American politics from the beginning has been a series of alliances of peoples who agree on more issues than they disagree; or they have a common enemy (like King George). In colonial times there were differing views of what a new country should look like. Some wanted absolute Democracy, others wanted a Democratic Republic. The founders of our nation asked for, and received divine wisdom in developing the Constitution that gave the new nation a Democratic Republic.

Freedom v. Liberty

Again, the difference between the more rural colonials and the urban colonials was their perceptions of freedom. The urbanites saw autonomy more as relief from fiscal oppression, the rural colonials saw the need for a lack of interference by the crown in their daily lives. Both agreed the other had viable concerns worth fighting for- still each had their own motivation for their dedication to independence. Our understanding is the urbanites who wanted less fiscal interference commonly used the term “Freedom” while those focused on privacy were more inclined to use the term “Liberty”. American history logs turmoil between the two perceptions: slavery, suffrage, equality in the law; yet the two factions have held the common bond of patriotism- with the exception of the Civil War which was fought over State Rights (not slavery).

The idea that America is the city shining on a hill to the masses of the world has been the common bond that provides the nation its strength. The Euro-minded call this arrogance; and yet these same anti-patriots are the first to assert their rights when challenged. Literally hiding behind the very principles they seek to dismantle or make exclusionary to their cause. The term that comes to mind for this paradigm is “resentful-dependence” and reminds us of the wayward adolescent that hates the parent that provides their every need. In short- the paradigm wreaks of “spoiled brat”. The practice is destryoing America’s foundation as she struggles to stand proud.

Patriotism, the idea that America may not be perfect, but it’s the best form of government there is has always drawn the two factions together. Those who embrace freedom, and those who enjoy liberty agree: America is worth defending. The two perceptions are the opposite sides of the same coin.

Today these two factions have a common enemy: the Marxism of the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party. With their practices of racism, bigotry, the open symbiotic relationship with Marxist, the refusal to protect Americans, the American border, and the assault on the economy that’s lead to a text-book Depression: all important issues to rally around. All original issues that forced loyal subjects of the Crown to fight for their Independence from it.

The answer is to return to a place where we acknowledge that fellow-conservatives have valid concerns- and that saving our nations fiscal and national security are the issues at hand. If we want our children and grandchildren to have the same freedoms we’ve enjoyed; if we want them to inherit a nation that’s the envy of the world: then the answer is to pull together as Americans to fight this enemy-domestic.

In 1776 the enemy was a king who wanted to force servanthood on a people who had, by necessity; become proud, self-sufficient and adamant. Today, those same qualities demand that the fight be fought against those who are only proud of their country when they get what they want- when they intentionally harm what has made it great. The reader must ask himself if he’s willing to let someone else fight for them or if they are willing to sacrifice their time and comfort to preserve this country while it still looks like America instead of Europe.

Let’s shake on it. . .

{ 0 comments }

I ws recently asked to speak to some young fathers from our church, and give them some practical insight. The following is the outline. Understand this is talking ‘man to man’ so I will use verbiage that may sound sexist, but it isn’t meant to be; it’s meant to galvanize these young men to become more pro-active in the raising of their children:
I hope you find this interesting:

Children get their perception of God from their perception of their Dads.

(notice I said “Dad”. Equate this with Abba Father)

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5

Start with an approach- if you don’t have one: develop one. Not stringent rules, but a philosophy to guide you through the unexpected moments.

I. Understand your Role.

a. Protector

i. Head Lion in the Pride

ii. Keeper of the Gate (I literally stand between the world and my family and say “you will not instill your corruption here.).

b. Teacher

i. My job is to prepare them for life. I’m constantly assessing where they are and what’s next in their lives. (raise toddlers to be good children, raise children to be good tweens, raise (endure) tweens to be good teens, and good teens to be good adults.

ii. Let them make decisions for themselves, guide them through the process and let them make mistakes. Remember God lets you do the same. Let them pick their clothes, their hair style, etc. Caviate: “I always reserve the right to say “no”. I wouldn’t let my kids wear goth apparel because it denotes a negative self-perception. I will let them wear the latest styles as long as they don’t depict something negative in their hearts. Illustrate: Pilgrim shoes! (In the mid-nineties, the kids wre wearing boxey looking shoes. They looked to me like Pilgrim shoes minus the big buckle on top. They were the awfullest styled shoes I’d ever seen. But the other kids liked them, they were the style, so I let the girls buy them. I told them “Just don’t ask me what I think of them, I think they’re ugly”.)

