center and an integral health program but…THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BROKE! What part of “we have no money, as in zip, nada, nunca… NO MONEY, do our elected officials not understand.?

Are our county commissioners so accustomed to asking for money from Washington they automatically approve a request for Congressman Alan Boyd to seek an earmark in the 2011 Federal budget for $2 million dollars? At what point will our elected officials just say what every household in America says when money runs out which is “That sounds like something we would like to do but we do not have the money”. Perhaps the time for our elected officials to say that has come. If so, it was surely missed by our county commissioners.

Need for CRC Membership Criteria

2010-02-09T16:34:00.000-08:00

The current Charter Review Committee has been doing yeoman work on difficult issues; however, there has been criticism concerning their current composition. That criticism is centered on what appears to be appointment of political insiders. Of the 15 members, four of the members are in the active leadership of a political party. During a recent debate one of those members stated he could not vote a certain way as he would “eat that vote for the next 10-20 years for my political party”.

CRC members are appointed county officials and therefore subject to the County’s Code of Ethics. Such a statement as to why a member cannot vote a certain way because of the impact on his political party may or may not be a misuse of a public position but members of the CRC should never be placed in that position.

There are over 200,000 residents of Leon County and it is reasonable to assume that 15 electors that are knowledgeable and aware of governmental functions without being immersed in the politics the governmental process can be found.

The concept of providing CRC member criteria was rejected by the CRC on the suggestion that the hands of future county commissioners should not be bound and that no citizen should be prohibited from serving. The proposed language provides reasonable restrictions and positive language future commissioners can use to seek service from citizens outside those whose continual courthouse environment might influence their judgment.

It was also argued that the CRC deals with difficult issues and that the average citizen may not grasp the complexity of their role in public service. It is suggested that issues before the CRC require judgment and understanding, not unlike the requirement of jury duty. As the jury system does not permit judges, attorneys or members of the law enforcement community to be empanelled, the membership of the CRC should not allow those closely involved in county government to sit as members. Special interest should not have reserve seats on the committee but come before an unbiased panel of citizens to make their interest known.

Dennis Barton

Why Study a Really Bad Idea

2010-02-09T06:25:00.000-08:00

If there were an award for really bad legislation S1732 by Senator Mike Bennett (R. Southwest Florida) and H863 by Representative Dwayne Taylor (D. Volusia) would be likely winners.

These companion measures call for a study by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Governmental Accountability (a possible award winner for the most bureaucratic name that goes by the equally bureaucratic acronym OPPAGA) to conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness and cost efficiency of having a fulltime legislature versus a part time legislature.

Well… that should be easy income for OPPAGA, although Senator Bennett says the study won’t cost anything because OPPAGA is an arm of the legislature and is working everyday anyway…which questions the necessity of OPPAGA if studying such things is what they do every day. But, I digress.

It would seem all OPPAGA will need to do is make a phone call to the states of New York and California and ask how the concept of a full time legislature is working for them. Both of those states are buried in government regulation and debt and the fact both have full time legislatures may not be coincidental. If another data point on full time legislature is needed perhaps a call to the Congress of the United States would be in order. Is there a better example of how much mischief a full time legislative body can foist upon the people than the US Congress?

If OPPAGA is going to be fair and balanced then a call to Texas is in the cards too. After all, Texas has the best economy of any state and they meet on a part time basis and further limit their work by taking up general legislative issues one year and budget issues the following year.

If these bill pass and OPPAGA performs a study, hopefully they will find that Florida does not need a full time legislature. Florida needs a legislature composed of citizens of honor and wisdom who have families and jobs and seek office to serve the state and not be served by the state.

What's Up With The Charter Review Committee

2010-02-03T04:36:00.000-08:00

Not to bore you with details as to how this has come to be, there is a Leon County Charter Review Committee (CRC) and it has the responsibility of reviewing the Leon County Charter and recommending any changes it deems necessary to the Leon County Commission. The County Commission will, in turn, decide to place suggestions with which it agrees on the November, 2010 ballot to be voted on by the Leon County citizens.

There are 15 members of the CRC all of whom are appointed by the Leon County Commission. The composition of the CRC has raised some eyebrows as four of the 15 are or have been highly active in the leadership of the Leon County Democrat Party. Two members are married to one another. The issue of government inbreeding of the CRC notwithstanding the Committee is more than ably chaired Chris Holley, Executive Director of the Florida Association of County Commissions and is currently meeting on a weekly basis to sort through local government issues with the goal of making recommendations to the County Commission by May.

Several of the issues are mind numbing in their tedium. Matters like:
· Employment Policy of the County Administrator
· Non-Interference Clause (direct contact with employees by commissioners)
· Functional Consolidation
· Countywide Stormwater Standards
· Voluntary Annexation
· Tourist Development Council Structure
· Audit Clarification
Sleep City, am I right?

However, there are some issues under discussion that are not so dry and should be of interest to anyone living in Leon County. For Instance:
· Partisan Elections.
The current charter requires non partisan elections, meaning candidates run with no party affiliation. The CRC voted eight to six in favor of retaining non-partisan elections but it is reasonable to assume the Democrat Party hard core on the CRC will seek to reconsider. At least one of the six no votes was concerned that citizens would not know for whom to vote without party affiliation next to their name.
· Petition Thresholds.
The current charter requires that 10% of qualified electors county wide, with at least 10% in each district, sign a petition before an item can be placed upon a ballot for vote by the citizens. It appears that will be lowered to 7% county wide with at least 5% in each district which should make getting issues on the ballot easier.

· CRC Membership Criteria
As mentioned earlier, the unbalanced CRC lineup heavy in party and politics has been criticized. There have been suggestions made to prohibit appointment of county elected officials and employees as well as providing a reserved seat for a representative of the student population. Other language put forward but not yet accepted suggested a balance of the public and private employment sectors with emphasis on appointing those who are recognized as successful and whose judgment and wisdom are respected. It was observed there are over 200,000 residents of Leon County so it would appear there are 15 citizens who have an understanding of governmental function without being immersed in the politics of the process.
· Independent or Advisory CRC
The current charter provides for an advisory CRC. There are number of the CRC who favor being able to place the CRC changes directly on the ballot without the approval of the county commission and this will be an item of discussion at this week’s meeting. It is likely the issue will not be decided without revisiting the matter of CRC member composition as rounding up the usual suspects for membership may not provide the breadth and depth of talent necessary for a direct trip to the ballot for a complex issue.

Certainly, these are not the issues that generate decisions to send our young people into harm’s way, spend a zillion dollars to bail out banks or create a huge government entitlement. They are, however, the kinds of issues that drive our day-to-day government and therefore need the understanding and awareness of those who favor a responsible government at all levels.

Can a Conservative Run as a Democrat?

2010-01-27T02:50:00.000-08:00

Can a conservative run as a Democrat?

