Ferguson, MO: MSM Once Again Furthers The Big Lie

Mary and I were driving home to Florida from working on the Joe Carr campaign in Tennessee when I heard the report on the radio. “Unarmed black youth shot by police.”

Why did the reporter think it relevant to mention the race of the youth shot by police in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri? Police shooting an unarmed youth is compelling without the racial component.

When blacks commit crimes, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid mentioning the criminals’ race. For example. When flash mobs were breaking out across America committing crimes of violence, looting and vandalism, the MSM refused to report that the perpetrators were black youths. The MSM’s excuse is reporting the race of criminals is unnecessarily provocative.

So why does the MSM not apply the same logic and caution in cases where the alleged attacker is white? Remember how quick and eager the MSM was to convict George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion?

To push its racist-white-man-shoots-unarmed-angelic-black-boy story line, the MSM referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”. They flooded TV with photographs of a much younger Trayvon Martin including one of him in his little league football uniform. The MSM did everything in its power to hide the truth that Martin was a 17 year old thug. A major broadcast network even doctored audio to portray Zimmerman as a racist.

Obviously, the MSM wanted racial turmoil, division and riots in the streets. The Left’s bible, “Rules for Radials” by Saul Alinsky says they win by creating chaos.

The mainstream media is fully committed to helping Obama implement his socialist/progressive agenda. Promoting the false narrative that America is a racist nation is extremely helpful to Obama’s purpose.

The MSM has been complicit in assisting the Democrats’ efforts to exploit Obama’s race to silence opposition to his unprecedented dictatorship.

The MSM jumps on every opportunity to further the big lie that blacks are victims of an eternally racist America. The big lie feeds white guilt, making them more receptive to the government redistributing wealth and pandering to minorities. The big lie also inspires blacks to hate successful whites, inspires violence against whites and creates an entitlement mindset in blacks.

Whites feeling guilty for being white and blacks feeling resentful and entitled equals more Americans submissive to government controls and likely to vote Democrat.

During the Trayvon Martin trial, Leftists were all over TV promoting the big lie that black males are routinely attacked and murdered by whites in America. Their claim is totally absurd. The facts prove quite the opposite. Statistics confirm that blacks kill blacks and black attacks against whites are 39 times more likely than vice versa.

Please note that this article is not about the shooting. I am merely pointing out the mainstream media’s agenda driven reporting of the incident.

Once again, the MSM has successfully ginned up racial hate, division and riots in the streets.

Texas: Dallas Silences “Impeach Obama” Message — Thomas More Law Center Files Lawsuit

Another American city is attempting to silence the free speech of “Overpasses for America” activists calling for the impeachment of President Obama and for government reforms such as border security. This time, the group’s message is being stifled by an ordinance adopted by the Dallas City Council on January 22, 2014, which imposes fines of up to $500 for certain expressive activities on pedestrian overpasses over designated highways.

The ordinance makes it an offense to engage in any conduct, including holding a sign, intended to distract a motorist, or wearing any clothing intended to attract the attention of the public.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, late yesterday afternoon filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Dallas ordinance on behalf of Overpasses for America (OfA) and its Texas State Leader, Valeria Villarreal. Joining TMLC as local co-counsel is Houston attorney, Jerad Najvar.

The lawsuit claims the ordinance violates the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble.

Click here to read entire Federal Lawsuit

Erin Mersino, TMLC Senior Trial Counsel, who is handling the case, commented, “This is another example of a city silencing the message of a certain viewpoint in a traditional public forum without legal justification.  Here, there is no history that Plaintiffs’ speech imposed any public safety threat.  Such an invalid restriction on free speech curtails all of our free speech freedoms and wrongfully imperils one of our inalienable rights as Americans.”

OfA is a non-partisan grassroots movement which spreads a message about the need for accountability amongst our nation’s leaders. The use of pedestrian overpasses effectively allows OfA members to reach a large and diverse audience. TMLC is currently representing two Plaintiffs in a case challenging a similar ordinance in the Town of Campbell, Wisconsin.

Before the challenged ordinance was adopted, OfA had held over 75 demonstrations on pedestrian overpasses in the Dallas area, frequently organizing the events in cooperation with the Dallas Police Department and a Director of Homeland Security in Dallas.

The ordinance was passed under the guise that it was necessary for traffic safety and the safety of police officers.  However, the lack of any real safety issue was highlighted during the council debate on the ordinance when the Dallas Chief of Police, pressed by Councilman Phillip Kingston, could not point to any instance in which a OfA protest caused an accident.  Nevertheless, the council adopted the ordinance, which took effect on January 27, 2014, by a 10-4 vote.

On March 1, 2014, with the cooperation of the Dallas Police Department and a Director of Homeland Security in Dallas, Villarreal and OfA-Dallas held a successful demonstration on the Northaven overpass over the Dallas North Tollway.

However, when Villarreal called the Dallas Police Department to inform them of OfA-Dallas’ plans to hold a demonstration on March 15, 2014, she was told that the police department was now obligated to enforce the city ordinance.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, stated:   “The viewpoints of a majority of Americans on crucial public issues are no longer expressed by their elected representatives.  The concerns of a majority of Americans seem to have little impact on the decisions made by politicians who are more concerned with appeasing lobbyists, special interest groups, and wealthy donors.  That’s why it’s so important to defend the free speech rights of grass roots organizations like Overpasses for America, whose members feel it’s their patriotic duty to stand for hours on these overpasses to get their message out and mobilize their fellow citizens.”

