Our Banner

Mail address:

Cynthia Lucas #1 Mandalay Rd, Stuart, FL 34996 - We could use some help with expenses.

Martin 9/12 Calendar

Sunday, March 29, 2015

The New Fundamentalism

The New Fundamentalism

by JESSE SAFFRON March 26, 2015 12:40 PM 

On Wednesday, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) released a 260-page report titled “Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism.” Authors Rachelle Peterson and Peter W. Wood say that the sustainability movement, which is the latest euphemism for the environmental movement, is about more than encouraging consumers to use less plastic water bottles and to recycle more. The movement’s intellectual underpinnings are rooted in an ideology that seeks to curb individual and economic liberty for the sake of the “common good.” 

Read more at: NationalReview.com...

Did RNC "Scripted" Rules Change Start A Civil War In The Republican Party?

Did RNC "Scripted" Rules Change Start A Civil War In The Republican Party?
Published on Aug 30, 2012
by Ben Swann

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Education Disaster SB 616 passed the Florida Senate Appropriations Committee 14 to 1

Click on the image to link to the site for Florida Citizens' Alliance, where you can take action to urge the Florida Senate to reject this disastrous bill.

SB 616 is a completely politically motivated, 70 page bill designed to protect Jeb Bush and Common Core.  It has very little redeeming value.  Here is our March 19th, 2015 testimony on this bill in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Education.

Friday, March 27, 2015

How Colleges Are Becoming Greenhouses for Sustainability Indoctrination

How Colleges Are Becoming Greenhouses for Sustainability Indoctrination

By  | March 25, 2015

Sustainability did not originate on the college quad, or even in faculty offices. Instead, it took form in the UN Brundtland Report and seeped into America’s consciousness slowly. The story of its ascent involves a couple, a summit, and a new idea.

In 1990, when John Kerry met Teresa Heinz at an Earth Day rally in Washington, D.C., sustainability was not part of the values commonly shared by the American public. Activists had celebrated the first Earth Day in April 1970 and prompted President Nixon to create the Environmental Protection Agency in December. These benchmarks were part of a larger environmental awakening that included the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), Clean Water Act (1972), Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (1973), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974). President Nixon, more concerned with swing voters than with the merits of environmental protection, signed the bills. But under Reagan and Bush senior, environmental concerns played second or third or fourth fiddles to economic growth, international affairs, and tax policy. Sustainability was not even a well-known term.

Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, spoke at the 1990 rally, as did Mrs. Heinz’s husband, Republican Senator John Heinz from Pennsylvania. Senator Heinz introduced his colleague to his wife briefly, as the two waited to address the crowd. Senator Kerry and Mrs. Heinz met a second time in 1992, this time in Rio de Janeiro at a UN Earth Summit called to address escalating fears of climate change, the fourth in a series of UN climate talks around the world. Kerry was still a Massachusetts senator, divorced in 1988. Heinz, widowed in 1991 after her husband was killed in a helicopter crash, attended as a delegate from the U.S. State Department.

At the Earth Summit, delegates adopted a Climate Change Convention that led to the emissions-cutting Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They also developed Agenda 21, an action plan for nations, local governments, and private organizations to strengthen “sustainable development” by combating poverty, empowering women and minorities, providing food and resources for children, protecting biodiversity, conserving virgin land, and setting out educational goals to teach citizens about the importance of sustainable programs of action.

Read on at Intercollegiate Review... 

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Censorship by Design: Criminalization of Child Evangelism - Part 3

Censorship by Design: Criminalization of Child Evangelism
The Hostile Christian, Part 3

Debra Rae | 24 March 2015 

 In the words of secularist Katherine Stewart, “By turning our public schools into religious battlefields, [Good News] Clubs have been detrimental to public education as a whole.”A tool of the Religious Right, these Clubs purportedly employ “evil-genius tactics” to target very young children. While slighting the “Golden Rule” (or “Royal Law,” loving one’s neighbor as self), leaders advance an ostensibly objectionable, five-year curriculum, employing heavy-handed, “draconian tactics” that emphasize sin, punishment, hell, and blind obedience.[1] 

• CEF Hostility Toward (and Damage of) Public Education—NOT!
Stewart’s book, The Good News Clubs: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children exposes this alleged, fundamentalist-Christian plot to infiltrate and then seriously damage public schools. While purportedly “in-your-face” on school grounds, child evangelists likewise are accused of leveling a “stealth” assault. That the Good News Clubs damage public education does not comport with testimonies to the contrary of principals, staff, teachers, parents, and children who know firsthand the work of Child Evangelism Fellowship.[2] 

Bible-believing Christians, Stewart insists, disdain even the concept of public education. In her thinking, their subconscious goal, driven by the Religious Right, is to “get rid of the schools altogether,” reasoning “If you can’t own it, break it. …Take the money with you and go.”[3] Again, this does not add up. What Stewart castigates as an evil “system of religious education funded by the state” precisely mirrors historical roots and development of higher education in America.[4] 

Monday, March 23, 2015



The term “communism” originated in France in the 1840’s but it acquired a modern meaning only in 1918 when Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, having seized power in what used to be the Russian empire, named his party Communist.