What if a conservative candidate went to the people of the 2nd Congressional District in the Democratic primary and said I will vote…
· To cut spending, including entitlement programs, grants and ear mark spending in the 2nd Congressional district.
· Against “stimulus” packages or legislation to increase the federal deficit
· For legislation that provides energy independence through production of domestic gas and oil until renewable energy sources can be developed for practical use
· Against legislation known as “cap and trade” or legislation that increases U.S. energy costs based on the philosophy of climate change
· For legislation to secure our borders through the use of fences, electronic surveillance and the National Guard
· For legislation that does not permit terrorists to receive the Constitutional rights of an American citizen
· Against health care legislation that makes the federal government the single pay provider or involves the government in health care decisions
· For legislation that prohibits abortion except in limited cases involving the life of the mother, rape or incest
· For legislation that eliminates race based affirmative action
· For placing term limits on members of Congress
· Against Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House

Wow! Conservative, huh? Is it possible that a very large number of registered Democrats in the rural 2nd Congressional district support many if not most of those positions?

Here in the 2nd Congressional district there has been considerable unhappiness expressed toward long serving Congressman, Democrat Alan Boyd. A hail fellow- well met, no doubt, but a Congressman who voted for the cap and trade legislation and held off voting against the equally unpopular health care legislation until adequate Democrat votes were available for the bill to pass the house. Condescension at a level palpable to the masses attending the town hall meetings has continued to hang in the air with no effort by Boyd to kiss and make up.

There are roughly 500,000 voters of all party affiliations in the 2nd Congressional district. The vast majority (about two-thirds) of them are registered in the Democrat Party. The other registered voters are on the record as Republicans, Independents or my favorite “no party affiliation”.

So, with two-thirds of the voters being registered in Congressman Boyd’s party it stands to reason that, as an incumbent with lots of support from those special interests who know that 90% of incumbents will be re-elected, it can be assumed that (a) he will get the party nomination and (b) the party faithful will overwhelm the Rs, Is and NPAs in the general election and Congressman Boyd will be returned to Congress for yet another two years.

But wait. What about the voter disgust that dumped a Democrat in the hugely liberal state of Massachusetts? Sure, maybe they voted against Martha because she didn’t have a clue who Curt Schilling was. I agree, if you don’t know the Bosox legend is not a Yankee you probably do not know the sun comes up in the east but baseball stupid isn’t the only reason 52% said “no thanks” to Martha.

The fine people of Massachusetts were concerned about the direction in which the country is going. Brown promised to be the 41st vote needed to block health care legislation that can only be described as awful. Polls indicated they were most worried about a national security policy that gives terrorist the Constitutional rights of an American citizen. They were concerned that the tanking economy is not going to respond to even a larger federal deficit to be paid by borrowing from our children and grand children.

I expect the fine people of the 2nd Congressional district have the same concerns. But, winning as a Republican, an Independent or with “no party affiliation” in a district so heavily registered as Democrat will be hard. Even though statistics from the recent presidential election indicate that voters in the 2nd Congressional district (except Leon County) voted for the slightly more conservative candidate in 2008, can a Democrat espousing the values of a conservative win in the 2nd Congressional district?

Dennis Barton

The Argument for “Naturally Occurring” Term Limits

2010-01-23T18:35:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in an earlier blog, The Great Framers did not favor placing a limit on the number of terms that could be served in the U.S. Congress. I also mentioned a number of their philosophical objections to term limits, most made hollow by the passage of time.

Elected office is an opportunity for a citizen to serve his or her homeland whether that service is at the federal, state or local level. Elected office is a chance to return public service to our society in appreciation for the many benefits we citizens enjoy.

Certainly that was the practice of The Great Framers. They were the first to enjoy the freedoms gained through their sacrifice and the sacrifices of many others and, in exchange, they returned to their country great service in the House of Representatives, the Senate and as President of the United States.

During the first 150 years of our country’s existence, there was no need to arbitrarily limit the number of terms of office one could serve. They made their livelihood as business owners or farmers and contributed their knowledge and wisdom through service to their country. During that time an incumbent returned for additional terms only 50% of the time.

In the last 50 years, however, the average rate of return of an incumbent to office has risen to over 90%. Can one seriously believe that The Great Framers ever contemplated that a congressional election cycle would bring only 10% new ideas and enthusiasm to face the problems confronting the republic? Do you think James Madison would continue to opine that those re-elected 90% of the time would “possess superior talent”?

Times have changed and so may have the motivation to serve. During the time of The Great Framers those in elected office “had skin in the game”. After all, they had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to make this great experiment in democracy a reality. It is not suggested that those in public office today are less honorable but it is much more pleasant to serve when you are paid a salary three times the average family income, have a retirement plan that is two to three times more generous than that of a similarly salaried executive and, a “Cadillac” heath care plan as well as staff support that is paid for by the taxpayers. Add to that never ending adulation of those many special interests seeking favor and it is easy to see why members of congress seek re-election and, did I mention, seek it successfully 90% of the time.

Perhaps placing term limits in the law is not appropriate. But wanting elected officials to serve our country for the right reason is not only appropriate but proper.
What if a member of congress was paid the same $50,000 per year income as is the average family instead of the $174,000 they do receive?

What if the retirement plan of a member of congress was the average annual Social Security benefit of $25,000 and not the taxpayer supplemented Civil Service Retirement Service average benefit of $60,000?

What if a member of congress were required to provide his own transportation instead of a lease vehicle of his choice paid for by the tax payer?

It is not suggested that members of congress should return to the $6.00 per day they were paid in per diem (and only while they were in session) between 1785 and 1855. But it does appear those in service in the early years of our country may have been motivated by a higher calling. It is clear our founding congress wanted to serve and not be served. Perhaps a reduction in the pay and perk package our congress receives today might create an atmosphere for naturally occurring term limits and return service to the country as the defining criteria for those seeking re-election.

Dennis Barton

Term Limits…an Idea Whose Time Has Come

2010-01-19T20:44:00.000-08:00

We conservatives take great stock in the wisdom of The Great Framers …except when it comes to placing term limits on elected officials. It was assumed by The Great Framers that representatives would be “called from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short period of office” and that the congress would just naturally stay a citizen legislature. After all, the congress didn’t meet very often and then only for a few months during the winter when there really wasn’t commerce going on in what was then an agrarian economy.

The concept of term limits was discussed during the Constitutional Convention and rejected. Instead they opted for the relatively short terms of two years for representatives, four years for the president and six years for senators. That approach was best defended by Convention Member Roger Sherman. His rational was “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election”. I think old Roger got it wrong.

John Adams gave the argument most used by those opposed to term limits by saying, “There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the term limit supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice”.