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

VIDEO FROM FERGUSON, MO: All Blacks know how to do is “blame the police and white folks”

Blacks rioting and looting in Ferguson, Missouri continues for a fifth day. We learned last night from a Missouri resident that the riots are spreading to other suburban communities and that black rioters are throwing bricks off of overpasses along U.S. Highway 70, a main route through St. Louis, MO.

The Washington Post’s Sean Sullivan reports, “Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) called the situation in Ferguson, Mo., ‘deeply troubling’ late Wednesday and announced he would change his schedule in order to visit the city on Thursday, signaling a new, more intense level of engagement than in previous days.”

Missouri residents are concerned that the riots have gotten so out of hand that Governor Nixon needs to call out the National Guard. Some say Nixon, a Democrat, won’t because he fears aggravating rioting blacks, who are a large block of Democrat voters. After the Governor visits the area he may change his mind?

Jason DeWitt from Top Right News (TRN) posted a YouTube video of one black mans view of the riots. DeWitt writes:

TRN has covered the Ferguson Riots outside St. Louis over the past 2 days, as a peaceful protest over the shooting death of a Black man by a police officer spun out of control into a violent rage. Hundreds of looters ransacked dozens of stores, including Target and WalMart, and looted and burned down a QuikTrip. Rioters shot at police and even police helicopters in the madness.

[ … ]

But with Sharpton’s trademark chant of “no justice, no peace” about to reverberate from Missouri, one Black Facebook user didn’t want to hear a word of it.

In an epic rant as a Black man against the Black rioters of Ferguson, Johnathan Gentry unleashed a very different message: “We Need to Change as Black People.”

Watch this video commentary by Johnathan Gentry:

Trystin English a black women who was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri but now lives in Florida posted her perspective on the Ferguson riots on her Facebook page.

Watch Trystin talk about the blacks rioting and looting in Ferguson (WARNING: Graphic language): Video Post by Trystin English.

I was born and raised in the St. Louis area, have family there and went to high school in Ferguson-Florissant School District which has delayed opening of the school year until August 18th due to the riots.

Ayn Rand wrote, ““The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” The slogan “no justice, no peace” is an uncontested absurdity which must be contested. It promotes violence over the rule of law. That is the official ideology of far to many blacks and far to many black leaders.

Johnathan Gentry understands this when he says “We Need to Change as Black People.”

RELATED VIDEO: There are real time posting on Twitter on the Ferguson riots by Antonio French. French is an Alderman of the 21st Ward in St. Louis. Go to here to view all of Alderman French’s videos. Here is just one posting:

10 Things You Need to Know About Boehner Suing Obama by Elizabeth Slattery

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to authorize Speaker John Boehner to file a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s failure to fully implement Obamacare. Specifically, the lawsuit will challenge the administration’s delay of the employer mandate—requiring many employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine—that was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1. It’s clear President Obama repeatedly has abused executive power to circumvent Congress and essentially rewrite the law, but this lawsuit still raises a host of questions.

Q: Can you sue the president?

Yes. Presidents enjoy immunity from lawsuits for civil damages resulting from their official acts, but they are not immune from all lawsuits. For example, the Supreme Court allowed Paula Jones’ suit for sexual harassment against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office. Further, members of Congress have filed dozens of lawsuits against presidents over the years. Most have been unsuccessful, usually because members fail to allege a sufficient injury. Since Boehner’s lawsuit will deal with implementing Obamacare, the suit likely will be brought against Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and other executive branch officials charged with carrying out the law. It’s possible Obama won’t actually be named in the lawsuit.

Q: Who will represent the House in court?

The House’s Office of General Counsel routinely represents the House in legal disputes, such as suits to enforce congressional subpoenas or the Speech and Debate Clause. In the past, the House also has hired outside counsel, such as when the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to handle the Defense of Marriage Act litigation.

Q: How will this lawsuit be funded?

As with past lawsuits, the House will appropriate funds to pay for the litigation. The Committee on House Administration will make public quarterly statements in the Congressional Record detailing expenses.

Q: Does the Senate have a role?

The Senate probably is not required to join in the lawsuit. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, members of Congress have standing to assert personal injuries or direct and concrete institutional injuries. In Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court found a group of state senators demonstrated a sufficient institutional injury even though the suit was brought by 26 members of one chamber.

Q: Why would the House sue when it has other remedies?

Boehner has determined filing a lawsuit will be the most effective way to rein in the executive branch. Other remedies do exist—mainly appropriations and impeachment—but they require the Senate’s involvement. The House could try to leverage appropriations to encourage the president to faithfully execute the law, but as Boehner has pointed out, the Democratic Senate could refuse to pass such an appropriations bill. Similarly, impeachment requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Although Boehner’s lawsuit may face obstacles, it would not require Senate concurrence.

Q: What happens if Obama loses?

Courts routinely enforce statutory mandates, such as the express deadlines in Obamacare that the executive branch has “relaxed.” Concerns the president would ignore the courts likely are unfounded. Even though Obama has complained about his losses, “There is no case in which he completely refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling he lost,” said Todd Gaziano,executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Washington, D.C., center.

Q: What happens if Boehner loses?

Before a court considers the merits of Boehner’s lawsuit, it first must decide whether the House has standing to bring this suit. If a court determines Boehner failed to establish Article III standing (a constitutional requirement for all lawsuits), it would result in dismissal of the case, but it would not mean the court agrees the president acted properly. If the suit is dismissed, it’s possible a private party may file suit, although the lack of private parties is one reason Boehner says his lawsuit is necessary. After members of Congress failed in their challenge to the Line Item Veto Act in Raines v. Byrd in 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the law when the City of New York and a group of private parties challenged it the next year.