iii. When I give them instruction, I explain why I’ve come to the conclusion I did. Bible Principles are the key. This helps me grow because I have to determine what is a Bible or practical fact, versus a pharisaical tradition.

iv. Clear expectations

c. Provider

i. help them understand they will not go without the things they need.

ii. Always frame your “providing” from the perspective that “I love you” and WANT to take care of you (versus I have to).

d. Illuminator

i. teach them about the world around them, (talk about the birds, take them for walks in the rain, visit places of interest. . .)

ii. teach them to be what you want them to be: good Christians

iii. give them perspective, something to reference from

iv. If you don’t have consistent family devotions, find teachable moments. Practice: “you’re my son, and you’ve always known my mind”.

v. Teach them to be grateful. If they’re gratefull, everything else will fall into place.

e. Priest (spiritual leader)

i. Build a personal relationship between you and Jesus. As you learn how gracious and loving He is to you, illustrate that grace/love to your children. At our house, if you come admit to me you did something wrong, you don’t get punished. . .

ii. My job is to prepare them for life. I’m constantly assessing where they are and what’s next in their lives.

iii. SHOW them how to serve God

iv. BE Easy! Guide them, don’t force things down their throats! The Lord is My Shepherd, not my cowboy! Shepherds lead, cowboys drive.

v. Serve Jesus, take them with you while they’re young and want to spend time with their Dads. (my daughters were excellent singers before I preached at the rehabilitation farm).

II. Give them an Identity

a. “Our family loves Jesus”

b. Dad is a Sunday school teacher (fill in your ministry)because our family loves Jesus. If Jesus cares, why wouldn’t I?

c. We’re Davis’s, We’ve always been farmers, so we’re “down home” people (give your kids a heritage to claim- something that will give them an extended identity).

III. Thoughts:

Admit your mistakes and apologize without excuses (If you apologize, dont turn the situation around on them. Teach them to accept their responsibility without excuses. (Don’t say “I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t have “…”).

Look for opportunities to say “yes”. Then when you say “no” the kids understand that you aren’t being mean, selfish, or lazy.

If your kids have a problem everythings stops; right here right now, and full attention is given to the childs issue. (You want to teach them that God always has time to hear their prayers).

Remember: YOU opted to have kids, they didn’t ask to be born. You now have the responsibility to illustrate Gods personality to them.

Remember: God is NOT the big wet sock in the sky. He’s loving, kind, sees His children as the apple of His eye (just the thought of the kids makes Him smile with love).

Wear out the phrase “I love you”.

LOVE YOUR WIFE, THEIR MOM!!!!!
(This will give them the security they need to grow in their identity. if their world isn’t secure, they grow to be afaid and reticent)

NEVER are you adversarial towards them. No revenge, no “showing them” Your goal is always to improve them, never feed them or allow them to feed you into a negative relationship with them.

Be passionate about life.

Enjoy the miracles in life; the flowers, birds, sunsets, stars: Remember “the Heavens declare His (God) glory and the firmament sheweth forth His handiwork”.

Let Jesus be your first love, and everyone else will receive the benefits of the work of the Holy Ghost in your life.

Above all, remember that “Love covers a multitude of sin” so shower your children and your wives with love- it will make up for any of your short comings. “The greatest of these gifts is love”.
.

{ 0 comments }

After the Jimmy Carter Presidency, the Democrat Party as a mainstream party was damaged long-term. Only Bill Clinton’s’ charm was able to repair it enough to attract a viable Presidential candidate based on his espoused policies. Indeed, Clinton understood Ronald Reagan’s strength was his ability to build bridges and formulate coalitions: and he thought he could re-create that paradigm. In retrospect, had he not come to Washington as a leftist; he may have accomplished that feat. Instead, he illustrated what the Democrat Party actually stands for: Marxism, and spending other peoples money. This is what caused the 1994 election of the first Republican Congress in decades.

Since that time, Democrats have tried to repair their persona; to become more acceptable in the eyes of the majority of Americans. Only to succeed in becoming the anti-America party in the body politic. For example, Democrats didn’t regain control of Congress in 2006 based on their policies, nor did Barack Obama win the Presidency based on policy: they won because the Republicans failed to lead the nation like Republicans, and the nation refused to vote for them just because they had the ( R ) behind their names.