Communism is a variant of socialism. But differs from it in this important respect: while socialists believe in democracy and assume that they will come to power democratically and rule democratically, Lenin and his Communist followers did not.

On one occasion, Lenin frankly defined his government as “power that is limited by nothing, by no laws, that is restrained by absolutely no rules, that rests directly on coercion” — an excellent definition of what later came to be labeled a “totalitarian regime.”


Censorship by Design: Criminalization of Child Evangelism - Part 2

Censorship by Design: Criminalization of Child Evangelism

Sullied Separation Principle, Part 2


by Debra Rae | 23 March 2015 

The unmistakably Protestant character of America’s early public schools has all but vanished, and efforts to resurrect Bible literacy in the public square are met with increasingly vehement opposition primarily driven by atheists. In their defense, naysayers are quick to play “the separation” card.

Constitutional Mandate to Separate

Whereas the Establishment Clause of our First Amendment does not require a complete separation of church and state,[1] investigative journalist Katherine Stewart insists, “Everyone benefits from maintaining religion and government separate.”[2] 

Stewart may not like it, but our Constitution ensures believers a platform from which to proclaim their message (U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 1992).[3]The nation’s institutions presuppose a Supreme Being; hence, courts find no constitutional requirement for government to be hostile to religion, nor may it throw its weight against efforts to widen the scope of religious influence (Zorach v. Clausen, 1952).[4] The Court mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance; and it forbids hostility toward any (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1985; Repeated in Wallace v. Jafree, 1985).


Tracing “the Big Lie

Stewart bemoans erosion of her version of church-state separation: By somehow forcing the schools to subsidize and promote their religion, the Good News Clubs violate principles of the Establishment Clause of our First Amendment.[5] Not so. Stewart may be surprised to learn that church-state separation is found, not in the U.S. Constitution, but rather in Article 124 of the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (1922-1991).”[6] In truth, repeated misspeak of “separation of church and state” is but a propaganda technique (German, Große Lüge, meaning “a big lie”) employed by Adolf Hitter.[7] You know how it goes: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”[8] 


Saturday, March 21, 2015

Censorship by Design: Criminalization of Child Evangelism

Censorship by Design: Criminalization of Child Evangelism

First Things First, Part 1

Debra Rae | 21 March 2015

Bible literacy and good news are rare commodities in our postmodern world. Thankfully, light continues to shine, even in darkness. Since 1937, an interdenominational, nonprofit organization, Child Evangelism Fellowship, has reached over 15.6 million children worldwide with clear, age- appropriate presentation of the Gospel (“Good News”) of Jesus Christ. CEF has supported 62,393 Good News Clubs all the while helping 609 national missionaries in 93 countries stay in children’s ministry through the Sponsor-A-National program.[1]

Compliments of CEF, 190 countries have received nearly twelve million pieces of Gospel literature. Lives remarkably changed testify to its value, and the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability attests to the ministry’s integrity. Nonetheless, CEF faces formidable “censorship by design” in tireless efforts of secularists to criminalize child evangelism through after-school clubs. Fashioning well-meaning CEF volunteers as pawns of the Political Right, Good News Club antagonists advance their own political agenda in the interest of “a modern secular democracy” ostensibly envisioned by our nation’s founders.[2]

First Things First: Our Founding Principles
One such Founding Father, Patrick Henry was an attorney, orator, and politician in the 1770s. Having served as first and sixth post-colonial Governor of Virginia, Henry was adamant, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."[3]

In 1812, Francis Scott Key echoed Henry’s sentiments adding, "The patriot who feels himself in the service of God, who acknowledges Him in all his ways, has the promise of Almighty direction;  … he will therefore seek to establish for his country … the name of a Christian nation." Key is credited with having written lyrics for our national anthem.[4]  

   Read the remainder HERE.

