I know, it’s a long title… but it had to be done. 

This is not a post about what’s happening in Florida re: the cancelled tea party.  There are plenty of diaries here at RedState that discuss exactly that.  Rather, this is a post about what to do about it.  It’s very easy for RedStaters to point to the would-be protestors in Florida and tell them they ought to protest anyway.  In fact, there are several good suggestions written as responses right here on RS.  And I do intend to get to that, somewhat.  But more importantly, this is about what we — anyone who cares about liberty — ought to do.

I introduced the following recommendation on Erick’s post regarding the events in Florida, and I hope to expand on them here.

First, allow me to reiterate that, even though this is a local issue, it is one that is important to all of us.  Though Cape Coral is the first municipality to actually cancel a scheduled protest, it comes out of the same attitudes that allow for other municipalities — any government entity, really — to believe they can, or even should, issue “permits” for a peaceful assembly.

We as Republicans — as people who claim to value freedom — cannot and should not tolerate the idea that this natural right, protected by our Constitution, should be subject to the approval of a government entity.  No matter who, by the way, is protesting.  Whether protestors are for us, politically, or against us, we must make it incumbent on ourselves to defend their right to do so.   Our forbears’ failure to protect those with whom we have disagreed in the past is precisely why we find ourselves in this prediciment now.  Freedom is freedom; and freedom denied is tyranny for all.

So what do we, freedom-loving people, do about what’s happening now?  What do we do about states and municipalities in which the government demands hoops be jumped through in order to have access to our simple right of free assembly?  More to the point, what do we do about a municipality that has changed its mind, and cancelled the approval to protest, as has happened here?  What do we, who claim to value the Constitution as dearly as our own lives, do about the fact that “approval for protest” even exists in the American vernacular?

I can think of two things.  The first has been mentioned by myself and many fellow RedStaters, and is both valid and necessary: Protest Anyway.  Both links above go to Erick’s post, and below the linked responses are several excellent ideas regarding how to carry on the protest in the face of this adversity.  I’m not going to repost them here, but I’ll summarize by saying: SHOW UP.  You don’t need a permit to stand on public property, even if you are holding a sign, or wearing a t-shirt.  And if a bunch of other people happen to have the same idea at the same time, well, that’s just convenient.  Your taxes pay for that upkeep.  It’s your property.  Show up, and have your say.

The second response is also important.  The second step recognizes the fact that some people in government have seen fit to deny rights expressly protected by the First Amendment, by claiming authority over those rights which they never should have had.  It also only works if many of us are involved and organized. Sending angry emails can be useful, but it doesn’t show the force, resolve and organization that is necessary to send the right message.

And what is the right message?  Simple:  We (lovers of liberty) are many, we are organized, and we are pissed.  To that end,  what I am proposing is, in essence, a harrassment campaign.   The goal is to make an example of the Cape Coral City Council.  The effort is totally harmless, but it puts them, and others, on notice that we are watching.

The effort itself is simply a campaign of phonecalls, emails and faxes.  By itself, not much different from what grass roots organizations — RedState included — do all the time.  The key here, however, is in the timing and in the message.  We must be coordinated to make this work. 

First the message:  Every call, every fax, every email should say more or less the same thing:
“You cannot rescind the First Amendment.  No permits for protests.  The Cape Coral Tea Party will happen.”

This message should start coming in to the City offices at around the same time.  Calls should start at the same time, the emails sent, the faxes beginning to come in.  If there’s a busy signal, hang up go to the next number.  Keep cycling the numbers until somebody picks up.  Once they do, deliver the message, hang up, cross it off the list, and start cycling again.  Call every number.  Get somebody on every line.  If it’s an answering machine, leave a message and move on. 

The numbers listed are for the mayor, the city council and the Parks Department (who, for some reason, made the final decision).

City Council
phone: 239-574-0437
fax: 239-574-0429
email: council@capecoral.net

Jim Burch, Mayor
Phone: 239-574-0436
Email: jburch@capecoral.net
Term Expires: November 2009

District 1: Gloria Tate
Email: gtate@capecoral.net
District 2: Peter Brandt
Email: pbrandt@capecoral.net
District 3: William Deile
Email: bdeile@capecoral.net
District 4: Dolores Bertolini
Email: dbertolini@capecoral.net
District 5: Eric D. Grill
Email: egrill@capecoral.net
District 6: Timothy Day
Email: tday@capecoral.net
District 7: Derrick L. Donnell Ed. D
Email: ddonnell@capecoral.net

Parks and Recreation
Phone: 239-573-3128
Fax: 239-573-3129
ccpks@capecoral.net

(h/t: ColdWarrior for the info)

Because time will be needed to get people on board, I can’t recommend a time.  First, I’d like to know how many would be on board with this effort, and how many can get others on board.  There needs to be as many of us as possible, so even if it takes a few days to organize, in my opinion, it would be well worth the effort.

So there it is.  We can organize this.  We can send a clear message about our strength and our resolve.  IF we’re willing to do it.  I’m willing to take any and all suggestions about organizing this effort, but remember that it has to happen quickly. 

So first things first: Who will do this with me?  Who will be a part of this effort to tell this and all government bodies and municipalities that they simply don’t have the right to remove those of their citizens?  Any takers?

The following is a letter submitted to the office of my Congressman, John McHugh, Dist. 23, NY.  And, frankly, to all our Congressmen.  This will be cross-posted at SLC Republitarian and sent to local papers today.

Dear Sir,

When you took office, you swore to uphold the Constitution.  This is the document which defines our nation, and as such, which must be the standard to which our government holds.

Yesterday, when you voted ‘Aye’ on HR1586, you, and those who voted with you, blatantly disregarded not only the letter, but the intent of the US Constitution.  And in so doing, you negated the very reason for a Republican form of government: to protect from the tyranny of the majority.

