"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
~Samuel Adams ~ This is the blog of an irate, tireless minority of one, me.
Having shared videos of the NOAA Facts Forum on the proposed marine sanctuary, this blogger is pleased to share that common sense has prevailed and Governor Walker has pulled his nomination. This does not mean the process has stopped - only that it will be much more difficult for NOAA to get their hands on that portion of Lake Michigan. But it is a step in the right direction.
From the Sheboygan Press: “The addition of a new level of government for citizens to petition for permits and certifications for normal use of Lake Michigan is too much of a tradeoff for the negligible benefit to protecting shipwrecks,” Walker continued in his letter. “Wisconsin has and will continue to protect our submerged cultural resources.” " For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:" ~ Romans 13:3
My apologies both for the delay in posting the remaining videos and for the lack of captioning.
These videos are the questions that the public in attendance at this meeting had for the speakers.
In spite of the fact that this effort has been ongoing for a number of years, many of these people - including this blogger - had only found out about the proposal to create a National Marine Sanctuary out of the part of Lake Michigan that are adjacent to this section of shoreline(at least for now - who knows how much of Lake Michigan NOAA wants under it's jurisdiction? ) in March of this year.
That is not due to a lack of effort on the part of NOAA and etc, but to the fact that most people don't have the time to keep tabs on the machinations of federal government agencies. Most have other, more immediate interests - until those interests are directly threatened. And that is where we are today.
The waters of Lake Michigan are shared with the state of Michigan. The Wisconsin half belongs to the people of Wisconsin. The federal government wants to control it and this is one way they can do that. By tempting the people of Wisconsin to give up responsibility for our half of the lake to NOAA for this "good" cause - even though we are already preserving those shipwrecks. We don't need to give up our sovereignty of our half of Lake Michigan to do that.
Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. You cannot spend one without giving up the other.
Those who rose to question the proposal all made good points. This blogger, however, opposes the establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary on the constitutional principle that the federal government is constitutionally limited to owning/exercising sovereign control over forts, ports and ten square miles. The federal government is not to exercise ownership like control over the states. As mentioned earlier in this series states like Nevada have given up their sovereignty over so much of their land to the federal government that it is laughable to even call them a state.
From Article 1, Section 8, this is what the US Constitution says: " To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
There is already a Coast Guard station in Sheboygan. It is across the street from where this meeting was held.
"And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. 2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. 3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee."~ 1 Kings 21:1-3
My apologies both for the delay in posting the remaining videos and for the lack of captioning. The speaker here is Sheboygan Mayor Vandersteen. The camera's battery ran out midway through his presentation so there are two videos for this speaker. My apologies also for the shakiness of the video.
Perhaps I am cynical, but I doubt that tourism will greatly increase for a marine sanctuary when Sheboygan couldn't even manage to keep the Dairyland Surf Classic going. They couldn't find someone else to take on this event when it's originators were ready to call it quits or to start another freshwater surfing event in Sheboygan, but scores of divers and tourists are going to come around to read about shipwrecks? I say read about shipwrecks because most will not dive them. The very features of the lake that preserve these wrecks discourage diving to see them. Would they even be visible from a glass bottomed boat? Those who will brave the cold and dark to dive such wrecks are well able to do so already. We don't need federal interference to assure that. I don't think this will bring in tourists in an amount sufficient to pay for the costs down the road.
And the costs down the road, Mayor Vandersteen, are what our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for through the nose. The federal debt of this nation is already astronomical. How is such a project even sustainable? Oh wait - I'm sure the costs will be covered by the draconian fines imposed by NOAA for breaking any of IT'S rules and regulations - rules and regulations created by NOAA - not the citizens of Wisconsin, and enforced by NOAA's own law enforcement agency. That is NOT what this author wishes to leave to her grandchildren.
The bottom line is that no one is saying the wrecks should not be preserved. We all agree that they are historically significant and a part of what makes this community special. What we are disagreeing on is whether or not we can take care of them ourselves or whether we wish to forgo our own responsibility in the matter and burden the rest of the nation with those costs.
