Florida Today: Rangel Labels BOCC Actions A “Farce.” (It Was.) Makes Farcical Arguments To Prove Her Point.

“I need to take a selfie before the launch…..”

Florida Today’s “public affairs and engagement editor” and a member of the Editorial Board Isadora Rangel has an op-ed piece concerning the recent resolution passed by the Brevard County Commission to “uphold and adhere to the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States of America.”

We had written about this five days before Rangel. It is not that we are claiming that Rangel plagiarized our post, but there are some striking similarities.

For example:

RANGEL: No one seemed concerned that every commissioner already takes an oath of office that requires them to “support, protect and defend” the Constitution, making the resolution a moot point and mere political theater — or farce.

RoH: Right off the top, why is Isnardi seeking to pass a resolution, which by definition has no legal weight of the law behind it, saying “we want to protect the Constitution” when in fact upon taking the office of Commissioner, she and the other Commissioners take an oath to follow the laws of the State of Florida, the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution?

Why the need for the resolution?

Isn’t the oath of Commissioners good enough?

We guess not and that is both sad and troubling.

Second example:

RANGEL: Of course, Tobia and all the other commissioners voted for Isnardi’s Constitution resolution. Who wants to be the person who doesn’t like the Constitution, especially in an election year?

RoH: After all, what elected official is going to vote against a resolution in support of the Constitution?

Third example:

RANGEL: Just to make sure, [Isnardi] used her own money to pay for framed copies of her resolution for the offices of all five commissioners. Copies of the actual Constitution would probably have a greater impact — just saying.

RoH: Isnardi says she is going to pay for the resolution to be framed so each Commissioner’s office could have one. She is paying out of her own pocket for the framing at $22.56 each.

While we appreciate the gesture that taxpayers aren’t going to pay for this theater, we would have preferred that Isnardi bought copies of the Constitution itself to hand out.

At a buck a piece (with volume discounts available) the National Center for Constitutional Studies offers a pocket sized printing of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. With first class postal shipping, the total is $12.00 or a savings of 48% for just one of the Isnardi framed resolutions.

One hundred of the booklets is a mere $40 and that includes shipping!

(For the money Isnardi is paying, she could get 282 of the booklets delivered and be able to hand them out and keep a set on the dais.)

It appears to us that Rangel is reading our site, which is a good thing if she actually understands issues.

She does not.

Rangel gives three examples of how the Commission failed to support the Constitution in the past.

1) The Commission’s support of a lawsuit allowing only certain viewpoints to be heard during the invocation. The rule was overturned and rightfully so. Frankly, the Commission screwed up on that.

2) Commissioner Tobia’s proposed resolution against Puerto Rico statehood.

Last time I can remember such display of grandstanding was when Commissioner John Tobia introduced a 2017 non-binding resolution opposing statehood to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico (a federal issue). The measure failed but it was enough to raise the ire of state representatives and local residents of Puerto Rican heritage.

First, by definition, a resolution is non-binding. It always is non-binding.

In his resolution, Tobia writes: “The burdens placed on federal taxpayers to remedy the decades of mismanagement and socialization by the government of Puerto Rico would be untenable” if Puerto Rico became a state.

Tobia cited Puerto Rico’s massive debt and its bankruptcy filing.

“Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is, in large part, a result of socializing private industry,” Tobia said in his resolution.

Rangel claims that admission of a state into the US is a “federal issue.”

While there is more to the process of state admittance than just federal involvement, Tobia’s resolution was addressed to the US Congress – the very group that would vote on allowing admittance of a territory to the union.

Whether you agree with the resolution (which ultimately failed) or not, the fact of the matter is that Tobia had the right to raise the issue, offer a resolution and seek a vote.

3) Rangel writes:

The irony is not lost on those who have seen our commissioners pick when to live up to the principles outlined in the Constitution, in particular the First Amendment. This is the same board that allowed Commissioner Bryan Lober last year to berate citizens who criticized him during commission meetings.

We are sure that there is no regulation in the US or Florida Constitution that makes it illegal for one person to berate another. Lober’s words, as we noted in the past, were wrong, but there is a difference between being morally wrong and illegal.

So why is Rangel bringing up protected speech and seem to be claiming it was a violation of the Constitution?

Furthermore, unless we miss what Rangel is saying, she appears to be berating the members of the Commission.

Is Rangel so silly in that she believes she has the right to berate people but others do not? Is there some sort of special double secret code that gives her a pass on wanting to censor the speech of another human being while maintaining the right to do so herself?

If you are going to invoke the Constitution, at least do a minute’s worth of research on what the First Amendment means rather than stating your farcical opinion as fact.

Rangel also wrote this:

Isnardi said her resolution was intended to prevent Brevard from becoming like some local governments that have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, a big issue for Ivey.

Because, truly, our bright-red, gun loving county is at such risk.

For the record, the resolutions being passed in other local governments are in response to Virginia plan to ban and seize weapons from citizens.

In Virginia, 96% of the counties have passed Second Amendment sanctuary bills. That’s 91 of the counties in the state.

(map courtesy

Ten years ago, the thought of Virginia, which was a solid red conservative state, passing laws to confiscate legal weapons from law abiding citizens would have been unthinkable. Yet there Virginia is, a state with citizens fighting for their rights and Rangel thinks that cannot happen here.

Rangel concludes with:

No, the irony is not lost on those able to see past the farce.

We would say that it is farce when one ignores history and facts as Rangel does.

It is strange seeing ideas that we expressed nearly a week before in a Florida Today article. It is not that we don’t appreciate the readers from the Florida Today staff.

However, if you are going to make claims, get the claims right. If you are going to claim the legal speech is somehow illegal, it makes the rest of your opinion piece suspect.

It makes the rest of the piece a “farce.”

“Just saying.”

2 Responses to “Florida Today: Rangel Labels BOCC Actions A “Farce.” (It Was.) Makes Farcical Arguments To Prove Her Point.”

  1. Thomas Gaume says:

    I always find it interesting that members of the press (who should be most concerned with our Constitutional Rights) are often lacking in understanding those rights.

  2. Naomimat says:

    I just found Isnardi’s resolution to be a piece of theater and political grandstanding. “Look at me. I’m the most patriotic commissioner here. I suggested this resolution and you didn’t. And if you don’t support it, you’re unpatriotic.”