In Jacksonville Florida, we saw another tactic: just change your party affiliation. That worked at first. Hometown politics most always reflect the local perspectives rather than the national, but somewhere along the line, it all catches up. For example, our out-going Mayor, in a disagreement with Republican Party grassroots leadership proclaimed “This idea that big government is bad; I’m not sure I agree with that perspective”. We understood that from the Mayor; given his propensity to raise taxes, fees, and most any other tool he could to pry more cash from the local citizenry- especially when he’s done such a poor job of attracting new business to Jacksonville. His propencity to spend money has had a disaterous effect on the financial stability of the largest city in Florida.

In our City Council, we also had the challenge of determining who is and isn’t a Democrat in disguise. From sweet-heart deals to raising taxes during what is a textbook economic Depression; the out-going City Council proved itself to have more attributal Democrat inclinations than Republican. This has rendered the exact result that Jacksonville citizens didn’t want: a city in financial crisis, with mis-placed priorities, and increased costs based on that mismanagement.

Moving forward to the 2012 elections, the Republican grassroots around the nation must not only insist with their votes that Republican candidates represent them and the Republican Platform: they must now verbalize that insistence- sometimes vociferously. It’s important to remember that even the Democrats who win elections in red states do so by espousing conservative ideas. Let’s review that proposition: “democrats who win elections in red states do so by espousing conservative ideas”. It’s the CONSERVATISM that the people want; and those who vote are paying attention!

Morning in America proposes that Republican organizations around the country proactively develop candidates who represent their consitiuency. For example, if they want to win a Mayors race, they actively develop candiates (multiple is better) to offer to the municipality, same for County Commissioner, State offices, and even national offices. This will result in the party representing the majority of the American people more effectively. This will also mitigate the pandemonium of trying to get Republicans to vote for candidates who’ve not represented the conservative principles that those voters have shown themselves to support.

The organizations should also hold those elected officials who wear the (R) behind their names accountable to the Republican Party platform. -Those with demographic inclinations to be more alligned with one part and less aligned with another should have the freedom to insist their Representatives take those positions as well (for example Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have constituents with differing views from Texas Republicans, so Brown should represent the views of those “back home”).

Even though most organizations are required to publically support Republican politicians in the name of party unity: they still have a responsibility to their Republican voters to interceed when those elected fail to do so. Doing so will cause the locally based party (or groups) to acknowledged the divide between the two political identities discovered by pollster Scott Rasmussen: the devide between “Politicos” (who think alike without credence to political parties) and the “everyone else” crowd- which makes up the (super-) majority of the American voters.

One way to accomplish this- and satisfy the (pragmatic) requirement of not attacking elected Republicans is to develop voting histories of each politician who represents their geographical (possibly even demographical) areas of representation, and present that information to the public at election time. For example, a local group would track and record the votes and activities of each and every politician who has influence on their local policies. That would include City Council, County Commissioners, State Representatives who represent any part of their geographical demographic, national representatives, (House and Senate), and peripheral electeds such as School Board and Judges, etcetera. This allows the groups to
A) Hold those elected responsible for their performances.
B) Create a stronger relationship with their voter base.
C) Develop a paradigm where politicians realise they are accountable more often than just election time (by virtue of the fact that they are constantly developing candidates to offer to their constituents- based on the conservative inclinations of the geographical areas of responsibility.
D) Strengthen the viability of the conservative principles delineated in the Republican platform.
Lastly, this will return the political process to the “Everyone elses” by virtue of the improved relationship with the voting base. This will occur as a by-product of the increased interaction between the two.

Politicos will roll their eyes and disdain such “interference” by those common people. We would remind them that it’s those people who make this nation strong. We would also remind them these are the people they patronize at election time, and earn their livings off of when they are elected. One bit of advice to the politicos is to (in genteel terms) “get off your high horse and stop considering yourselves to be elite. We aren’t impressed”. Had you, as Politicos done your jobs, our nation wouldn’t be in the condition it’s in today.
To recap, for the Republican Party to be strong, it must represent it’s platform- which a majority of Americans accept as the correct vision for America.