The theories espoused by The Great Framers were not tested for the first 150 years of the life of this county as turnover of representatives averaged 50%. In the most recent 50 years, however, re-election rates averaged 90% and the theory that the prospect of re-election preserves good behavior has been proven false. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus is credited as saying “the only constant in the universe is change” and much has changed between the life and times of the Great Framers and today’s politicians.

Back in the day it was assumed that “appointment” as it was called, to public office was a venue for public service. Elected office was an opportunity to contribute…to give away a person’s ability and talent so as to improve the lives of those in the community as a whole. Service was a contribution by the elected official for a known period of time and it was understood it would not continue indefinitely. Others with talent and ability and a desire to serve would step forward and new abilities with new ideas would take the place of those who stepped aside.

Fast forward 200 years and “appointment” is vastly different. Oh yes, candidates claim service is their goal and they repeat that mantra so often I am satisfied they believe that. However, it cannot be contested that service is much easier when it is assured that, as an elected official today, you will be well compensated not only in direct salary but in perquisites and benefit packages that rival those whose stated purpose in life is to make profit and live exceedingly well. Those frequent elections The Great Framer Roger Sherman liked not only gave everlasting life to government, but when coupled with no limits as to the number of appointments a person was allowed to serve, grew the government to enormous size. The “good behavior” Sherman was so confident the elected official would follow was not a behavior to ensure the freedoms gained in the struggle against an unhearing despot government. Instead, with the constant of change that comes with the passage of time, the good behavior thought to be promoted by endless terms became defined as the ability to deliver favor to the interest in the electorate that appointed the official. Instead of the protection of freedoms won by sacrifice of others the sole objective of the elected official now appears to be service to special interest so as to gain re-election, which as statistics tell us, is a foregone conclusion over 90% of the time.

Time has changed the election process and the process of election needs to be changed. How to change it may be the topic of a future blog but until then, can placing term limits on elected officials make our government any less responsive?

Dennis Barton

Good News and…No News

2010-01-15T15:37:00.000-08:00

Unless you are a total government junkie you may have missed an event this week that is encouraging for those with conservative values. That event occurred at a meeting of the little known and little followed Leon County Charter Review Committee (CRC). The CRC is a group of 15 citizens named by the Leon County Commission every eight years to look at the county charter (basically, the constitution of the county) and make recommendations for changes to the charter that will go before the Leon County voters in the November 2010 election.

There are number of important functional issues before the CRC (storm water management, functional consolidation, etc.), however, it was a philosophical issue that caught the eye of conservatives and set off strong debate and, ultimately, a vote important to conservatives. After sparing on issues such as (1) the lowering of current threshold of the number of petitioners from 10% of qualified voters to 7% in order to place a change in the charter or an ordinance before the people for a vote; (2) deciding to leave Chair of the County Commission primarily ceremonial, and; (3) leaving the current five commissioners by district and two commissioners at large scheme in place, the CRC took up the issue of partisan elections.

FYI, elections to the city commission, school board and the county commission have been non-partisan, meaning no party affiliation, for some time. Apparently, this has not set well with the local Democrat party leadership and they were in full attack mode to change the county charter to require those running for county commission to run under a political party banner. CRC member and long time Leon County Democrat party leader Jon Ausman, aided by his wife and former school board member Donna Harper, and Ralph Mason, an activist with the FSU College Democrats, argued that partisan elections were a good thing as it added to voter turnout. Chuck Hobbs, a local attorney appointed to the CRC by Commissioner Bill Proctor, said that it was necessary to show party affiliation on the ballot so that voters would know how to vote (I am not making this up). Rick Bateman, another local attorney also appointed to the CRC by Bill Proctor, argued just the opposite…that non-partisan elections were beneficial as they were not divisive and candidates ran on their own views and not those of a faceless political party. The good news was that the uber-liberals were defeated by an eight to six vote of the CRC and there will be no recommendation to change Leon County Commissioner elections to partisan.

The “no news” I mentioned in the blog title was about an issue the CRC did not take up. In fact, the issue is not even on their list of issues and cannot be added without a waiver of rules. That issue is term limits. If you have been around 912ers and others wanting to take back a government that is no longer responsive to the will of the people, then you know that there is wide spread support to place term limits on all elected officials. Yes, there may be differences in the length of the term, or how many terms, but there appears to be unanimity by the caring electorate to not allow elected positions to become owned by incumbents. Although the opportunity to address that important issue may have passed as far as the work of the CRC is concerned, the topic is far from dead. Perhaps, a year from now when the number of petitioners needed to change the charter is reduced to 7% of all qualified voters, those wanting to reduce the power of special interest groups by eliminating incumbency can join together and place a term limit referendum on the ballot.

Dennis Barton

States Rights: Encouraging News...

2010-01-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

Finally, some good news about the ongoing battle with our runaway Congress. Legislation filed in preparation for the 2010 Florida legislative session that begins March 2nd gives hope to conservatives that the Florida legislature “gets it” as far as the direction of our country is concerned.

House Memorial 19, filed by no fewer than 61 members of the Florida House, urges the Congress of the United States to honor the provisions of the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court case law that limits the scope and exercise of federal power. Granted, a Memorial to Congress is but a letter to the President, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the presiding officer or each state legislature and the each member of the Florida delegation to Congress and has no force of law but HM19 says volumes about how many of us really feel.

The “whereas” clauses of HM 19 remind the recipients of the Tenth Amendment to Constitution that powers not delegated to the United States by this provision of the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. Moreover, HM 19 specifically states that the limitation of power set forth by the Tenth Amendment is a foundational principle in that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states and not the reverse as it is today.

The “whereas” clauses go on to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States (1992) that the Congress does not have the authority to commandeer the states’ legislative process by compelling the states to enact and enforce federal regulatory programs.
In the “resolve” portion of HM 19, the Florida Legislature claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution and demands that the federal government, as an agent of the state of Florida, immediately cease and desist issuing mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated powers.

Of the 61 co-sponsors the only representative from the Tallahassee delegation is Representative Marti Coley, R-Mariana. Kudos to her for her grasp of the biggest problem facing our country, that of an out of control Congress To express your appreciation for her understanding go to www.myfloridahouse.org , click on “Representatives” and scroll down to Marti Coley to send her an email.

Dennis Barton

The Truth about "Man-Made" Climate Change

2009-11-23T18:43:00.000-08:00

The Scientific Method

I want to start with the most basic concept of the Scientific Method of Investigation. You can do an online search to see details, so I won’t take your time to review this. But, there are few salient things that need to be highlighted. First, a hypothesis is simply an educated guess regarding the question that was originally proposed. There usually are several hypotheses that attempt to explain the same original question. Far from being a natural law, or proof, or truth, a hypothesis is only a guess, albeit an educated one.

Second, all scientific investigations are subject to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the assumption that the original question, or claim, is NOT true until empirical evidence can demonstrate otherwise. In other words, the null hypothesis places the burden of proof on the claimant, NOT on the skeptics.

