USMC Helicopter Support in Vietnam Congressional Gold Medal Act

If you are a Marine, served in Vietnam, and flew or worked in a helicopter squadron, you'll want to read this. It's a little long for a social media post, so find a comfy place with good lighting and take your time. It's probably one of the most definitive renditions of the role we played "in country," including the places and battles, all with stark numbers that define the missions we had in cold reality. It's the writeup, i.e., "Findings," that has been included with the proposed act mentioned above under consideration by Congress now as H.R.5939.

This Pricey Land Deal Stinks—Here’s why

 

This Pricey Land Deal Stinks—Here’s why

I live in the country, as most might describe it, where smells from various agricultural operations can sometimes be expected and in most cases accepted. It’s part of country living and I’m okay with that.

One smell we get occasionally, though, is when the field across the road we live on gets fertilized with chicken manure. At least that’s what I think it is. After harvesting each year, the field is left fallow for several months, then truckloads of some kind of stuff that wreaks with an odor similar to week-old roadkill appear. Two, maybe three piles - 5-10 feet high - left in the sun. Which is bad, just not horrible bad. But then the spreaders arrive a week or two later and start broadcasting that stuff across the field. Well, that’s when the rank can be so bad it will keep you indoors with all the windows closed spraying camphor up your nose until the wind shifts … which it eventually does, and we get back to the country living we are so thankful to be able to enjoy.

But, having said such, there is a growing smell coming from Tallahassee that is just as odorous and offensive, if not worse, that just isn’t going away and is getting way more objectionable.

In today’s St. Pete Times, the frontpage headline was “Lobbyist wrote proposal for land deal.” It’s more about that land purchased by the Florida Cabinet for four acres of panhandle beach sand up in Destin for $83 million of your dollars meant for the Wildlife Corridor you’ve been reading about.

It’s a purchase authorization at Florida’s highest level that came out of nowhere, was not on any conservation list where such proposals are deeply vetted to assure they are appropriate land buys for conservation purposes, and was approved by Governor DeSantis, Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson, and Attorney General Ashley Moody. The only Cabinet member who did not vote in support was Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia but later inferred it was okay because it was such a done deal.

Here's why the stench is wafting ever more repugnantly across our beloved state.

1.      Massive overpayment:

·       The state paying over 10 times what the seller originally paid—$83 million for land bought for ~$8 million in 2016–2017.

·       Seller-controlled appraisals: The budget language allowed use of appraisals commissioned by the seller, undermining impartial valuation.

·       No competitive review: The deal leapfrogged other conservation priorities without undergoing standard cost-benefit analysis.

2. Procedural Manipulation

• Lobbyist-written budget language: A lobbyist for the landowner hand-delivered the purchase language to a legislative aide, which was later inserted into the state budget.
• Fast-tracked approval: The deal was rushed through with minimal public scrutiny, and bundled with other projects to avoid individual debate.
• Opaque process: The budget provision didn’t name the parcel, owners, or price—concealing key details from lawmakers and the public.

3. Conservation Concerns

• Low ecological value: The land is a sandy peninsula in a heavily developed area, not part of the Florida Wildlife Corridor it was funded through.
• Misuse of conservation funds: Money earmarked for protecting critical wildlife habitat was diverted to buy land with limited environmental benefit.

4. Political Favoritism

• Seller is a major GOP donor: Robert Guidry, who controls the land-owning LLCs, has donated hundreds of thousands to Florida politicians including Gov. DeSantis.
• Cabinet members voted despite donor ties: DeSantis and Attorney General James Uthmeier, both recipients of Guidry’s donations, voted to approve the deal.

5. Public and Internal Dissent

• Outrage from lawmakers and conservationists: Even Republican officials expressed confusion and concern over the deal’s speed and cost.
• Cabinet member objected post-vote: CFO Blaise Ingoglia voiced concerns after the vote, but DeSantis dismissed them as the deal was already bundled and approved.

This is a textbook case of corruption at the state’s highest level. Hopefully, a Grand Jury investigation will be initiated and indictments could be forthcoming. BUT, in this day and age where a former Grand Jury found little concern for one of the greatest cases of multiple child predation by a leveraged multimillionaire ever, and basically let him off with a slap of his hand, I’m not confident the smell is going to get any better soon, as the air in Florida grows ever more foul.

In any case, there is no public record or credible news report confirming that a grand jury has been initiated. The situation remains controversial, and calls for investigation continue, but no formal legal action has been reported

The following is based upon my inquiry and a response by Microsoft’s Copilot

Current Status

• No formal grand jury or criminal investigation has been publicly announced regarding the $84 million Destin land deal as of late October 2025. The deal has generated significant controversy, media scrutiny, and calls for investigation, but there is no official confirmation of legal proceedings or investigative actions by law enforcement or the courts.

What Happens Next?