Friday, March 20, 2015

PLF Atlantic Center notches another win for property rights

PLF Atlantic Center notches another win for property rights

18 March 2015 | 

This week, Florida’s Martin County Commission accepted settlement terms that leave our clients, Bob and Anita Breinig, no longer facing onerous fines and the imminent loss of their dream: their popular Flash Beach Grille restaurant in Hobe Sound. Instead, the Breinigs find themselves with their property rights intact, and they stand ready to expand their business without unreasonable interference from meddling government bureaucrats.

Just a quick (or not-so-quick) summary of the facts in case you don’t remember the details:


Two years ago, Robert and Anita Breinig faced every American entrepreneur’s worst nightmare when they sought to expand their restaurant: government bureaucrats bent on stopping them for no reason other than they could.

Years earlier, the Breinigs started a small catering business, which they eventually expanded into a small but locally popular restaurant, the Flash Beach Grille, in Hobe Sound, Florida.  Robert cooks and Anita manages. Success followed success until mid-2013, when they requested approval from the County for a liquor license as a step along the way towards greater success. Then things went south. 

Read the rest on the Liberty Blog...



by Tom DeWeese  
March 20, 2015

Many Americans believe Bill Clinton has spent his years away from the White House simply enjoying the good life of an ex-president. He gets a full security team; travel expense around the world; a cool presidential library equipped with full living quarters; the best tables at the fanciest eating establishments; huge speaking fees to share his own two cents worth of opinion on any given issue; he gets to show his face on television as an appointed spokesman for the latest disaster relief project; and sometimes even gets to represent the United States at some international meeting.

A fun life, certainly. But such a description in no way represents the reality of Bill Clinton’s true impact on the world since leaving the White House.

In truth, Bill Clinton has been a very busy boy, continuing to carry out the global agenda he orchestrated from the White House, and he’s doing it with funds equal to those of the GNP of a small nation. The mission for Clinton’s activities is “Global interdependence.” The other way to say it is “Global Governance,” UN style. Bill is all over the world, creating programs and policy, many times working directly with foreign governments, to bring about a one world government – at the expense of the sovereign nation he once headed.

Read the article at NewsWithViews.com... 

Tuesday, March 17, 2015



By Cliff Kincaid
March 17, 2015  

Those who assembled on March 12 at St. John the Apostle Catholic Church in Leesburg, Virginia, to celebrate the life of conservative thinker and writer M. Stanton Evans heard several references to his monumental 1994 work, The Theme is Freedom. This book is worth remembering and re-reading as we are being treated repeatedly to the spectacle in the media of “conservatives” endorsing gay rights and gay marriage.

In an illustration of what Stan called the “pagan ethic,” he cites on page 128 “the campaign to change societal views of homosexuality—to treat it as an ‘alternative lifestyle,’ as valid in its way as heterosexual conduct.” Stan comments, “Among other things, this is a reversion to pagan ways of thinking.” He cites acceptance of homosexuality in ancient civilizations such as Babylon and notes, “All of this was unequivocally condemned by the religion of the Bible.”

Yet, as Austin Ruse points out in his Breitbart article, “GOP Elite Ask Supreme Court to Impose Gay Marriage on America,” a brief to celebrate homosexual “marriage” as equal to traditional marriage has been submitted to the court and signed by 300 conservatives and/or Republicans, including no less than 26 former senior Mitt Romney staffers. 

Read the article on NewsWithViews.com...

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Tell Congress no fast track for Obama!


This is the letter I sent from this website.

March 15, 2015

Dear Representative Murphy,
Dear Senator Nelson,
Dear Senator Rubio,

Congress ceding their Constitutional prerogatives to the President on fast track is no small matter. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell himself recently admitted, “It's an enormous grant of power, obviously, from a Republican Congress to a Democratic president.”

At a time when the President has for all intents and purposes declared war on the constitutional separation of powers, it makes zero sense for Congress to voluntarily weaken its treaty ratification prerogatives. Why not make Obama go through the process under regular order, with amendments allowed?

Obama should have to explain and where necessary defend every word in any treaty he agrees to, with it being held to the highest level of scrutiny. That is Congress’ job. It is also your job to amend or defeat any treaty that falls short of being in America’s interests.

If Obama produces a good trade deal for America, whether or not there is fast track authority granted him, it can be ratified intact. But it would be foolhardy for Congress to not reserve the right to amend the Trans-Pacific Partnership given the experience of the past six years.

Not giving the President trade promotion authority is not anti- trade. In fact, the United States already exports $861 billion to the trans-Pacific trade partners, accounting for almost 40 percent of the $2.2 trillion of U.S. exports worldwide in 2012.