Now we are getting to why I feel it necessary to begin with this section. Empirical evidence is a set of data and/or observations that can be given to other scientists and these scientists either verify or disprove the claim through their independent investigations. For example, if I publish that I have successfully created gold out of copper, I will be deluged with requests to reveal the process (my empirical evidence). If others take my empirical study and cannot repeat my results, my study will be declared false. In short, if scientific studies and claims cannot be verified by independent scientists, they have not met the null hypothesis requirement. Anecdotal evidence, e.g., personal observations, is not empirical. Models (computer or otherwise) are not empirical. Statistical correlations are not necessarily empirical. Scientific consensus is not empirical. These are all tools that may lead to a good empirical study, but in themselves, they are not scientific proof.

If nothing else, a solid scientific empirical study can be verified by other scientists AND is predictive.

General Climate Concepts

A basic knowledge of our atmosphere is necessary to proceed. Our atmosphere consists mostly Nitrogen (78.08%), Oxygen (20.95%), Argon (0.93%), and water vapor (up to 4%), with many other gases measured in parts per million (ppm). 1 ppm = 1/10,000 of a percent
Confused?? That adds up to more than 100%. The reason is that water vapor is variable – dependent on temperature. Since measurements have started, water vapor is safely in the 3rd most abundant position.

The Earth’s atmospheric composition has been changing since its origin. Although these changes are well-documented, the cause(s) for the changes are still speculation.

Climate Changes

Weather is what’s happening now: temperature, humidity, pressure, etc. Climate is the Earth’s “average” weather over a longer period of time. Empirical records show the Earth’s climate changes on a regular, although not predictable, basis. The last really big change was the Pleistocene Glacial Ice Age. This cold period began about 2 million years ago and ended around 14,000 years ago. The overwhelming empirical evidence shows that the Earth has been steadily warming for 14,000 years, with the notable exception of a couple of cooling periods (1150-1460 and 1645-1715).

Greenhouse Effect

Without certain heat-retaining gases in the atmosphere, our average global temperature would be below freezing and all surface water (streams, lakes, oceans) would be frozen. These gases are collectively known as Greenhouse Gases (GHG). These gases absorb some of the infrared (heat) radiation that comes from the Earth. An important distinction here is that the radiation coming in from our Sun (mostly visible & ultraviolet) is shorter wavelength than the radiation from the Earth, which is longer wavelength. The Sun’s short wavelengths can travel relatively unimpeded through our atmospheric gases (although they can be reflected & refracted) and about 50% is absorbed by the Earth. The longer infrared radiation from the Earth, however, cannot travel back into space without significant amounts being absorbed by the very same gases that allow “transparency” to the Solar incoming radiation.

Let me try to relate this to an everyday event: the best analogy I’ve found is your car. On a cold, sunny day you leave your car in a lot with the windows rolled up. You return in a few hours to find the interior of your car is 20 degrees, or more, warmer than the outside (ambient) temperature. This is the Greenhouse effect. The windows act like our atmosphere. Radiation from the Sun is allowed through, is absorbed by the car’s interior. The interior begins releasing this energy as infrared (heat) radiation. The windows will not let this longer radiation escape and the car warms up.

The chief gases we’re talking about are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. Water vapor is far-and-away the most important, supplying somewhere between 90-98% of all our warming (depending on the study you chose). Carbon dioxide is a distant second in absorbing heat radiation. Remember the atmosphere’s composition?? Water Vapor = 3%, CO2 = 0.0350% (350ppm sounds bigger, doesn’t it?). To be consistent, we’d have to report water vapor as 30,000ppm. Even though there is almost 100 times more water vapor than CO2, there’s more! Molecule for molecule, water vapor absorbs MORE energy than CO2. Hopefully you are beginning to ask yourself, “Why is all the media discussion regarding Global Warming or Climate Change focusing on CO2 when it is a relatively insignificant GHG compared to water vapor?”

The Current Controversy – I hope you’re still with me!!!

The infamous “hockey stick” graph that came out in 1999, shows a sudden increase in temperature that coincides with the Industrial age. This change looks dramatic when considering only the last 1000 years. But remember the notable cooling periods I discussed above? We were coming out of that cooling, which amplifies warming trends. If you look at the climate records over the last 14,000 years (since warming recently began) there’s no significant departure from the trend. Although the data used for this graph is highly suspect, let’s assume that it’s accurate for now – a 0.6 degree increase in the last 100 years.

Around 1958, scientists at Mauna Loa, HI, began measuring CO2 levels. They have documented a rise in atmospheric CO2 since they started: 0.0315ppm (1958) to 0.0385ppm (2010).

Now you are ready for exposing the BIG scam!!! The temperature is rising (empirical), the CO2 levels are rising (empirical), CO2 is a GHG (empirical), humans produce CO2 (empirical), THEREFORE, humans are responsible for rising temperatures (NO empirical evidence). Every semester I offer my students generous bonuses if they can find JUST ONE empirical study that links humans to global climate change. Popularly known as an anthropogenic cause, they find none…zip, zero, nada! This simple fact precludes ALL arguments that follow!! Polar bears dying, Ice Caps melting, sea levels rising, deserts increasing, etc., etc., etc. (for a hilarious listing go to: http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/global_warming.html). All of these may or may not be happening, but the FACT is, there is NO evidence that will support a human cause.

The next time someone brings up Global Warming, Climate Change, or Cap & Trade, just ask them to point you in the direction of the scientific empirical evidence that supports a human cause. That ends any conversation on the topic. You don’t have to argue the statistics, the facts on the carbon cycle, the accuracy of temperature measurements, the methods of measuring ice pack, whether water vapor should be included, etc. You simply have to ask for the evidence that all these other questions are founded on. Where’s the study??? The house of cards collapses with that revelation.

And always remember, the null hypothesis places the burden of proof on them, NOT on you.

Dr. Rich Miller

The End of Political Correctness: Part I

2009-11-13T07:09:00.000-08:00

On November 5th Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39 year old U.S Army psychiatrist whose job was to listen to the often painful and traumatic stories of his postwar comrades, opened fire on them in the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood Army Base killing 13 and injuring another 30.

In the wake of the killings at Fort Hood President Obama gave remarks cautioning Americans and media outlets “against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” But interestingly enough the ever transparent and always politically correct mainstream media rose to the occasion and did the exact opposite.

Within mere hours the fire-ready-aim mainstream media starting with the New York Times printed the following headline: “Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment,” as if to justify the cold blooded killing of 13 innocent people.

And then there was the Washington Post characterizing the murders with the following logic: “Fort Hood has felt the strain of repeated deployments.” Again, the mainstream media, harping on the message of government war policy and not the accused gunman.

This is completely irresponsible journalism to say the least and is demoralizing to the U.S armed forces. Without “all the facts” the media rushed to characterize Major Hasan as a “crazy” man suffering from “post traumatic stress syndrome” who had just “snapped.”