Q: Didn’t Bush issue more executive orders than Obama?

Yes, but that is irrelevant to Boehner’s lawsuit. Executive orders are directives issued by the president to run the various parts of the executive branch—ranging from George Washington’s proclamation calling on the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to Harry Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces. Most executive orders throughout our nation’s history are perfectly appropriate and non-controversial. Boehner’s lawsuit does not address Obama’s use of executive orders per se. Instead, the suit will challenge his failure to faithfully execute the law. The American Presidency Project, which has cataloged every executive order, says Bush issued 291 executive orders, Obama has issued 183 to date, and Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most with more than 3,500.

Q: Will this open the floodgates for Congress and the Executive Branch to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes?

No. There have been plenty of lawsuits brought by members of Congress against presidents and other executive branch officials in the past. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that courts should not entertain “sore loser” suits where members of Congress sue over a vote they lost. This suit will not change the judiciary’s reluctance to get involved in political disputes between the other branches of government.

Q: Now that the House has authorized the suit, what happens next?

The Wall Street Journal reports the House “isn’t expected to bring the suit for at least another month.” The House Office of General Counsel and any outside lawyers that will be involved in the case likely are deciding which court would be most advantageous and drafting the complaint which will lay out specific allegations as well as the relief the House will seek in its lawsuit.

Peter Bigelow contributed to preparing this Q&A.

ABOUT ELIZABETH SLATTERY

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery @EHSlattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research.

Charlie Crist: Using the power of the pen for evil — a case study

Each Florida Governor swears to enforce the laws of the land. The governors role is as chief administrator and not law maker. In Florida a duly elected Governor takes the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Governor on which I am now about to enter, so help me God.

Both Rick Scott and Charlie Crist have taken this oath. But have they kept true to their oath? That is the question.

When Crist was governor he used the “power of the pen” via Executive Orders to bypass the legislature and impose his “green agenda” upon Floridians. The EPA.gov website has archived examples of former Governor Crist issuing Executive Orders to impose his agenda:

  • In May 2008 the state legislature passed an energy bill that included a prohibition on the state DEP from adopting GHG auto standards without legislative approval. On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-126, which requires the Department of Management Services to only approve the purchase of new vehicles with the greatest fuel efficiency in a given class as required for that vehicle to minimize GHG emissions. The Governor also issued Executive Order 07-127 (July 13, 2007), which adopted California’s GHG standards for motor vehicles.
  • On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-127, which established statewide GHG emission reduction targets of 2000 levels by 2017, 1990 levels by 2025, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
  • Executive Order 07-128, signed by Governor Crist on July 13, 2007, creates a new “Action Team on Energy and Climate Change,” to develop a “comprehensive energy and climate change action plan” that would lay out policy options and suggest strategies for meeting the orders’ goals and provide analysis of whether to implement mandates, voluntary standards, or market-based regulatory mechanisms.

When he signed these EOs gas prices rose and five coal fired energy plants closed causing electric bills to rise.

It appears Crist is up to his old proven tactics of bypassing the legislature in order to implement his personal beliefs upon all Floridians. According Brandon Larrabee and Dara Kam of The News Service of Florida report:

When former Gov. Charlie Crist floated a campaign promise this week to use executive orders on state contractors to boost wages for some workers and to bar discrimination against gay and transgender Floridians, Republican condemnation quickly rolled in.

GOP leaders in the Legislature issued a joint statement comparing the Republican-turned-Democrat Crist unfavorably to President Barack Obama and saying the proposal amounted to a power grab.

“Crist is lifting a dangerous page from President Obama’s playbook, saying he will do an end-run around the people’s elected representatives and single-handedly mandate policies through executive order,” said the statement, signed by the outgoing and incoming House speakers and Senate presidents. ” … Florida needs a governor who will work with the Legislature and not force his personal agenda on Floridians with the stroke of a pen.”

Larrabee and Kam point out that in 2011 Governor Rick Scott also used the power of his pen requiring all of Florida’s agencies and contractors to use the federal e-verify system when hiring. E-verify is a Department of Homeland Security system. According to the DHS website, “U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment.”

Governor Scott used the power of his pen to enforce the laws of the land. Charlie Crist has a history of using the power of the pen to force his ideology upon all Floridians. That is a key difference between Rick Scott and Charlie Crist.

Yes, Sue Our Lawless President!

“Today, however, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the President has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.”

That is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, writing in the July 31 edition of The Washington Times.

Americans and many around the world are increasingly fearful of a President who has demonstrated no regard for the checks and balances of our incredible Constitution, the oldest in the world that still functions to protect individual rights and which sets forth the divisions between our legislative, judicial and executive departments of government.

Congress, however, will not impeach President Obama, but the House will sue him on the basis of just one of the many examples of his dictatorial use of executive orders to ignore the power of the legislative branch to pass laws he took an oath to enforce. He has unilaterally and illegally altered the Affordable Care Act 27 times, his signature legislation that former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Congress had to pass “so we can find out what is in it.” No Republican member of Congress voted for this two-thousand-page-plus law, passed late in the evening of Christmas Eve, 2009.

The decision to impeach a President is essentially a political one and Republicans understand that the impeachment of President Obama would be interpreted by nearly half of the voters as an attack on a President they support. There have only been two impeachment actions in U.S. history and both have failed.

The nation is significantly divided regarding the President and Congress has been in gridlock as Democrats as the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has refused to let more than 300 House bills sent to the Senate be debated and voted upon.