Which will inevitably lead to the federal government restricting the constitutionally established (In the State Constitution)rights of the citizenry. Because if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk to go with it. And if you give the federal government responsibility that you should shoulder yourself, they will take the freedoms that accompany those responsibilities. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin and you cannot give away only one side of that coin.
We can take care of our own property, sir. It would be ethically and morally wrong to burden the rest of the nation with this. It would be wrong to add to the debt burden our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are already facing thanks to such expensive government programs. And it would be wrong to deprive our children of the freedoms guaranteed them as citizens of Wisconsin because we lacked the strength of character to shoulder the responsibilities of maintaining those wrecks ourselves. The tourism and commerce you expect whether they materialize or not are an argument from greed and possibly sloth and the citizens of Wisconsin are better than that - or at least this author thinks they are.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March of 2017 to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.
"He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live."~ Prov 15:27
This is Kris Sarri - President/CEO, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation She appears to be here to confirm the idea that money, in the form of grants, will grace any community that accepts a national marine sanctuary.
She is soft spoken, and polite, even gracious. In fact all of the panelists were very polite people. At about the 5 minute mark, Ms. Sarri says "These are public waters, these are America's waters."No madam, these are not America's waters. They belong, legally, morally and ethically to the people of the state of Wisconsin, just as the natural resources of the other states belong to the peoples of those states. Do I get to say I shouldn't have to pay state income tax like the people of Texas because they have oil to offset their expenses as a state? No. Why not? Because the oil in Texas,(as does the gold in Alaska, the fertile soil in Oklahoma or the pastures of the Dakotas) belongs to the people of that state. These are our waters here in Wisconsin and ours, too, is the responsibility of caring for them and any historic, cultural, etc heritage they may contain. We have been taking care of them since the state was founded and we are perfectly capable of continuing to do so. With the assistance of your foundation or without it.
Ms. Sarri, at one point, insists that the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is not affiliated with NOAA. Perhaps this is an attempt to present her view as that of an unbiased outsider. Their website says: " The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is the national non-profit partner for the National Marine Sanctuary System and its chief advocate." If there were no agency creating national marine sanctuaries, would there be a national marine sanctuary foundation? She is clearly comfortable advocating for NOAA in her segment. The NOAA and NMSF websites even use the same shade of blue as an accent color. So whether they are officially affiliated or not, they are clearly very cozy with one another and Ms. Sarri cannot be considered to be unbiased based on the claim of no official affiliation. Ms Sarri says "this is not a federal power grab" repeatedly. What this author heard was "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.". NOAA has it's own law enforcement agency. So, if a citizen of Wisconsin does something that is perfectly legal in Wisconsin, but that violates one of NOAA's regulations - which law enforcement agency will have jurisdiction? Because, logically, if the state of Wisconsin is maintaining control and jurisdiction over our waters, shouldn't it be under our laws and with our law enforcement agencies if this isn't a federal power grab? Are there any readers who think that will be the case? She then goes on to indicate that everybody didn't agree with Monterey or Thunder Bay and that things are going just wonderfully anyway. (Even though the "old top down" approach was so egregious? ) What this author heard was:"resistance is futile; you will be assimilated". As mentioned before, Wisconsin is perfectly capable of taking care of it's own heritage and resources. This is not a question of whether such resources are valuable or whether or not the people of this state wish to preserve our heritage, but whether we can and will do so without submitting to federal agencies and their not-officially-affiliated "friends".
Some may say "Why not take free money and let someone else deal with the hassles of preserving those wrecks and things?" And the answer is TANSTAAFL. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If you give up the responsibility for something, you give up the freedom to enjoy it at the same time. This author hopes that the citizens of the state of Wisconsin will prefer to keep the responsibility and the freedom that goes with it. Apologies for the shakiness of the video and special apologies for the many errors in the closed captioning. This one was a bit of a challenge. This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox." ~ Prov 14:4
One day my mother came home from work and said, "I told them today that I am not going to any more of the staff"input" meetings." When asked why she had made that decision, she said" They say they want our input in order to craft policies and procedures, but it is clear that they have already decided what they are doing and are just asking us for input because some management book told them we would be happier if we thought we were having an effect on the policies that are being implemented. That's a waste of my time."