Now that the facts that President Obama asked us all to wait for have been well researched, we can unequivocally confirm that Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a murdering Jihadist.

Major Hasan did not snap and it would have been impossible for him to be suffering from post traumatic stress syndrom because he had never been on the battlefield. But still, the afermentioned was certainly a lot easier for the media to report.

Calling Hasan a ‘nut’ saved the mainstream media from having to use the politically incorrect term ‘Islamic terrorist,’ even though Hasan had been in contact with Al-Qaeda (a Islamic fundamentalist terror group), had presented a pointed and clear articulation of his jihadist beliefs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/major-muslim-hasan-presentation-on-islam.html) and shouted "Allahu Akbar" ( a phrase commonly used by suicide bombers before they blow themselves up) before firing.

Sooner or later the mainstream media in this country will realize that political correctness is a double-edged sword that ends up doing more harm than good. The American people are far more fair-minded and smarter than the media give them credit for being.

The world is changing but the truth, as painful as it may be to hear, will always set you free.

Jerome Hudson

A Broken Promise Here a Broken Promise There: Abortion and Healthcare

2009-10-31T06:25:00.000-07:00

On September 9th in a speech to a joint session of Congress President Obama said that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” but language in the House version of the healthcare bill released earlier Wednesday suggests the exact opposite of what the President said.

The new House version of the healthcare reform bill would “open new avenues and create new policy mandates for tax funded abortion, said Congressmen Burt Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan.

Rep. Stupak is 1 of 42 prolife House Democrats fighting to bring an amendment to the floor of the House that would apply to the “Hyde language to health care, which is consistent with long-standing public policy for over 30 years that no federal funding should be used for abortion,” reports CNSNews.com.

And as Prolife Democrats on Capitol Hill fight for the rights of the unborn, the heavily funded pro-democrat group NARAL is fighting to derail their efforts.

NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) President Nancy Keenan reportedly told pro-abortion activists; “We expected this from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the Family Research Council, and the American Life League," whom are all prolife advocates.

If the language in the new House version of healthcare reform goes unchecked the billion dollar abortion industry in American could see endless financial gains in the future.
The average American citizen needs to be armed with the facts about this insidious act of legal killing.

The following are just five largely unknown facts about abortion in America, which can be found at BlackGenocide.org:

The U.S. Center for Disease Control has found that since 1973 13 million African American babies have been killed at the hands of abortion. That number greatly exceeds AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.
Planned Parenthood with 850 clinics is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics (663) are in minority communities.
1,784 African America babies are killed daily by abortion in America.
Black women constitute only about 13% of the U.S. population (ages15-44) but they account for 36% of abortion in America.

The time has long since passed for communities of all races, faiths and political beliefs to stand up and fight for the lives of the unborn in America. This is literally a moral war of life and death and this healthcare bill is just the newest battleground.

Jerome Hudson

Candidates Need Love Too!

2009-10-22T15:36:00.000-07:00

Ok, now that I have your attention…no, you haven’t accidentally landed on a Bill Clinton campaign site ;). I just thought that with the 2010 elections looming on the horizon, it might be a good idea to look at things we can do to ensure we hire the folks we really want working for us.

As we all know, the interview is the hardest part of any hiring process and unfortunately we can’t just call the candidates in for a little chat, so we just have to rely on good old fashioned homework. Read campaign literature, check out “report cards” from advocacy groups, watch debates, attend a “meet and greet” and ask questions about issues near and dear to your heart. Remember, you aren’t just looking for the “right” answer; you are also looking for demeanor, honesty and other character traits important to you.

Once you decide which candidate best represents your values, there are tons of things you can do to increase the chances of them getting elected…and you don’t have to be a Hollywood star! The following are just a few things the average citizen can do:

Spread the word about your candidate and his or her position on issues…

Talk to friends
E-mail your contact list
Walk your neighborhood
Invite friends to join you at speaking engagements

Promote the name recognition of your candidate…

Bumper stickers
Yard signs
Run errands in a campaign t-shirt
Letters to the editor
Call in to radio talk shows
Volunteer to wave signs on street corners

Fundraising…

Host a “meet and greet” for a few friends and neighbors to meet the candidate
Put out a “donation” bowl and let guests know that donations are needed and appreciated (it is best if the candidate talks about issues, not money)
Put out a tray of envelopes, addressed to the candidate, for folks to mail in donations
Make sure everyone knows that no donation is too small
Encourage small donations given regularly throughout the campaign…they add up!
Encourage all donations be given directly to the candidate…not a party or middleman.

As Election Day nears…

Register to be a Poll Watcher…keeps ‘em honest!
Make voter reminder calls
Offer rides to the polls
Offer other assistance…baby sitting or grandpa sitting, so folks can go to the polls
Wave signs on street corners

Whatever best fits your time, energy level and personality…just remember, everyone can do something. So choose your weapon…and fight for the candidate of your choice!

Connie Campbell

Nobel No Longer Noble

2009-10-09T13:22:00.000-07:00

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of five Nobel Prizes bequeathed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I woke up this morning to the news that Barak Hussein Obama has been honored with one of the most prestigious awards the world has to offer. I should have been ecstatic…proud of my president and my country. Instead I felt offended and frightened.

Offended because the nomination had to be made less than 3 weeks into Mr. Obama’s presidency…hardly enough time to demolish standing armies, establish world peace or wrap up a single decent international peace congress. No, Mr. Obama did not earn or deserve this recognition, it was very simply, “wishful rewarding”. This is not the first time the Nobel Committee has taken a “stick” to American Presidents who put the safety and dignity of America first and offered a “carrot” to Presidents who apologize and do the bidding of those in the world who are jealous of our accomplishments and freedoms. After all, is it really a coincidence that the only other two sitting American Presidents to receive the Peace Price are President Theodore Roosevelt (won in 1906) and President Woodrow Wilson (awarded the prize in 1919). A veritable Parade of Progressivism.

I’m frightened because it reveals the depth and breadth of the fight lovers of freedom have ahead of them. This is not merely a domestic political fight. We fight against “powers and principalities” that want nothing more than to destroy everything we hold dear and will use any means to accomplish it. After all, how better to put the American populace back to sleep and ensure we become a socialized, third-rate nation than to “honor” the very actions that are taking us to that desolate place.

But emotions like fear and offense can be good only as long as they don’t interfere with your ability to think and discern. Let them make you vigilant, more aware, less likely to be fooled by the wolves in sheep’s clothing…like the Nobel Peace Prize Committee using it as a weapon, instead of honoring those who have truly risked all for peace and freedom.