Suing the President has ample history. It is hardly “a stunt” as Democrats have labeled it. New York Democrat Louise Slaughter called it “preposterous”, but failed to mention that eight years earlier, in 2006, she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush!

In a 1939 case, Coleman v Miller, the Supreme Court granted standing to members of the legislature to sue. Two years ago, four Democratic members of the House filed a suit against Vice President Biden in his capacity as head of the Senate, challenging as unconstitutional the filibuster. Other Democratic legislators had filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2001, in 2002, in 2006, and in 2007. The judiciary concluded their cases had little merit.

In a July 30 Wall Street Journal commentary, David B. Rivken who served in the Reagan and Bush administration’s Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office, and Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor at Florida International University, wrote:

“These barriers between the branches are not formalities—they were designed to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in one branch, As the Supreme Court explained in New York v. United States (1992), the ‘Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

“Congress has the exclusive authority to make law because lawmaking requires pluralism, debate and compromise, the essence of representative government…Litigation in federal court is an indispensable way to protect all branches of government against encroachment on their authority,”

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” said President Obama. In April, a poll by PolitiFact of the Tampa Bay Times, revealed that 63%–nearly two thirds—of respondents agreed that President Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues and an additional 20% said he lies every now and then. Only 15% believed the President is completely truthful. Democrats were 39% of the 1,021 registered voters polled. Republicans were 38% and independents were 20%,

The President has lied so routinely that this character flaw is likely to play a role in the forthcoming midterm elections on November 4. When you add in his lawlessness and his leadership failures that have created a far more dangerous and divided world, Americans are likely to vote for change in Congress.

That’s how democracy works and how our Constitutional system works. Suing the President is just one part of it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

As Much as You’d Like To, Don’t Fall Into the Impeachment Trap

You just have to hand it to the Democrats. They are not incompetent – evil, yes — but not incompetent. They’ve now successfully made the word “impeachment” verboten in America. In fact, they’ve managed to turn it into political heyday as they celebrate fundraising records based on generating fear among their base over something that’s not happening. They’ve been successful in forcing Americans to accept a lawless president, all for political gain. The Democrats have manipulated America in such a way that elevates one man to be indeed greater than the rule of law in our Constitutional Republic.

To borrow a word from Oprah Winfrey, brilliant.

So now President Barack Hussein Obama can march on and even issue an executive order granting amnesty to the illegal aliens who have defied our sovereign border — basically remaking the demographic balance of America in his ideological favor.

And in doing so, dares the GOP — actually any law-abiding American — to do anything to stop him. We are politically teetering on the verge of dictatorship as a result of paralyzing fear. Democrats have effectively outmaneuvered the fail safe measures entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers to replace the rule of law with the rule of one.

So what do we do to stop it? Simple, we must do that which the Democrats truly fear: ensure they lose control of the U.S. Senate and expand the GOP House majority. Obama foments the idea of “impeachment” and therefore it’s not what he really fears. He would want nothing more than for his final two years in office to be a repeat of the first two. We cannot allow that to happen. As well, this must leak over to the 2016 presidential election. We must ensure voters are reminded of Democrats’ insatiable hunger for absolute rule and exile them from the White House for at least 24 years.

American people must come to understand Barack Hussein Obama cares less about America than his own accumulation of power. In other words, this bear must be caged. Obama’s incessant unilateral actions violate our fundamental separation of powers and idea of coequal branches of government.

Do not take the bait from Obama and the Democrats, even though we all know his unilateral negotiations with a terrorist organization to release five senior members of the Taliban truly represent a high crime and misdemeanor.

But let’s outsmart Obama as he creates the ruse of a constitutional crisis for his political gain. I appreciate Obama’s useful idiot Dan Pfeiffer coming out and singing the accolades on impeachment. As Politico reported, “White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer warned last Friday that the possibility of an impeachment of the president shouldn’t be discarded.”

In addition, it’s a big moneymaker! As the Washington Post reports, The Democrats’ congressional campaign arm pulled in $2.1 million in online donations over the weekend – the best four-day haul of the current election cycle – largely propelled by fundraising pitches tied to speculation that House Republicans could pursue the impeachment of President Obama.

There’s nothing better than an arrogant enemy who overplays his hand. And that is exactly what the Democrats have just done!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Miami, FL: Court upholds firing of teacher who cheated, while accomplice is returned to the classroom

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Judge Cathy Sellers issued a Recommended Order upholding the decision of Miami-Dade County Public Schools to fire Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin for his part in the massive test cheating scandal, Adobegate, at Miami Norland Senior High School during the 2011-2012 school year.

The School Board of Miami-Dade County will either formally accept or reject the Recommended Order at the August 6 or September 3, 2014 School Board meetings.

What is disturbing is that there were two teachers involved doing the exact same thing in the exact same room at the exact same time (for the most part) and one is fired (Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin) while the other (Mrs. Brenda Muchnick) is still on the job at Miami Norland Senior High School while the whistle blower, Trevor Colestock, is still displaced from Norland and is not allowed to return there.

With the assistance of cheating, undertaken by Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin and Mrs. Brenda Muchnick, Miami Norland’s school grade went from a “C” for the 2010-11 school year to an “A” for the 2011-12 school year.

The Miami-Dade OIG Final Report concluded that, “Miami Norland has benefited in the form of attaining a higher school grade and may have received financial compensation or other benefit resulting from its high pass rate on the industry certification exams” (page 13).

As a result, total federal funds (SIG, RTTT) given out due to a grade influenced by cheating was $100,560; the total state funds per FSRP was between $130,000- $140,000; the total overall combined federal and state incentive funds were $230,560- $240,560.