That is what came to mind as Mr. Green was speaking. There was a definite air of "we are doing this to make you feel like you have some say in the process, but it will happen whether you like it or not."
In one of the earlier video descriptions there was a thought experiment. Here is another one: Should the federal government's interest in gaining control over such a large body of fresh water (or any other resource that may be in or under Lake Michigan) become pressing, how could we prevent them from designating every piece of driftwood, driftglass and rusting metal as being "of historical significance" and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of NOAA?
As with some of the other speakers, the unspoken word "yet" could have been added to many of the denials that NOAA would end up with sole control and jurisdiction over the entire area of the designated marine sanctuary. And given the expansion of the Thunder Bay sanctuary, there are no guarantees. Even were we to believe all the top down nonsense and even if it were true, without a change of the pertinent rules and regulations imposed on marine sanctuaries by NOAA there is no way to prevent them from becoming tyrannical under a change of personnel or administrations.
Wisconsin is better off taking care of it's own.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.
"14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.
15 And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.
16 And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them." ~ Joshua 9:14-16
This is Mike Friis, the Program Manager and Public Access Coordinator, Wetland Protection and Land Use Planning Coordinator, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, WIHe is very earnest and makes it sound as though he is representing the State of WI. He is working for what sounds like a state agency- right? He says he is accountable to the state government.
However this press release from 2016 clearly states that the coastal management program is federally funded. Hmmmm. The press release is talking about a 2.3 million dollar grant. A grant from where? A grant from whom?. "The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program balances natural resource protection and sustainable economic development along Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts. The program awards federal funds from the Office for Coastal Management in the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to local governments and other entities for innovative coastal initiatives."(emphasis mine)
Efforts have been made by those who oppose the sanctuary to convince Governor Walker to oppose it as well. He has refused. On August 10 of this year, Governor Walker made this announcement:
"Governor Scott Walker announced today that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has awarded Wisconsin a three-year $840,000 Coastal Resilience Grant to help Lake Michigan communities and property owners in Southeastern Wisconsin reduce damages from coastal hazards and sustain the operation of their coastal economic assets. The grant entitled “Improving Economic Security in Coastal Wisconsin” will be awarded to the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s Wisconsin Coastal Management Program." One can understand the Governor's wish to be fiscally responsible and to avoid burdening the taxpayers of the state but again, the pockets of the taxpayers are not bottomless and this nation is trillions of dollars in debt. Why should the people of the entire nation be on the hook for protecting our resources? And, if we cannot, and if these resources are so important to the nation as a whole then why should the state be required to relinquish any of our sovereignty to obtain federal funds? Are we not American citizens paying into those coffers as well as our own?
The question of whether or not this should even be a pressing need in a nation so far in debt should also be addressed at some point. Yes, this is a wonderful idea, but is it a responsible use of tax dollars? This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."~ Matt 6:24
Stephen D. Kroll - Diver and Member of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Alpena, MI - speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.
Mr. Kroll, while sincere, is currently working with NOAA. He also seems to sincerely believe that those who oppose this will and should change and nothing else is reasonable. That, in itself is an unreasonable position.
He, and some of the other speakers, say that NOAA has changed from a top down organization to a bottom up agency. Yet they do not bring out any rule/regulation changes to show that the agency will no longer have the authority to impose unreasonable fines or incrementally take over property adjacent to the sanctuary.
(Some current maximum NOAA imposed fines - for those who may be interested:
"B. Criteria for Determining Penalty and Permit Sanction
Initial Base Penalty and Permit Sanction – two factors are considered in determining the initial
base penalty and permit sanction amount (collectively, the “initial base penalty”): (1) the gravity
of the prohibited act that was committed; and (2) the alleged violator’s degree of culpability,
based on an assessment of the alleged violator’s mental culpability in committing the violation.