Connie Campbell

It’s Never Too Late…Grassroots Activism for (Mature) Beginners

2009-10-07T18:41:00.000-07:00

If you are anything like me, you actually went to class during the sixties and never imagined ever becoming an “activist”. That was a term reserved for wild eyed, wild haired and badly dressed young people taking to the streets to protest anything considered part of the “establishment”, right? Well, not exactly…if you don’t like what’s happening in our country and you are willing to take action to stop it…you, my friend, are an ACTIVIST!

Webster’s has the best definition of activism I’ve read: The doctrine or policy of taking positive, direct action to achieve an end, esp. a political or social end. Isn’t that great? It doesn’t say you have to have a Face Book page, a Political Action Committee or be able to run The New York Marathon to become an agent of change in America. No matter your age, physical condition or computer savvy, you can take positive and direct action to achieve the return of our country to its founding principles and values. And the following is just a few ways how you can get started:

1. Identify what you are passionate about.

What subject gets your blood boiling or makes you yell at the T.V.? Is it the economy, socialized medicine, right to life? Whatever it is, if it raises your blood pressure, this is probably the area where you want to devote most of your energy.

2. Make your passionate views known to folks that can do something about it.

Call or write members of congress, but be courteous, professional and keep it short. Make your most important point in the first few seconds of a call and in the first line of your letter. No matter how eloquent you may be, study after study shows that people stop paying attention quickly and your first statement has the most impact. If you need to vent, do it respectfully and do it AFTER you have made your most important statement. To finish strongly, you can restate your beginning point at the very end (for those readers who tend to “skim” letters).
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate

Attend as many city/county commission meetings, school board meetings, Town Halls, Tea Parties, rallies, candidate forums, fund raising or anyplace you can be seen or heard.

3. Work the local media by writing letters to the editor of your local newspapers and call into local radio talk shows.

Follow the same rules as for writing or calling members of congress…courteous, professional and keep to the point. Also, don’t apologize or put yourself down in any way, for example: “I’m just a housewife” or “I don’t know a lot about politics”…you are the expert about your passion and position on it! If writing to newspapers, don’t write more than once a week. If you blanket them with letters, you lessen your chances of being taken seriously and being published.

4. If you are already computer literate or can commit some time to learning the basics, on-line activism is cheap, effective and can be done in your pajamas (a BIG plus for me!).

Create an e-mail list and share articles, information and vote alerts with friends and family. Join and participate in chat rooms or forums. You can start your own web-site or blog to share your views, opinions and the fruits of your research.

But no matter what route you choose or what method of activism you are most comfortable with, the following information is critical to your success. Ignore it at your peril!!!

Writing Tactics:

Proof read or ask someone else to proof read your letters for correct spelling and grammar. You want to put your best foot forward.

Use straight forward, easily read language and avoid “10 dollar” words or legalese.
Always check your sources of information to make sure the facts are correct.
Never exaggerate or misrepresent facts…what seems harmless to you will give the opposition a chance to brand you a “liar” and disregard everything you say.
Finish with a firm statement and display confidence.
Never use language or a disrespectful tone that will reflect badly on your cause.

Speaking/Debate Tactics

Display confidence and know that you have a right to be there and speak.
Make your most important statement first…you may only have seconds to make your point.
Verify your sources of information to make sure all facts and quotes are accurate.
Never state facts, unless you can cite a credible source for the information.
Just like in writing, never exaggerate or misrepresent facts…a small misstatement will give the opposition ammunition to use against you.
Never start or enter a debate without knowledge of the issue.
Never retreat when you know you are right or allow the opposition to draw you off topic.
Pace yourself, be patient but consistent and firm.
Never underestimate the power of a lie or “talking points” and don't let them go unanswered because you assume people won't believe it.
Finish with a firm and confident statement, restating your main point.

Demeanor

Never act, talk or conduct yourself in a manner that diminishes or brings disrespect to your cause.
The opposition may result to “sleazy” tactics like personal attacks or trying to make you angry…don’t fall for it. Stay cool and on topic.

And one final word for all you new “activists” out there…volunteer time or donate a few dollars to organizations or groups who share your passion and views. There really is strength in numbers. It’s like those mighty ropes used on ships and swinging bridges…think about it…one little string, that can be easily snapped, is joined together with enough strings just like it to become unbreakable!

Connie Campbell

Healthcare - Is it a right?

2009-10-04T05:57:00.000-07:00

Property rights are so important because they represent pieces of an individual's life - we use a certain amount of our life to acquire possessions, be it a few hours of work, months, or even years. Stealing possessions (or labor) from an individual is akin to stealing a part of their life, which is finite. This is why taxation should always be seen as a necessary evil and a sacrosanct power that is respected by those in government. Claiming the opposite - that paying taxes is a "patriotic duty" - must be understood as using our beloved American flag as a cloak for theft and looting. Paying taxes beyond essential functions of government is not a way to solve problems or cure inequities. It is a way to enslave some to benefit others. When you allow government to enforce things that are not rights (such as a "right" to health insurance), it ends up abridging essential rights. I cannot give individuals a right to health insurance without curtailing another individual's right to their property.

Within Health Care and any other field, services are provided by skilled individuals who have used the finite resources of their life and effort to acquire the skills they possess. They consumed the resources of their time to be able to provide that service. In that sense, they are not rights, because you do not have a right to another person's labor or services. Everyone recognizes the exception of life-saving procedures. While a doctor could technically choose not to provide the service (and go to prison), we agree as a society that he should help. Besides, I've never seen a single physician who wouldn't perform a service for someone if it meant their life. However, this does not exempt you from adequately compensating the provider of that service for their labor. It was not free for them to learn their skills nor to acquire the technology to provide it. Therefore, they should be free to compete on a market and set prices as they see fit.

Someone will argue "If someone was hit by a car and wakes up in a hospital with a $30,000 or more debt while they were between insurance policies, should they be bankrupted as a result?" They do have to pay for the services rendered; they can sue the individual who struck them since the liability rests upon the driver instead of them personally, but let's say that there were no witnesses and the driver is never found. The individual who was struck is still responsible for the service provided. The physicians and nurses who assisted in saving the victim's life should not have to perform free services (unless they voluntarily choose to do so). Any other answer implies that a third party is responsible for an event which had nothing to do with them. Is it more reasonable to leave the responsibility with the victim or to displace it upon other individuals involuntarily? We are responsible in some sense for everything that happens to us, regardless whether we were at fault or not. Any other mode of thinking allows us to force other individuals to pay for things in our life that have nothing to do with that person. You (in Tallahassee) might as well ask someone who lives thousands of miles away from you (in Alaska) to pay your dentist bills.