Sir, no matter how egregious the act, for the government to impose a retroactive, punative tax is not only tyrannical (and no, I’m not merely being hyperbolic), but unethical.  But let’s take a look at this so-called crime, committed by certain executives at AIG.  What they did, in essence, was accept a sum of money which they were promised — and contracted for — by a company which happened to get a government bailout that they never should have gotten.

That the bonuses were in bad taste in not in question.  Indeed, the very idea of non-performance based bonuses of this type illustrates the kind of poor business management that drove AIG to the brink of collapse in the first place.  However, in providing the bailout, it was THE GOVERNMENT which ultimately provided for the bonuses — even to the extent of actively allowing for them in the bailout bill itself.  In other words, what the government has done in effect is to give these executive their bonuses, and then punish them for receiving them.

How are we, the citizens of this Country — of your District — to have any confidence in a government that shows this level of ethical schizophrenia?

Sir, you have betrayed your oath to uphold the foundational ideals of this Country.  I pray, and as your constituent demand, that you find a way to make this right.

Regards,
Randy Streu

Man, I hate pop culture.  I hate even more that the news has become little more than a celebrity-maker.  Take, for example, the case of Media-manufactured celeb, Nadya “Octomom” Suleman.  I have wanted, with everything in me, to avoid the whole “octomom” controversy.  I have felt — and still largely do — that this woman’s life and children are just none of our damned business.  Unfortunately, after being force-fed this woman’s story by most news outlets (has anyone noticed that the news has become much like pop radio?  In order to get to what you actually want, you have to listen to minute after minute of cheap, manufactured crap), I’ve started to notice that her story does indeed effect us all.  And in ways many people might not expect.

In the latest chapter of this soap opera, officials at the hospital caring for Suleman’s children have decided not to release her children to her, because they feel her house isn’t ready for them.  Let me repeat:  the hospital has decided not to release a woman’s children, not because of pediatric reasons, but because they, the hospital, feels that her house isn’t adequately prepared for them.

This episode represents the latest round of officials and individuals declaring Suleman’s unfitness to make decisions for her own kids.  There’s just one problem with this: legally, Suleman hasn’t done anything wrong.  There is no recent history of her being deemed unfit as a parent, no situations in which child protection authorities have removed children from her care.  All she’s done is have eight more kids. 

You may think she was irresponsible.  You may think she’s not that bright.  Doesn’t matter.  Doesn’t make a damned bit of difference what you, I, the hospital, the county, or Barack Obama Himself thinks or feels about Nadya Suleman as a person, or as a parent.  These are her kids.  The hospital has the responsibility to make sure they’re healthy before they leave the hospital.  Once they’re fit to leave, that should be it.  Instead, they make her jump through hoops — to get her own children home.

Okay, you say.  So what?  This doesn’t effect my life at all, and anyway, maybe it’s best for the children. 

Wrong, and arguably on both counts.  The Suleman story represents a great mirror into the mind of our nation.  Nationally, both “qualified” and “unqualified” pundits are weighing in, condemning this woman for choosing to have more children.  Maybe they’re right; maybe not.  Doesn’t matter.  They publicly worry about the drain this woman’s growing family will be on the community because of Welfare, and then, with the same breath, they foam at the mouth demanding that nobody provide for her and her family through charity.

Then, after being roundly demonized on the public square — while recovering from delivering eight babies, by the way — she is asked to tell her side of the story.  Fox News and other outlets then demonize her further… because she wants to be paid to tell her story.  “Anybody who pays this woman is a sucker,” they grouse.  Well, folks, I hate to say it, but if it were me, and the media smacked me around publicly while I was recovering from major surgery, I might just take the same tack she did:  Screw you people… if you want my story, you can help me out financially.

Why do I bring this stuff up; what does it have to do with what’s happening now?  Simply, I’m reminding you, A, of how she got here and, B, that she is a human being.  An American.  Suleman is me, and she is you.  Your personal opinions don’t — and shouldn’t — have any bearing on whether or how she raises her children.  You wouldn’t want public opinion determining your own family decisions, I assume. 

And yet, demonized and unpopular as she is, we find that the same people who would hate to have others judge their own decisions — and then legally sanction them for those actions — applaud when the same is done to Suleman.  Conservatives cannot allow anyone — the hospital, the government, or even private citizens — to violate Suleman’s right to run her family as she sees fit.  Not even if we disagree with her choices.  Not if we want to keep our own rights.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

New York’s illustrious “governor” Paterson has issued a statement saying he no longer needs to levy the entire tax and fee package against New York’s citizens, because of money coming to the state from Obama’s “Stimulus” package. The $11 billion from Washington will help Paterson back away from his more politically detrimental tax and fee suggestions, such as the softdrink tax, download fees and taxes, and more.

He does plan on keeping several of the new or higher fees or taxes he’d proposed, since his administration is unable or unwilling to trim enough fat out of the budget. Of course, much of New York’s overhead has to do with enforcement of codes, rules, regulations and laws. There’s a reason “over-regulated” often turns into “over-taxed” as it has in the case of New York. Simply put, when you make regulations, you have to pay somebody to enforce them. This means a larger budget. Which means… yup… higher taxes.

Paterson makes the claim that “nobody likes to tax people,” suggesting that he simply has no other choice. But there is another choice. Back off. Get the hell out of New Yorkers’ lives. Stop regulating every matchstick that comes off the assembly line. Stop requiring licenses and fees to so much as trim somebody’s hair. Shut the bureaucracy down, and then we taxpayers won’t have to foot the bill any longer. It’s an easy enough fix, if you can get the Legislature to go along with it.

Of course, given the makeup of the State Legislature, that doesn’t look too likely. Even if Paterson wasn’t completely obtuse.