That includes $48 billion of goods and services to Australia, $559 million to Brunei Darussalam, $354 billion to Canada, $22 billion to Chile, $116 billion to Japan, $15 billion to Malaysia, $243 billion to Mexico, $5.2 billion to New Zealand, $9.4 billion to Peru, $43 billion to Singapore, and $5 billion to Vietnam.

As a result of this continued trade, our economic bonds with these nations are tight.

However, opposition to fast track is a recognition of the need for Congress to exert its constitutional prerogatives so they can play their proper role in the treaty ratification process. Now it is time for Congress to step up and fight for the constitutional separation of powers — not give more executive powers to Obama to negotiate a bad deal for the U.S. economy. Hold on tightly to our Constitution.


Mr. James McGovern
Stuart, FL 34997

Saturday, March 14, 2015

History Shows Obama Doesn’t Need Congress to Seal Iran Deal

History Shows Obama Doesn’t Need Congress to Seal Iran Deal

Melissa Quinn /  / March 13, 2015

In a letter to Iran this week, nearly four dozen Republican senators showcased the limitations of a potential unilateral nuclear deal by President Obama, rightly warning that the future U.S. president could reverse the agreement.

DS_logoBut in trying to assert their power, the senators skirted over the fact that presidents have executive authority to make deals with foreign countries—without needing to go to Congress.

While Republican congressional leaders are pushing the Obama administration to handle its nuclear negotiations with Iran as a treaty, which would require approval from two-thirds of the upper chamber, history shows that presidents can—and often do—avoid this requirement by forging “executive agreements” with foreign countries.

Read the post at The Daily Signal...

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Florida conservatives scramble about gay adoption bill

Florida conservatives scramble about gay adoption bill

by Joni B. Hannigan | 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Christian Examiner) -- Conservatives in Florida are up in arms today over what they say is a move by Republican leadership to remove Florida's longstanding policy against homosexual adoption.

"Republican leadership have completely by-passed the committee process and public notice and debate," John Stemberger, head of Florida Family Policy Council, said in a March 10 release.

The vote on House Bill 7013, an adoption reform bill, came five years following an appeals court ruling the ban is unconstitutional, according to the Bradenton Herald. Some Republicans voted against the quickly approved bill, although none spoke out against it, the article said.

Read the article on ChristianExaminer.com...

Sunday, March 8, 2015

What kind of “conservative” supports a government-subsidized energy amendment?

What kind of “conservative” supports a government-subsidized energy amendment?
By Jim McGovern | 09 March 2015

Conservatives come in all shapes and sizes – or so we are told. Some even favor taking PAC money to advance a state constitutional amendment to favor the solar equipment and installation industry over other energy choices for Florida. And if you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in buying.

But apparently, if you wave some PAC money in front of some conservatives[1] you may discover how flexible their “principles” become. Against crony capitalism? Absolutely – except for the solar energy industry which might benefit some consumers (and certain manufacturers).

Floridians for Solar Choice[2] professes to be a “grassroots” organization[3] promoting the idea of a state constitutional amendment to elevate solar energy to a favored commercial class. On their slick Facebook[4] space they write, “As our momentum builds, monopoly utilities and their supporters in the fossil fuel industry have started a campaign of false and deceptive comments about the Florida Solar Choice petition and our effort to remove market barriers for solar power in the Sunshine State.” Their petition proposes to amend the state Constitution to prevent the state from regulating any enterprise that offers solar energy to consumers and to prevent traditional utilities from “interfering” in that enterprise.

Precious little is known about those alleged “market barriers” cited by the solar promoters. And, if they exist, why would it take a constitutional amendment to remove them? The petition language states, “It shall be the policy of the state to encourage and promote local small-scale solar-generated electricity production and to enhance the availability of solar power to customers.”[5] What appears here is another attempt (invented[6] and weaponized by leftists[7]) to capture the popular sentiments of conservation and prudence (yes, even among conservative) to establish still another set of government regulations which will favor an otherwise failing industry and institutionalize its survival. And because they think it would be “good for the environment,” they want to spend your money to accomplish it.

These seemingly well-intentioned activists are encouraged to deploy their minions to gather petitions by certain moneyed interests who stand to profit by the public’s gullible nature. The media is feverishly trying to convince the low-information reader[8] that this is a “non-partisan,” big-tent movement that springs from a genuine concern for “our planet.” It seems, however, that most of the money[9] maintaining the Floridians for Solar Choice and most of the campaign activity comes from the SACE-ACTION FUND in Knoxville, Tennessee. This is the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Action Fund, one of the many Political Action Committees (PACs) that have been channeling money from special interest lobbying groups and tax-exempt “charitable trusts” into environment and education lobbying.