The list goes on; unless someone agrees to do so voluntarily, I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my speeding tickets, health care bills, groceries, or even for my internet. I do not mean voluntarily as through an elected representative - I mean a direct, voluntarily, contractual agreement made between two individuals. Our elected officials do not have the right to represent us in every single capacity - they have a narrow scope of areas in which they are employed to represent us (hence the need for city charters, state constitutions, and a US Constitution - to limit and enumerate the specific powers of government). If that is not true, they might as well be called dictators instead of assuming the honorable title of public servant, because it stands to reason that they could simply assume the power to prevent elections and redistribute wealth to their voting blocs because it is "in the best interest." Only economic and civil freedom is equally in the best interest of all. Any other system ends up being in the best interest of one group against another.

Isaac Miller

Reality Check

2009-10-01T18:33:00.000-07:00

Wow. the past few months have been a whirlwind of tea parties, rallies and town hall meetings…topped off with that wonderful and historic march on D.C.! It sure put a dent in my savings, but it was worth it.

Thomas Nelson Jr., patriot and gentleman of Virginia, used his personal credit to raise $2 million for the patriots' cause. He was never reimbursed by the fledgling nation and accepted financial ruin by personally repaying the loans. During the battle of Yorktown, his house was seized by the British and occupied by General Cornwallis. Seeing this, Nelson unflinchingly urged the gunners to fire on his last asset, his home. He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.

I got back from Washington feeling exhilarated, empowered and just a teensy bit virtuous. After all, it wasn’t easy getting all this stuff organized.

Richard Stockton, New Jersey Supreme Court Judge and patriot, was betrayed to the British by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. As further punishment, his lands were devastated, his horses stolen and his library burned. His imprisonment left him so broken and ill, that he only lived a few years after his release and his family was forced to live on charity.

Eighteen hours on a bus to D.C. was a real pain in the butt…literally! But, although I’m still nursing some sore spots, it was a lot of fun.

Patriot Francis Lewis’ home was pillaged and his property destroyed during the British assault on New York. Alone and helpless, his wife was captured and imprisoned. She died soon after her release due to the harshness of her treatment in prison and Lewis spent the remainder of his days in poverty.

You know…one thing I’ve found out…being a patriot is a lot of work!

And then there was John Hart, patriot and Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly. He was forced to flee from his dying wife's bedside in the deep winter of 1776. He was 65 years old. While he hid in forests and caves, the British laid waste to his home, fields and mill and his 13 children were forced to flee for their lives. He finally returned to find his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.

Did the contrast throw you? It certainly did me! As I was writing an e-mail to a friend about my trip to D.C. it dawned on me that I was subtly complaining about the work, the discomfort and my “sacrifices” for patriotism. I guiltily decided to do some research on those guys that signed that little piece of parchment declaring our independence…talk about a reality check! I was inconvenienced…they sacrificed.

I admit my first reaction was fear and doubt that people like me could do what they did, but now I understand that they were people like me. Just people who envisioned something better than what they saw around them and, in spite of fears and doubts, did what needed to be done. I sincerely pray we never have to pay the price our forebearers paid when they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to a dream of liberty. But we newborn patriots have lived the dream and, although we have yet to be truly tested, I know we have the will and courage to preserve it. Let us be grateful for the opportunity and remember the debt owed to those who set the example.

I see America, not in the setting sun of a black night of despair ahead of us, I see America in the crimson light of a rising sun fresh from the burning, creative hand of God. I see great days ahead, great days possible to men and women of will and vision.
Carl Sandburg US biographer & poet (1878 - 1967)

Connie Campbell

Silent Majority, No More

2009-09-27T06:05:00.000-07:00

I am back from my first trip to Washington D.C, to protest everything going on in Washington over the last year, and more importantly, over the last 100 years. It was one of the most memorable things I’ve ever done, and I think I will be telling my grandchildren about it a long time from now. I remember being very nervous on the bus, on the way there. The group I was with had a reporter from the Wall Street Journal on the bus with us. Among the many questions he asked us, was “What will make the march a success, and what will make it a failure?” Of all the answers I overheard, most everyone was concerned with numbers. Most said that if 50,000 to 100,000 showed up, they would consider it a success, and almost everyone agreed that any violence would be considered a failure. Needless to say, we were all pleasantly surprised.

Some of us decided to walk to Freedom Plaza, the place where the march was to begin. I remember being nervous, walking with our signs and the Gadsden Flag; we had all heard that there would be opposition there. As we rounded each street corner, I saw more and more people finding their own way there. The crowds grew larger and larger, until we reached freedom plaza, and that’s when any fear of a low turnout, or the thought of any real opposition melted away. There was a sea of people there.

We waited for the time to march, but the crowds grew too large and the police told us to march, because we grown to maximum capacity. As we marched, I actually thought about where I was the day before. I went to two places that reaffirmed why I had the right and obligation to speak out against my government, or anyone for that matter that wants to limit freedom. I went to the Holocaust Memorial, and to Arlington National Cemetery. If you ever get the chance to go to the either place, I beg you to go; I think it will change your life.

As I walked through Arlington, I couldn’t believe all the tombstones. I’ve seen pictures and movies, but there is no comparison. One thing ran through my mind while we walked among the remains of so many that had given their lives for my freedom: “Did they really die, just so I could vote every 4 years or was it for something more?” As we stood in front of the Capitol the next day, a veteran was standing in front of us and we thanked him for his service, and he looked at us and said “No thank you, for being here”.

The Holocaust Museum taught me the dangers of remaining silent too long. Many of us have used the word Socialist, Communist, or some other descriptive term to describe the underlying beliefs and ideologies, of the President, his advisors, and some in Congress. Many of us know that the use of those terms are serious and we do not use them lightly or limit them to any certain race or ethnic background, but some in this country would have people believe that we are racists or political partisans for doing so. My walk through the Holocaust Museum made my resolve to speak out against anyone, who degrades life and liberty of the individual in order to further “the collective”, that much more stronger.

Someone may read this and say I’m comparing our current leaders to Adolf Hitler, but that’s not my intention at all. What I am saying is that the whole world promised, long ago, “Never again.” Never again would we let someone turn a demented “progressive” idea, into a systematic program of genocide. I could give you countless examples of recent statements and news stories I’ve heard, and compare them to what happened in Germany in the 1930’s (a decade before WWII), and you would swear we may be seeing history begin to repeat itself. There was a quote in the Museum that said it best:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-because I am not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I am not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I am not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me”

We must not let anyone even utter ideas that sound eerily similar to those things done in Germany 70 years ago. The days of the “Silent Majority” are no more.

Jason Wilder

The Torch Has Been Passed

2009-09-16T18:13:00.000-07:00

If you had told me 18 moths ago that on September 12, 2009 I would be joining hundreds of thousand of protestors on the lawn of The Capitol in Washington, D.C., my response would have been one of disbelief. I’m not the protesting type. I don’t like to rock the boat. At least I wasn’t, and I didn’t. I am no longer the person I was 18 months ago.

So there I found myself, on the lawn of our nation’s capitol, along with countless fellow patriots standing together out of genuine concern for the freedoms we once took for granted. Not long ago, we realized we could no longer be the silent majority who held to their word and their honor and left others alone to do the same.