Each teacher at Miami Norland Senior High School received $1730.41 from all three payouts.

On October 16, 2013, the Miami-Dade School Board voted to terminate Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin for his role in Adobegate, and rightfully so, and his case was forwarded to DOAH court.

On November 19, 2013, the Miami-Dade School Board voted to suspend Mrs. Brenda Muchnick for 30 working days without pay for her role in Adobegate, which boggles the mind.  She accepted this punishment and therefore it was not referred to DOAH.

When Mr. Fleurantin appeared alone on the D55 item of the School Board Agenda on October 16, 2013, something seemed amiss and it was common sense that something was in the works given the disparity in actions taken against them.

Most crimes, such as theft and homicide, have varying degrees; test cheating does not and state law is straightforward and clear.  In any given instance of test cheating, a role is a role; there is no distinguishing a major role from a minor role. Either one was involved or they were not.

Both Mr. Fleurantin and Mrs. Muchnick, according to the Miami-Dade OIG Final Report, allegedly “knowingly and willfully” violated test security rules irrespective of quantity of students in their respective roles.

When one reads that document and the Department of Administrative Hearings brief, issued by the School Board Attorney on January 8, 2014, justifying Mr. Fleurantin’s termination, one can reasonably conclude that Mrs. Muchnick is equally culpable and a reasonable person would think her employment was up for termination as well.

A reasonable person would conclude that the logic and conclusion of Judge Sellers’ Recommended Order pertaining to Mr. Fleurantin would be applicable to Mrs. Muchnick as well.

Enid Weisman, the Chief Capital Human Officer for M-DCPS, is responsible for disciplinary practices in Miami-Dade County Public Schools.

She led the effort to remove Mr. Colestock from Norland; fired Mr. Fleurantin while reinstating Mrs. Muchnick at Norland though they both were charged by M-DCPS with the same offenses word for word

A confidential source said Mrs. Weisman told the School Board that the disparities in punishment came about as a “technicality” pertaining to Mrs. Muchnick.

According to another confidential source, the “technicality” was that Mrs. Muchnick told District personnel prior to the October 16, 2013, School Board meeting that she was going to claim that school administrators directed her and Mr. Fleurantin to provide students the answers to the Adobe Photoshop and Dreamweaver industry certification exams in order to enhance the “back 800 points” of the school grade and improve the school grade overall.

As a result, she was removed from the October 16, 2013, D55 Item of the School Board Agenda (thus leaving only Mr. Fleurantin), deemed to be under further investigation, and was placed on the D55 Item of the School Board Agenda of the November 19, 2013, meeting with a more lenient and favorable punishment- 30 days without pay.

The crime is bad enough; like Watergate and other similar scandals, the cover-up is far more worse.

A reasonable person may well conclude that the disparity in punishment between Mr. Fleurantin and Mrs. Muchnick suggests a cover-up and the illegal and retaliatory actions taken against Mr. Colestock are meant to keep the Norland faculty and staff quiet and to keep the truth from coming out and exposing other improprieties relating to Adobegate.

Furthermore, the inaction of federal and state officials to investigate encourages such misdeeds and criminal behavior and shortchanges teachers, students, and the general public alike.

Law Center Calls for Immediate Impeachment

In my previous column, I lay out exactly why the future of the Republican Party will be determined this November on the single issue of impeachment. In short, congressional Republicans have played dead for six years and unless they take a stand with the people who fund and elect them and impeach, their base will abandon them come November.

In an interview with the Chuck Wilder Show out of L.A. on July 22nd I field questions that should remove any doubts you might have about that. (July 22nd show – second hour at about 54 minutes in.)

After six years of manufactured disaster after purposeful disaster by the most impeachable administration in U.S. history, it all comes down to the Rule of Law or a totally lawless society and congressional Republicans are fast running out of time to choose a side.

As a result, the North American Law Center (NALC) has drafted the most complete and accurate set of Articles of Impeachment to date and is working with pro-American activists across the country to push House Republicans to stand up and fight for our Constitutional Republic and the Rule of Constitutional Law.

Influential Republicans Allen WestGen. Jerry Boykin and Sarah Palin have all been pounding out the drumbeat of impeachment in recent statements and the North American Law Center is openly calling upon them and others to stand together behind a very carefully crafted set of Impeachment Articles in a joint effort to convince House Republicans to honor their oaths of office and end the assault on all things American.

NALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon explained the Articles on the July 28th Erik Rush Show:

“Since House Republicans lack the courage and decency to draft proper Impeachment Articles, we did it for them. And if they need thousands of Americans to force them to do the right thing, we will try to do that too”… Pidgeon said. – “Nothing in these Articles is about the so-called “birther” issue. It’s about truth, known facts and the rule of law.”

The NALC proposed Articles of Impeachment are very straight forward and yet, complete. They are broken into three general articles as follows;

ARTICLE I – Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud

“Compelling prima facie evidence exists which demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama has engaged in false personation and aggravated identity theft and in conspiracy to commit false personation and identity theft in the pursuit of high office and governmental power.”

ARTICLE II – Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office

“Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.”

ARTICLE III – Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama – has directly engaged in the covert aiding and abetting of foreign entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Free Syrian Army and others. He has directly or indirectly through the agencies under his direct command, used American tax dollars and assets to aid and abet known enemies of the United States, including known terror organizations and organizations identified on a Terrorist List established by the United States as enemies to the United States, in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Iran, Ukraine and North, Central and South America.”