The political nature of this organization’s “non-partisan” efforts is revealed when reading the candidate scorecard[10] they posted in the 2014 race for Florida’s governor’s race. The irony of “conservatives” working with the people who pushed Charlie Crist for governor in 2014 is comical, but instructive. A casual inspection of the list of operators of the Southern Alliance[11] shows an array of leftists with varying degrees of experience promoting leftist causes. The website[12] for Floridians also claims support from one or more of the various loosely affiliated tea parties who are anxious to appear “connected.”

We all wish the solar industry well in its quest to become a viable alternative power source. Reducing pollutants and relieving the cyclical strain on our power infrastructure are laudable goals. But how much more “incentive” should continue to come from public money when the result of that kind of support seems to be making certain people[13]/[14]/[15] wealthy at taxpayer expense? And with a constitutional amendment? Ridiculous.


[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnJau4SCBps

[2] http://www.flsolarchoice.org/

[3] http://election.dos.state.fl.us/committees/ComDetail.asp?account=64491

[4] https://www.facebook.com/flsolarchoice

[5] http://www.flsolarchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/64491-1.pdf

[6] http://www.newswithviews.com/Kepus/diane123.htm

[7] http://americanpolicy.org/2011/01/31/the-reality-of-a-green-world/

[8] http://3blmedia.com/News/Conservatives-and-Environmentalists-Join-Break-Floridas-Solar-Power-Monopoly-Minute

[9] http://election.dos.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/TreFin.exe

[10] http://www.cleanenergyactionfund.org/scorecards/

[11] http://www.cleanenergyactionfund.org/staff/

[12] http://www.flsolarchoice.org/about/endorsements/

[13] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-30/top-u-s-solar-company-profits-amid-red-for-industry-energy

[14] http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/19/solar-profit-margins-compared-to-other-industries/

[15] http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/04/15/solar-energy-solar-stocks/


Sunday, March 1, 2015

Common Core Testing Regime Ruled Unconstitutional

Common Core Testing Regime Ruled Unconstitutional

Posted on MARCH 1, 2015 Written by 

In a devel­op­ment with mas­sive impli­ca­tions for the Obama administration’s ongo­ing attempt at nation­al­iz­ing edu­ca­tion with Com­mon Core, a Mis­souri judge ruled this week that the fed­er­ally funded test­ing regime for the con­tro­ver­sial stan­dards was uncon­sti­tu­tional. The rul­ing means that the state of Mis­souri is offi­cially pro­hib­ited from par­tic­i­pat­ing in the “Smarter Bal­anced Assess­ment Con­sor­tium” (SBAC), a key ele­ment of Com­mon Core enforce­ment, because it’s an “uncon­sti­tu­tional inter­state compact.”

The law­suit against par­tic­i­pa­tion in the scheme was filed late last year by a group of tax­pay­ers seek­ing to uphold the rule of law, safe­guard pub­lic funds, and stop Com­mon Core. Judge Daniel R. Green, with the Cir­cuit Court of Cole County, Mis­souri, ruled in favor of the plain­tiffs and ordered the state to imme­di­ately halt all involve­ment with the fed­er­ally funded “multi-state” test­ing regime. In par­tic­u­lar, Judge Green noted that Con­gress had never approved the inter­state com­pact being foisted on states by the Obama administration’s Depart­ment of Education.

The Court finds that the Smarter Bal­anced Assess­ment Con­sor­tium, a.k.a. Smarter Bal­anced, Smarter Bal­anced at UCLASBAC, and SB, is an unlaw­ful inter­state com­pact to which the U.S. Con­gress has never con­sented, whose exis­tence and oper­a­tion vio­late the Com­pact Clause of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, Arti­cle I, § 10, cl. 3, as well as numer­ous fed­eral statutes,” the judge ruled. “Missouri’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Smarter Bal­anced Assess­ment Con­sor­tium as a mem­ber is unlaw­ful under state and fed­eral law.”

Read the entire post...

ISDS: The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause that everyone should be against

ISDS: The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause that everyone should be against


The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational cor­po­ra­tions in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The pro­vi­sion, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlements,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favour of big multinational cor­po­ra­tions. Worse, it would under­mine US sovereignty.

Read the whole post...