The hundreds, if not thousands of Gadsden flags flying among the crowd best illustrated the tenor of the rally. Just as the rattlesnake gives warning before striking, we were issuing a warning of our own: “Don’t tread on me!”

Though the atmosphere was intense, not once did the sentiment waver from that of a peaceful demonstration, which was quite impressive given the size of the crowd. While the mainstream media, FOX News included, again and again reported “tens of thousands”, D.C. police at the event were quoted as estimating more than 1 million.

Over a million Americans assembled in Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2009. While not shocked, I was a bit surprised. I remember thinking that there was no way this could be ignored, or even downplayed. I couldn’t wait to see how it would be reported. Or could I?

After returning to the hotel and turning on the TV, I quickly realized it was happening again. Just as previous tea parties had been overlooked, this too would not garner the attention it deserved. Those media outlets, which did report on our massive uprising, did so poorly. Others simply mentioned it and moved on, if the acknowledged it at all.

My initial reaction was at first one of outrage, which quickly turned to an attitude of apathy. After all, did I really expect the mainstream media to suddenly change course and report honestly on our movement? Then it hit me. It didn’t matter. The media’s role as our “fourth branch of government” has long been dead. They continue to drive nail after nail in their own coffin. I, for one, think it’s time we buried them.

This is our movement and we must move forward. If the 912 March on D.C. proved anything, it’s that we certainly don’t need the media to do our bidding. Across our great country, communities organized without a “community organizer”. They came to D.C. because they knew they could count on fellow Americans to do the same. It would be our rallying point to gather our forces and muster our strength, encourage and embrace each other, and that we did.

When thanking veterans of American wars for their service, they thanked us for ours. They told us they were proud of us and that “the founding fathers would be smiling”. At first, such statements seemed a little exaggerated. After all, these men have been wounded, witnessed the death of brothers and friends. To compare a peaceful demonstration to, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a “cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion” didn’t seem prudent.

But these expressions of gratitude by soldiers deserving the utmost respect led me to revelation. What we witnessed on 9.12.09, whether in D.C. or any other city across our great nation, was yet another example of Americans, from sea to shining sea, of every age and background, rising, uniting to defend those unalienable rights endowed by our Creator: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Perhaps this time, the battle takes on a different appearance, the lines are drawn in different sand, and the soldiers arm themselves with knowledge rather than guns. Make no mistake, this battle; our battle is one in the same war our founders fought.

The torch of freedom has been passed to us. We must ensure that the flame burns eternal.

Matt Johnson

Why I’m Going to Washington D.C. by Jason Wilder

2009-09-07T16:17:00.000-07:00

I have been racking my brain for the last week trying to put into words why I’m going to Washington D.C. There are so many reasons why; that if I typed them all out, and gave all the many instances and references to each issue I’m concerned about, it would probably be the start of a pretty good book. All of these things have brought me to one conclusion, I will not sit by anymore and be silent.

This past year the leaders of my country have done things that have made me question their intelligence, their motives, and more importantly their sanity. I say that with all the respect I can muster, but whether it’s passing 1,000 plus page bills in the dead of night, trying to silence people exercising their first amendment rights, seeking the advice of self-avowed communists and mad scientists, and praising dictators and thugs like of Castro and Chavez, I don’t understand what they’re doing.

I’ve been very confused, angry, and mostly worn down, these last few months. I have tried to understand how and why the leaders of my country are doing this. I’ve written countless e-mails to my representatives, only to get the same old form letter responses back. I’ve listened to a lot of people try to explain how this all started. I continue to study and read as much as I can, because I know learning your past is supposed to better your future. I see the tyranny we came from, and see the tyranny we’re heading to, and can’t understand why a group of people who claim to be “Progressive” are actually “Regressive” when it comes to what type of government they are trying to lead us to!

I look at my children, sometimes with just a quick glance, or sometimes I just sit and watch them sleep or play, and almost break down crying because I know that their future is, at best, uncertain or, at worst, most certainly ruined. I’ve talked to all of my friends who feel the same way, but find only a small few that actually want to discuss it. I don’t know if they don’t care to know, or don’t know to care. I think most are scared to even think about it. I have found that some are willing to talk about the depths that our country has fallen, and some that are not, but what I find in both cases is that not one person I have talked to, thinks that this current administration and all the legislators in Washington D.C. have any of our interests at heart.

I am a person who believes in a God, and that he listens to me. I have prayed to Him for some answers, some action, or some word of what He would have me do. I believe, without a doubt, that the answer to my prayers is to not only be in Washington D.C. on September 12th, but to continually question what is going on right now in my country. It is not only my right, but by God, it is my obligation and responsibility as a citizen of this country!

912 - The Movement

2009-09-02T18:43:00.000-07:00

The whole idea behind the 912 Project is to bring all Americans together based on the core principles and values that most of us believe in. It is not a partisan movement; in fact in a lot of ways it is an anti-partisan movement. It is a rebirth of what our forefathers started. It is a reawakening of the American people to the fact that this country is and must be governed by the people. The everyday people. The real people. Not the elitists who sit up in Washington, as far removed from everyday people as the actors in Hollywood. Not certain Republicans and Democrats whose every move seems to ooze of power grabbing. Not career politicians who have been in office so long that even the best intentioned of them have been infected with the disease called Bureaucracy.

The 912 Project's mission is to empower those who have been disenfranchised for so long: the American people. Knowledge is power. Knowledge is the beginning of a movement that is starting from the ground up and will engulf the very top. A bloodless revolution that will bring this country back in to the proper hands; the hands of the people, as our forefathers intended, nay expected.

For those of you who feel that knowledge sharing is a waste of time, I'm sorry but the 912 Project is not for you. For those of you who only want to promote your own or your party's agenda, the 912 Project also is not for you. We must reach out to the many of Americans who are not paying attention, either from apathy or disgust with the political parties. We must wake these people up and get them involved. I encourage all citizens to back any candidate they find that shares their beliefs and values; but only because they share these beliefs and values, not because they belong to a particular political party.

We will not always agree on every detail as we make this journey. Debate is a good thing. That is what this country is founded on. But divisive rhetoric and ridicule do us no good. Those are cheap political tricks used when an argument is lost. We are ultimately on the same side and we have truth and rightness on our side; our argument will ultimately win on its own merit.
George Washington warned us about political parties, but those who derive their power and influence from partisan politics won't go away easily. They have had a big chunk of the kingdom for a long time, and will not want to give it back. We the people must take it back. The 912 Project is not a group per se; we're a movement. A movement to rid our government of the special interests and dirty politicians who care little about the people they represent. We're here to find the next George Washingtons: selfless leaders who lead begrudgingly not because they love power or fame or money, but because the Republic needs them.

We're here to fight for real change we can believe in.