1. They must insist that electeds legislate from the perspectives of these principles.
a. By developing candidates from the local constituency to represent them if those elected fail to do so.
b. By recording and making available voting records of every elected official who represents their geographical responsibility- every precinct, district, every office.
c. Communicate with elected as an organization that they’ve not represented their constituents with their votes- and that vote is being recorded to be presented to the voters at election time.
2. Create stronger relationships with local voters by developing outreach programs to effectively do so.
3. Insist that Republican politicians represent Republican positions with formal letters of difference when they stray from the party platform.

These actions alone would make a great difference in the political arena: The Democrats would/could be labelled as the party of the Marxist, violent unions, and illegal invaders, and the Republican Party as the enemy of the Constitutional atrocities, and the defender of America within her own borders.

Don’t agree? Let us ask: Do you think Jacksonville would have elected a conservative-speaking Democrat for Mayor had Republicans in office acted like Republicans?

It’s Morning in America: that means wake up and smell the coffee- it smells like “Patriotism”.

{ 0 comments }

As we approach the national voting cycle, we can look back and learn from the past two years. We’ve seen the middle class rise up; the formulation of the Tea Party, and the election of great grass root politicians. That isn’t to say that some career politicians haven’t been re-elected. Some have because of their history of (to be redundant) representing those who voted for them.

Polling indicates there is there is still a great deal of angst within the voter ranks. The economy continues to be the primary concern around the nation. Exacerbating that concern is the insistence of politicians to raise taxes, add fees, and scavenge the slim-pickings the economy continues to provide in spite of their mismanagement. This trepidation is affecting elections on all levels.

Most Americans (53%) understand that the practice of cutting taxes and government spending is the correct way to improve the U.S. economy. In the 1980s’ this approach was castigated based on emotional rhetoric. Rhetoric that failed to sway public opinion. The principles’ successes just couldn’t be refuted. Given the successful history of “supply-side” economics, the voters once again know more than the politicians.

The Presidents who used supply-side were Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Bill Clinton was also a supply sider, but he targetted the middle class as the recipients; a decision that ultimately slowed economic growth.

Important to remember is the Reagan plan was to cut excessive spending and reduce taxes simultaneously. The Democrat lead Congress refused to allow Reagan to inact his campaign promise until Reagan addressed the nation and encouraged citizens to “call their Representatives and Senators”. After Americans made those calls, the Congressional Democrats agreed to cut the taxes with the agreement to temporarily raise agency spending levels, with the understanding they would use that influx to “get their houses in order” so they could run “leaner”. At the end of the agreed upon time frame, the Democrats then protested over the cuts- including the infusions to improve the agencies’ processes. The very cuts they’d proposed as part of the agreement made with Reagan.

Still tax revenues nearly doubled. Those revenues would have accumulated faster had Reagan been able to cut spending in a substantial measure. The bottom line would have been improved in the Bush 41 Presidency had the government not had to bail out the Savings and Loans across the nation. One could conject that- had the spending cuts been enacted as promised, the S&L bailout would have been a deficit-neutral expense.

“Supply-side” does work when it targets those who use their money to make money. The problem of course, is that politicians want to spend it just as soon as it’s projected- they won’t even wait until it arrives. Our suspicion is they want to get to the money first for their pet projects- all at the expense of the tax payers!

Moving forward, for Republicans to differentiate themselves from the Democrats; they must offer supply-side oriented candidates. This was the root-cause of the GOP prominence in the latter part of the 20th century- this is their strength. Those principles should be presented- and represented without apology or timidity. Republicans must return to their roots if they are to keep their base- and rebuild what they’ve lost since deviating from them.

Local politicians must become the ground-swell for that movement. Mayors, County Commissioners, City Councilmen: all have the responsibility to return their communities to the principles and practices that rescued our nation from the Jimmy Carter debacle of the 1970’s. The way to accomplish this is to return community, county and state economies to those principles that have proven themselves to be most effective. That means governing boards must bring in supply-side experts to examine the economic situation of their budgetary responsibilities, apply supply-side principles; and free up the revenue within their given communities. Failure to do this will cause more than their political demise or damage the GOP: It will contribute to the fiscal destruction of our nation.

Our message to our Representatives is “Get on board”. Your failure to do so will contribute to the fiscal demise of our Nation. Patriotism demands it.

{ 0 comments }

Recently, House Minority Leader Nancy Peloci told Republicans to “Take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election”. We disagree with this advice.