The FULL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT are available HERE in PDF form, including related laws pertaining to the crimes alleged in the articles.

Despite a growing number of public calls for impeachment in an effort to stop the ongoing destruction of our Constitutional Republic and block the Obama administration from single-handedly granting amnesty to millions of illegal invaders flooding into the country by Obama’s open invitation, Republican members of the House are floating nearly a dozen lame excuses for not keeping their oaths to protect and defend the nation and uphold the Rule of Constitutional Law.

  1. Republicans can’t impeach because it will cost them the 2014 election
  2. Republicans can’t impeach without Democrat support
  3. Republicans can’t impeach because Obama will initiate Martial Law
  4. Republicans can’t impeach because Harry Reid won’t convict
  5. Republicans can’t impeach because Joe Biden is worse than Obama
  6. Republicans can’t impeach because Obama is a usurper
  7. Republicans can’t impeach because they will be called “racists”
  8. Republicans can’t impeach because they will lose the illegal Latino vote
  9. Republicans can’t impeach because Bill Clinton wasn’t removed from office upon conviction
  10. Republicans can’t impeach because blacks will riot in the streets

If you are intent on never doing the right thing, any excuse will serve a tyrant.

The list of lame excuses for why Republicans “can’t” impeach is nearly endless, just like their list of excuses for why they can’t enforce existing immigration laws, or stop unconstitutional ObamaCare, or stop Obama from aiding and abetting known foreign enemies, or even block him from appointing known terror organization members to his cabinet.

Republicans have not even forced this administration to pass one lousy federal budget in six years. So, of course they can think of a dozen reasons not to impeach, or do anything else that matters today. That’s why groups like the North American Law Center have to do it for them! — And that’s why average American citizens feel it necessary to take law enforcement into their own hands on the Southern Border.

Yet there is only one reason needed to impeach…. It’s the right thing to do!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

The U.S. Constitution provides the peaceful and constitutional solution when bad actors find their way to power and the people must alter the government in order to protect and preserve freedom, liberty and the rule of law. It’s called impeachment…

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Impeachment was placed in the U.S. Constitution for just the conditions we find ourselves in today. It provides a peaceful and orderly transition of power, from the hands of bad actors guilty of crimes and awaiting trial, and into the hands of those who will stop the disaster from getting any worse.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) explained:

“The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature… What are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

James Madison explained impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787:

“Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that:

“[I]mpeachment of the president should take place for offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

Over seventy-percent of Americans believe that the Obama Administration has abused public power and violated the public trust in so many ways that it would take a few encyclopedia volumes to chronicle it all. Half of Americans are convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is hiding his true identity and the true nature of his anti-American policies.

If ever in U.S. history there was an administration so ripe for impeachment, it is the Obama administration which starts and ends every day with more impeachable offenses. Even members of the black community are calling for impeachment.

But as NALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon points out, “It’s not enough to impeach, it must be done correctly, in the interest of the United States and the Rule of Constitutional Law.”

To uphold, protect and preserve constitutional law, we must simply follow and enforce constitutional law.

When our representatives in congress lack the decency, courage and good sense to do what must be done, the buck does not stop with them. The buck stops with the American people who sit idle and allow their public servants to behave in such a cowardly self-serving manner with complete impunity.

The buck stops with the American people!  

Before today’s Republicans are going to “do the right thing,” the American people will have to do the right thing first!

The people must stop sitting around on social networking sites whining, complaining and playing armchair political strategist focused on how elect to more politicians that they will never hold accountable after the election. It’s time; no… it’s well past the time to hold our current crop of public servants fully accountable for their actions and their fatal in-actions.

Before members of congress will grow the stones to take a real stand for the United States of America, “We the People” will have to grow the stones first!

It’s up to “the people” to make their representatives represent them.

It only takes one House member to place these Articles of Impeachment into the House Judiciary Committee. Make sure that YOUR House member is that ONE! Send the Articles to your House Representative HERE. All members of congress will be on August recess as of the end of this week. Make sure they don’t have a moment’s peace and quiet in their home districts on recess.

See them while they are at home and hand-deliver the Articles to their local offices.

Make sure that every member of the House Judiciary Committee receives a copy HERE.

Also, if you are working to support a congressional challenger in the 2014 election cycle, make sure that they have a copy. If they will not openly support impeaching the most impeachable administration in U.S. history, why are you supporting their do-nothing challenge of a do-nothing incumbent?

The bottom line is that “the people” must accept personal responsibility for how their public servants behave. If you won’t do the right things, why should they and how can you even expect them to?

Impeachment is not up to them. It’s up to you!

The North American Law Center is a public policy and constitutional law division of The United States Patriots Union. They are requesting support for this action HERE.

Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee: The Impeachment of President Obama is now a real possibility

The title of this column is the subject of an email sent out by the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee to Florida supporters. The fund raising email states:

If you’re wondering why you’re getting all this email on a Friday night, it’s simple:

THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOW A REAL POSSIBILITY

No other President in history has had to face the prospect of being taken to court by Congress. And the White House alerted us today that it could lead to impeachment.

Johnathan Topaz from Politico reports, “One third of Americans think President Barack Obama should be impeached, a new poll says.” The impeach Obama movement has grown to the point that even Congress is taking notice. The U.S. House of Representatives has decided to restore the balance of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Impeachment is becoming a hot topic for discussion in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Constitution, Article. I., Section. 1 reads:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article. II., Section. 1. states:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[ … ]

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II., Section 3. states:

 [H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

Politico’s Lauren French reports:

Republican-selected witness Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor, called the lawsuit a “worthy” effort. He noted that he voted for Obama and supports a national health care system.

“Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government in our country — a model long ago rejected by the Framers,” Turley said.

Turley and Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University College of Law, argued that the House does have standing to bring a suit against the White House. Citing past case law, Foley described how the draft resolution put forward by House Republicans detailing that case meets a four-pronged test to establish standing.

“When a president unilaterally waives, delays or suspends a law such as the ACA, he squelches any opportunity to have a robust, political debate about the workability of the law, and thereby undermines democracy itself,” she said.

Simon Lazarus, an associate director of public policy for President Jimmy Carter, who testified at the request of Democrats, said the 2013 delay to the employer mandate was a “minor” “course correction.”

This issue will not go away because of a growing grassroots movement to hold all branches of the federal government accountable. The standard against which each branch is held — the United States Constitution. Like with President Nixon, a tipping point will be reached and impeachment proceedings could move forward. What will be a deciding factor? If the Republicans regain control of the U.S. Senate on November 4th, 2014.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Another Court Rules Against President Obama’s Unilateral Actions
Yet Another High-Profile Conservative Demands Obama’s Impeachment
New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax

Miami Judge furthers Gay Agenda — Claims a “new right” for homosexuals to marry

Judge ignores the Rule of Law, the will of the People of Florida and a Supreme Court of the United States decision by claiming that Florida Marriage Amendment is Unconstitutional.

6a00d83451b26169e201a511485290970cOn Friday afternoon, July 25, 2014 at approximately 5:30 pm, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel ruled in favor of the six homosexual couples who served as plaintiffs in the matter of Pareto v. Ruvin.  Gay-rights activist groups organized the lawsuit and “forum shopped” by filing the lawsuit in the most liberal legal jurisdiction in the state with the hope of finding a left leaning judge who would say Florida’s marriage laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman are unconstitutional.

This is the second lawsuit this month where an activist judge in Florida is attempting to advance same-sex marriage with the stroke of a pen instead of honoring and respecting the controlling authorities of the highest law of the land. In her 36 page decision, Judge Zabel relied uniquely on Loving vs Virgina where the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967 ruled that the laws prohibiting interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council made the following statement regarding the Zabel’s ruling:

“It is fiction to think that Florida’s marriage laws have somehow been declared finally unconstitutional by the local rulings of mere local trial judges.  The fact is that Florida’s marriage laws are still constitutional and in full force.  The Federal Courts, and indeed the Supreme Court of the United States, have not given the final word on this matter and we expect the Miami ruling to be immediately appealed by Florida’s Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Instead of following Florida’s law and constitution, Judge Zabel fell into line with other activist judges around the country who are completely ignoring the rule of law and substituting their own political opinions in place of clear controlling legal authority.  Judge Zabel’s reliance on Loving vs Virginia is completely misplaced.  Race is not an inherent property of marriage but gender is.  Loving affirmed the definition of natural marriage as between one man and one woman by ruling that any man can marry any woman irrespective of race.  We are confident that when the final word comes from the US Supreme Court that they will find that states have the right to define marriage.”

Judge Zabel also stayed her own order which means that in spite of her opinion that Florida’s marriage laws are unconstitutional, the clerk of the court in Miami-Dade County will not be issuing marriages licenses immediately until the matter will be fully heard by the appellate and federal courts.

Florida Appeals Court says “NO” to homosexual “marriage” licenses in the state.

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida reports that the Florida Democratic League (FDL), and People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality (PULSE), two parties in the homosexual so-called “marriage” lawsuit,  filed more than 6,000 signatures with Miami-Dade County Clerk Harvey Ruvin calling on Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel to dismiss the pending discriminatory lawsuit.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

“In a nation of laws, no one can be above the law. What law gives Plaintiffs the right to arbitrarily,  declare a personal behavioral choice, be it sexual or otherwise, a constitutional “right,” and then file a sham lawsuit to force the rest of society to accept it as such?, said Florida Democratic League Chairman Dr. Eladio Jose Armesto.

“Six days ago, Monroe Circuit Judge Luis Garcia shocked voters when he arrogantly trashed the votes of nearly 8 million Floridians. The backlash to that corrupt decision was so great that over the last six days more than 6,000 Miami-Dade residents  signed a letter to Judge Zabel calling on her to dismiss this discriminatory lawsuit”, stated People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality (PULSE) Executive Director Nathaniel Wilcox.

“Undoubtedly, there is a growing backlash to the homosexual so-called ‘marriage’ lawsuit in Miami-Dade when 6,000 of those who elected Judge Zabel signed a letter in just days asking for the sham lawsuit’s dismissal. This is evidence of the growing anti-corruption backlash taking place”, concludes Anthony Verdugo, Founder and Executive Director, Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida.

Conflicting Court Rulings May Have Big Implications for Employer Mandate

Within a few hours of each other, two federal appeals courts issued conflicting rulings on Obamacare. The final outcome could have major implications for employers.

The legal question of involves whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows people to receive subsidies for health plans purchased on federally-run exchanges—covering 34 states and the District of Columbia–or only through state-run exchanges. In a 2-1 decision, the DC Circuit ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that under the law, only those buying through state-run exchanges are eligible.

Judge Griffith wrote in the court’s split opinion:

The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of congressional intent, but the statutory text does. Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available only on Exchanges established by states. And in the absence of any contrary indications, that text is conclusive evidence of Congress’s intent.

Judge Randolph concurred:

[A]n Exchange established by the federal government cannot possibly be “an Exchange established by the State.” To hold otherwise would be to engage in distortion, not interpretation. Only further legislation could accomplish the expansion the government seeks.