These two factors constitute the seriousness of the violation.3
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 2431, et seq). The current maximum statutory civil penalties permitted by the seven
statutes most commonly enforced by NOAA are as follows: Magnuson-Stevens Act – $140,000 per violation National Marine Sanctuaries Act – $140,000 per violation Endangered Species Act – $32,500 per violation (knowing violations - endangered species) Marine Mammal Protection Act – $11,000 per violation Lacey Act – $11,000 per violation Northern Pacific Halibut Act – $200,000 per violation Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act – $11,000 per violation
And these are, by NOAA's own document - the MOST commonly enforced statutes.)
Nor do they bring out any regulatory changes in the agency that specifically state that the state's constitution (And any other laws of the state) will overrule any and all rules and regulations of the agency that may trouble the citizens or restrict their constitutional rights in a way that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the laws of the state of Wisconsin.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.
My apologies for the shakiness of the video.
"18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." ~ John 3:18-21
This is Stephen D. Kroll - Diver and Member of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Alpena, MI - speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.
Mr. Kroll, while sincere, is currently working with NOAA . He also seems to sincerely believe that those who oppose this will and should change and nothing else is reasonable. That, in itself is an unreasonable position.
As for his dimes and grants and whatever, this nation is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. We have unfunded liabilities that could reach to the moon.There are no more dimes to be gathered. And the implication that Thunder Bay is better than Wisconsin because they have a marine sanctuary - really? Are we twelve years old playing "my state is better than your state" now? Attempting to invoke a competitive reaction? What else have you got? Because adults, who have to pay the bills know that competitive reactions cost too much when sober consideration of the issues involved is necessary.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.
My apologies for the shakiness of the video.
" Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" ~ 1 Peter 5:8
This is the first part of a meeting by NOAA to, ostensibly, quell the natural suspicion arising out of the proposal to allow the federal government, in the form of NOAA, to take over jurisdiction of the section of Lake Michigan along Kewanee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan and Ozaukee counties by designating it to be a huge marine sanctuary. The title of the meeting - labeling it as a "facts forum" struck this author as a subtle attempt to belittle those who oppose the establishment of the sanctuary, but perhaps it was not intended that way.
This author, along with others opposes this move, although the reasons are a bit more philosophical than those presented by the very good questions that you will see in the final videos - those covering in the Q and A session at the end of the meeting. This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.
There will be several more videos and while there are many noble sentiments expressed, there is much that is left out as to how the stated goals would be achieved and how the rights of the citizens of Wisconsin may be protected from any incremental encroachment by this agency which has employed unreasonable fines and Memorandums of Understand as unbreakable law to achieve it's ends in the past.
All that said, please do listen with an open mind and a critical ear both for what is said and for what is implied by the speakers to follow. Please also excuse the video quality. There is much shaking as I did not have a tripod or even a monopod to steady my hand because I had been told that no video recording would be allowed except by a specific outfit.
When I arrived, (I had my camera with me as I was taking photos of people who were holding signs at various points around Sheboygan to raise awareness of the issue.) I was told that the objection was due to space limitations and not to prevent journalists -citizen or otherwise from recording it independently. That was not what the e-mail exchange implied and I can post a screen shot of that if anyone is interested.