The fact of the matter is there are real differences between the two predominate political parties in America. Their visions for America are as different as night is from day. We would also assert that the problem within the Republican Party since it’s victories in the last part of the 20th century has been the politicians who DON’T represent the platform used to sell the party to the American people. The agreement says one thing, but the service agent (elected politician) doesn’t live up to the contract. Now Ms. Pelosi is frustrated that a new breed of politician is being elected: the old kind. She is frustrated with statesmen who actually believe their campaign promises:. She’s frustrated with the audacity of people who represent the ideals of those who elected them. Ms. Pelosi is frustrated by the American people themselves. One can almost hear her insist that they continue to “eat cake”.

Soon after the election of President Obama, an opinion was offered. The opinion that “voting for Democrats in protest to Republicans refusal to legislate from the GOP platforms’ principles just wasn’t working”. We find this type of temper-tantrum to be self-serving and harmful to the electoral process. Indeed, the practice miscued politicians: the skewed data concluded that the country is centered right, but with strong left-leaning tendencies. The reality is that the country leans decidedly to the right of center.

The politicians who continue to misrepresent themselves to their their constituents are finding themselves replaced with those who genuinely agree with said constituents. Some have read the hand writing and heeded its message. The American people are prevailing. As illustrated by Ms. Pelosi’s frustration.

Our advice to Republican politicians is to stick to your gun by representing the people who elected you. The problem isn’t the two-party system, but rather the politicians who seek to muddy these lines between the two. Drawn your direction from your party platform. The lines are clear.

The majority of Americans want the vision enunciated by the Republican platform. Fiscal responsibility, smaller government, less intrusion by the government into their lives (and bank accounts). The left uses these terms as punchlines to their jokes; but that’s because, well: “they’re leftists”.

The Republicans who resolve to stand on these principles will not only become successful, but will have the satisfaction of bringing our nation back to its greatness.

The time is now.

{ 0 comments }

At a recent reception, newly elected Senator Marco Rubio of Florida spoke of waste and mis-management of government funds. He spoke of the crushing debt and the negative ramifications on generations of Americans- many not yet born. This is an issue that plagues America at all levels of Government.

New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Ohio, California, Hawaii, and Florida: all struggling with debt created by politicians who feel a greater responsibility to their contributors than they do to the people they represent. The paradigm can more-accurately be described as

“I can use these voters to further my career; then appease more contributors: to further my career”.

The Senator spoke of ending the massive rates of over-spending, and bringing sanity to the political arena. Senator Rubio and his common sense ilk give our country new hope. Hope that there is a chance to return our nation to it’s financial independence, and all the possibilities that she has to offer with proper leadership. The hope that our nation no longer has to depend on those who despise up to finance our draconian debt, or supply us with the energy we must have to sustain ourselves.

There are those who would stop this new breed of politician: these “Representatives of the American people”. They use obfuscation, insults and innuendo to divert attention from the accuracy of the issue at hand. Ad hominem attacks, intimidation, personal insults: all in the defense of their own careers and those who finance it. Their justification? “This is the way things are done”. The statement will often be followed by the assertion that they didn’t create the paradigm, but will exclude any attempts by them to change it with their own commitment to honor.

These are the enemies of America- as much as any shoe-bomber, or airline hijacker. Their destruction isn’t as dramatic, not as immediately evident, but like a deadly virus: they are just as destructive. Their narcissism and greed for influence corrupts any ideas they once had of representing those who believed in them as young politicians. They’ve lost their affinity with the people who believed in them. They now more comfortably assimilate with fellow abusers of the American people. They now view themselves as superior to those whom they once begged for support.

These old-style politicians aren’t identified with a (D) or an (R) behind their names; they are identified by their legislation. They are identified by their dismissal of Constitutional guidelines. They are identified by the assertion that “we have the power to do at the expense of the tax paying public. They are identified by their perspective that “bringing home the bacon”, or posturing “something must be done regardless of whether or not it’s governments role to do so”. They are identified by their insistence to work outside the bounds of their responsibilities as “representatives” and appease those who write the checks for their next campaign. These acts are just as heinous, just as destructive as blowing up a building.

As Americans approach the next election cycle, they should look beyond the glitz, beyond the millions of dollars spent to obfuscate the politicians intentions (improving himself) and elect those who not only parrot what they want, but agree with them.

There is no better time than right now.