A few hours later, in King v. Burwell the 4th Circuit unanimously upheld those same subsidies:

For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.

Why is it important to know who is eligible for a health plan subsidy? As the DC court’s Judge Edwards explains in his dissent, it triggers the employer mandate, [emphasis mine]:

Specifically, the ACA penalizes any large employer who fails to offer its full-time employees suitable coverage if one or more of those employees “enroll[s] . . . in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable tax credit . . . is allowed or paid with respect to the employee.” (linking another penalty on employers to employees’ receipt of tax credits). Thus, even more than with the individual mandate, the employer mandate’s penalties hinge on the availability of credits. If credits were unavailable in states with federal Exchanges, employers there would face no penalties for failing to offer coverage. The IRS Rule has the opposite effect: by allowing credits in such states, it exposes employers there to penalties and thereby gives the employer mandate broader reach.

No subsidies, no employer mandate penalties.

Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute health policy expert, estimates that if the Halbig ruling stands, more than 250,000 firms would not be subject to the employer mandate.

There is no immediate change to the law, since the courts are a long way from settling the subsidies question. There will be appeals, other courts may weigh in with additional rulings, and since two circuit courts issued conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court may hear the case. Also, Congress could pass a bill to clarify the law. Not likely in the current political environment but possible.

What we do know is that the employer mandate imposes complex reporting costs and isn’t necessary. At the same time it gives employers the perverse incentive of either not hiring workers or hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones. Obamacare is a law packed with problems that needs to be fixed in order to have a health care system that has high quality, expanded access, and lower costs.

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (A.K.A. “Obamacare”) in 2010. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Daytona Beach, Florida: Black homosexual babysitter rapes 11-year old boy — Caught in the act by father

There are those who believe that homosexuals are benign individuals just looking to be treated fairly. There are those who think homosexuals act responsibly when it comes to their sexual urges to engage in sex with others of the same sex. Well one 18-year old homosexual got his due from a father but not until after he raped an 11-year old who he was babysitting.

Initial reports are that the homosexual abuse has been going on since the victim was 8-years old. The little boy was bullied by the homosexual rapist to keep silent about their sexual activities. This trauma will be forever with the 11-year old.

Raymond Frolander (pictured above) is 18-years old and is a pederast, a lover of little boys. All pederasts are homosexuals. Multiple Florida news outlets are failing to properly identify the rapist as black and a homosexual.

BizPacReview reports:

Daytona Beach father beat an 18-year-old male babysitter unconscious when he returned home to find him sexually abusing his 11-year-old son.

Raymond Frolander was a trusted family friend and neighbor, Daytona News-Journal reported.

According to police, when the father caught Frolander in the bedroom molesting his son, he knocked him out and called 911. Police responded to the call at 1:07 a.m. Friday, according to News-Journal.

[ … ]

Frolander admitted to the abuse, which had allegedly been going on for three years and is being held without bond. Charged with sexual battery, he appeared in court Friday with his face badly beaten and his eyes almost swollen shut.

Video from GlobalNew24:

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama to Sign Order Barring Federal Discrimination against Gays (order contains no religious exemption)

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Raymond Frolander is courtesy of The UK Daily Mail.

BREAKING NEWS: Activist Florida Judge strikes down Marriage Amendment — AG Bondi files appeal

l_garciab

Judge Luis M. Garcia

Today, Thursday, July 17, 2014, Monroe Circuit Court Judge Luis M. Garcia released a written order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the matter of Huntsman vs. Heavilin where homosexual bartenders filed suit arguing Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment was unconstitutional. The Amendment, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was passed by Florida voters in 2008 by a 62% margin.

In his order, Judge Garcia did not “stay” (stop) the issuing of marriage licenses until the federal courts determine the constitutional issues, something many judges have done after similar rulings in other cases around the country.  As a result, the same-sex couple who served as Plaintiff’s and perhaps hundreds of others could be able to obtain marriage licenses in Monroe County, possibly as soon as this Tuesday, July 22, 2014, according to the judge’s ruling.  Unless the court recognizes the appeal filed by the Attorney General of the State of Florida as staying the order, licenses could be issued.  A stay would halt the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses in Monroe County until the federal courts can determine the constitutional issues surrounding this controversy.

Judge Garcia was appointed to the Monroe County Circuit Court by former Governor Jeb Bush in October 2000.

John Stemberger, President & General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, who was the primary force spearheading the campaign to pass Florida’s Marriage Amendment in 2008, issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling by Judge Garcia, in the Florida Keys, is a stunning act of legal arrogance and raw judicial activism.  With one stoke of a pen, a mere trial judge has attempted to overthrow an act of direct democracy by five million Floridians who defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Judge Garcia has ignored the constitution, ignored the will of the people, and has asserted his own personal views over the rule of law.  This ruling is precisely what voters were trying to prevent when they overwhelmingly defined marriage in the Florida Constitution in 2008 by a 62% vote.

Judge Garcia’s reliance on the Windsor decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 is wrong sided and completely misplaced. Windsor was a state’s rights decision and affirmed that each state has the right to define marriage.  Instead of relying on the constitution, Garcia joined the judicial stampede of other lower federal judges who have tried to override marriage laws based on no precedent other than their own political agendas.  The judge’s opinion that the motivation for passing the marriage amendment was animus and hatred is simply outrageous and insults five million Floridians.

We thank Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for filing an immediate appeal to the court to stay its order until the federal courts can rule on the constitutional issues and appeal this insubordinate decision.”