"So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." ~ Ecc 4:1
This video is a presentation on the current attempt by NOAA to create a Marine Sanctuary in Lake Michigan to protect historic shipwrecks. At least that is the visible part of the iceberg that is NOAA and other federal agencies. What such sanctuaries (and national parks and etc) are actually doing is seizing control over state resources to the detriment of state sovereignty. "There is nothing oftner misleads Men, than a misguided Zeal; it is an ignis fatuus, a false fire, which often leads Men into Boggs and Precipices; it appears in the Night, in dark and ignorant and weak minds, and offers it self a guide to those who have lost their way; it is one of the most ungovernable Passions of Human Nature, and therefore requires great knowledge and judgment to manage it, and keep it within bounds. It is like fire, a good Servant, but a bad Master; if it once get head it confumes and devours all before it; and the great danger and mischief of it is, that it is most commonly found where it should not be, and possess those most, who are least fit to govern it; and most frequently employed about what it should not be . . ." ~ Arch-Bishop Tillotson
The state of Wisconsin has done very well managing it's resources and in protecting shipwrecks along our shoreline. We do not need any "help" from the federal government. Especially when such help includes helping us right out of practices codified in our state constitution - namely the taking of game and fish in accordance with local and state regulations. And yet, here come the feds with their innocuously named program - a name designed to make people "feel" good about it - and, no doubt, federal money in the form of grants and other aid to seal the deal. A deal which will bring large swaths of our natural resources under federal control. Federal control that could include fines of up to $100,000/day for any violations of their regulations. "§922.45 Penalties. (a) Each violation of the NMSA or FKNMSPA, any regulation in this part, or any permit issued pursuant thereto, is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $ 100,000. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation. (b) Regulations setting forth the procedures governing administrative proceedings for assessment of civil penalties, permit sanctions, and denials for enforcement reasons, issuance and use of written warnings, and release or forfeiture of seized property appear at 15 CFR part 904. [60 FR 66877, Dec. 27, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 4607, Jan. 30, 1997]" $100,000 per violation per day? How is that in accordance with the US Constitution which states:"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."? The constitution of the state of Wisconsin states: "The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. " What right does the Governor or even the legislature have to turn over regulatory control of any part of Lake Michigan (Or any part of the rest of the state for that matter) to an unaccountable federal agency? Especially when that very agency has such a tyrannical history, once given such authority? NOAA will not be working under the laws, rules and regulations of the state of Wisconsin, which are adequate to protect our resources and backed by local knowledge and input, but by federal regulations created by a one-size-fits-all mentality, which will be wielded like bludgeons against any individual who ventures to request a permit through their processes or who - even inadvertently or to save a life - violates one of their regulations. Further, NOAA is an unelected federal agency, over whom the people of Wisconsin will have no control or recourse, should we come to regret the decision to allow them in. Shouldn't such a decision rest with the people of the state of Wisconsin? If the people are to be expected to abide by the dictates of NOAA, then the people - all the people of Wisconsin deserve to have a say in that decision because it will affect all of us. The people in Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Manitowoc and Kewaunee counties need to be paying attention. The velvet glove says increased tourism and money and jobs will come to you if you cooperate, but the iron fist will incrementally eat away at every one of the ways you utilize and enjoy Lake Michigan over time.
Go to www.regulations.gov , search for NOAA-NOS-2016-0150 click on the "comment now" button and leave a comment, because the public input time is running out. Let them know that you want a say in this decision and more, that you want truthful information regarding NOAA regulations and authority over these marine sanctuaries. "12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; " ~ Jude 1:12
Polite comments and civilized discussion are welcome.
Profanity, personal attacks or anything I regard as a personal attack will be deleted, so please bear that in mind if you choose to comment. (Always assuming there is something worthy of comment - there may not be.)
The Rules for Sharing:
If you would like to quote my writing in other places, please feel free to do so. I ask only that you keep the quotes in context and cite the author or the blog as your source. It would be nice if you dropped me a note too :) I don't write much anymore as being "Grandma!" and attempting to generate some income with photography takes more of my time these days. And, realistically, the videos I choose to post are saying what I would want to say.
The Rules for Photos:
Photos, if not promotional and used with permission from those who own them, are mine and if anyone is interested in purchasing a license to use them or just a copy to hang in your home, please e-mail me at: wakingdragon@hotmail.com .
Affiliate Code
I have recently signed up for a lovely photo sharing website called Lumenira. They have a pay per view program. It is a tiny amount, but better than nothing. Should you wish to sign up for your own account, here is a discount code that will give you 10% off an annual subscription at This is an affiliate code and will pay me a small amount if you sign up for an annual subscription, which will make the Mr. happy with this use of my time.
Posts