{ 1 comment }

Taking a few days off after the election. Will return to weekly opinions March 1

{ 0 comments }

As Jacksonville approaches Election Day, her citizens should ask themselves a few fundamental questions. These questions should be the catalyst for their votes, and their futures:

1. Am I better off now than I was four years ago?

2. Am I comfortable with the financial decisions made by the current city leadership?

3. Am I happy with the status quo?

4. Do I want to change the direction of the city, or continue down the current path?

5. Do I want a Representative and Mayor that understands who I am, and what I’m experiencing in this economic environment?

6. Which candidate choices do I have that lets me know their vision instead of just that they are a “nice person”?

7. Do I want someone who will fight to make Jacksonville more than a pretty city with broke citizens?

If the political environment of Jacksonville, (the state, the nation) is to change, voters must weigh their decisions carefully. They can continue to perpetuate the status quo, which includes even more taxes, more “fees”: or they can embrace a new direction. A direction of fiscal prudence, proven economic principles, and prosperity. Otherwise their futures include four more years of tax hikes, more fees, and budgetting shenanigans that would get Mr and Mrs Citizen thrown in jail.

The choices really are this simple. It will be interesting to see which direction Jacksonville chooses.

{ 0 comments }

The local and the national scene are colliding. All over the country there are disputes with public employee unions. Here is Jacksonville Florida, we have joined the fray. The problem is public employee unions made deals with short-sighted politicians who fail to understand that the economy goes down as well as up. Locally, the challenge is to find solutions that show appreciation to public employees- especially our police and fire fighters while maintaining fiscally responsible policies. For our heroes, for our citizens, we must find common ground.

Civility makes a big difference in the equation. Here locally, we don’t have public employees engaging in public displays of vehemency and violence. Specifically, we don’t have fire fighters refusing to save lives, or policemen refusing to protect people. Looking at the situation locally with a sense of sanguninity; one can expect to find reasonable solutions based on the mature demeanor of the union members: at least from these two organizations.

However, in other places, the situation looks to be less about collective bargaining and more about political activism. We have Democrat Congressmen encouraging “bloody violence”, we have a President who doesn’t understand he’s no longer a rabble-rouser, but the leader of a nation. It’s apparent that Obama has been trapped by all the glitz of the Presidency- and doesn’t understand that the honor he receives isn’t for him personally: but for the office he temporarily occupies. He’s become so power-drunk, that he’s now making a drunken fool of himself. The national scene looks more like an attempt to thwart the November elections results rather than workers rights.

Next we have School teachers committing fraud on their employers and tax payers. It seems to me that this practice of getting sick notes at the protest rally is a betrayal by the school teachers to their students and the parent s who hired them. There isn’t one of these teachers who can ever again stand in front of their students and epitomize honesty. That means they can never again castigate a student for lying about their homework or cheating on a test. They have become “useless to society” in their current roles. Some would counter that they can still teach reading, writing , and ‘rithmatic but that isn’t their true intentions as teachers: illustrated by their willingness to involve students in the protests.

Add to this the fact that public employee unions have become one of the most violent dynamics in America to (not to mention the fact that teachers are now picketing school board members at their homes). It’s reasonable to propose that teachers being paid by taxpayer funds be required to exemplify peaceful social standards created by their home districts to be, and remain employed as a government employee. Furthermore, any teacher caught using a sick note from the protest should be suspended without pay, be required to re-pay the salary they stole; and face termination for fraud. It’s the same principle as a private sector employee calling in sick, and their boss finding them at the dog track.

Morning in America also proposes that any organization who qualifies to be charged with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ) should be investigated. If found to have sufficient violations from one branch of that organization- or be associated with an organization with more than 50 (arbitrary number to make the point) violations nationally be precluded by law to participate in any government contracts. This would not include peaceful protests, nor would it include non-government contracts: just as private sector employees are free to organize and negotiate their salaries; but not with violent or subversive activities. In Duval County Florida, there are Head Start teachers who are members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). This organization was in the forefront of the violence against concerned voters these past three years. In our opinion, the local employees should either separate themselves entirely from that violent organization, or lose the privilege to access themselves to our children. No organization who violates the law as consistently as SEIU should have access to children. This proposition doesn’t forbid collective bargaining; it does exclude violent organizations from bargaining for government contracts.

On a national level the situation has become untenable. When public employees commit criminal acts (assault, fraud, et cetera) they as individuals and their organization as a whole preclude themselves from being desirable employees of the taxpayers. Bargain, even strike if the law allows; but don’t break the law while doing so.

{ 0 comments }