1. Public and Media Pressure

• Journalists and advocacy groups continue to investigate and publish findings about the deal’s origins, the role of lobbyists, donor influence, and procedural irregularities. This ongoing scrutiny may prompt further action from oversight bodies or law enforcement. [yahoo.com]

2. Legislative Oversight

• State lawmakers and Cabinet members who objected to the deal (notably CFO Blaise Ingoglia) may push for legislative hearings or request an official review of the transaction. Such hearings could examine the budget process, appraisal methods, and the bypassing of standard conservation vetting.

3. Potential for Audit or Review

• The Florida Auditor General or other state oversight agencies could initiate an audit of the purchase, focusing on whether taxpayer funds were used appropriately and whether the deal complied with state law and conservation priorities.

4. Legal or Criminal Investigation

• If evidence of wrongdoing emerges—such as fraud, bribery, or misuse of public funds—state or federal prosecutors could open a formal investigation. This could lead to subpoenas, interviews, and potentially a grand jury if criminal charges are considered. However, as of now, there is no public indication that this step has begun. [yahoo.com], [yahoo.com]

5. Community and Political Response

• Local officials and community groups may continue to demand transparency, public comment, and accountability. The controversy could influence future land deals and prompt reforms to prevent similar situations. [weartv.com], [floridarea...tewire.com]

Key Points from Recent Coverage

• The deal was fast-tracked and bundled with other purchases, limiting individual debate and public comment.
• The seller is a major political donor, and the purchase price far exceeded the original acquisition cost.
• Lawmakers and conservationists have expressed confusion and concern, but procedural hurdles have so far prevented reversal or deeper inquiry. [yahoo.com], [yahoo.com], [midbaynews.com]

---

Summary:
The next steps depend on whether public pressure leads to legislative hearings, audits, or a formal criminal investigation. At present, the most likely immediate actions are continued media investigation, possible legislative review, and calls for an official audit.

Sandspur

 

An astounding summary of President Barack Obama's accomplishments while in office.

 This is a Facebook post by Stuart Rogel shared from an earlier post by Kent Garry. It was written by Teri Carter of the Lexington-Herald Leader. Teri Carter is an opinion columnist who writes about rural Kentucky politics and issues for publications including the Lexington Herald-Leader. As of October 2025, she also contributes regularly to the Kentucky Lantern.  

It's an astounding summary of President Barack Obama's accomplishments while in office.

Sandspur

"Trump supporters say, 'We suffered 8 years under Barack Obama.'

Fair enough. Let’s take a look.

The day Obama took office, the Dow closed at 7,949 points. Eight years later, the Dow had almost tripled.

General Motors and Chrysler were on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford not far behind, and their failure, along with their supply chains, would have meant the loss of millions of jobs. Obama pushed through a controversial, $80 billion bailout to save the car industry. The U.S. car industry survived, started making money again, and the entire $80 billion was paid back, with interest.

While we remain vulnerable to lone-wolf attacks, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed a mass attack here since 9/11.

Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

He drew down the number of troops from 180,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000, and increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

He launched a program called Opening Doors which, since 2010, has led to a 47 percent decline in the number of homeless veterans. He set a record 73 straight months of private-sector job growth.

Due to Obama’s regulatory policies, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%, production of renewable energy more than doubled, and our dependence on foreign oil was cut in half.

He signed The Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to sue employers for unequal pay.

His Omnibus Public Lands Management Act designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, creating thousands of miles of trails and protecting over 1,000 miles of rivers.

He reduced the federal deficit from 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.2 percent in 2016.

For all the inadequacies of the Affordable Care Act, we seem to have forgotten that, before the ACA, you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26.

Obama approved a $14.5 billion system to rebuild the levees in New Orleans.

All this, even as our own Mitch McConnell famously asserted that his singular mission would be to block anything President Obama tried to do.

While Obama failed on his campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, that prison’s population decreased from 242 to around 50.

He expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, supporting ground breaking advancement in areas like spinal injury treatment and cancer.

Credit card companies can no longer charge hidden fees or raise interest rates without advance notice.

Most years, Obama threw a 4th of July party for military families. He held babies, played games with children, served barbecue, and led the singing of “Happy Birthday” to his daughter Malia, who was born on July 4.

Welfare spending is down: for every 100 poor families, just 24 receive cash assistance, compared with 64 in 1996.

Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”

Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns........

He sang Amazing Grace, spontaneously, at the altar.

He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.

He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Obama was not perfect, as no man and no president is, and you can certainly disagree with his political ideologies. But to say we suffered?

If that’s the argument, if this is how we suffered for 8 years under Barack Obama, I have one wish:

may we be so fortunate as to suffer 8 more."

by Teri Carter, Lexington Herald-Leader

Former Speaker Byrd, please understand, regulators don't regulate just to regulate

Settle in, I've got a lot to say here. You've read my Facebook October 3 response to Johnnie Byrd's comment and some have asked to know if he responded. Well he did. And here is my response to his response. (No, this exchange will not go on any further.

So here was Johnnie's response to my October 3 post:

"Sonny, I know trusting individuals to make their own choices is hard for those who have spent a career as government regulators steeped in bureaucratic power to compel compliance from the populace. Deregulation can be scary but freedom is what makes us a great country."

And here is my response:

Johnnie,
Your comment is clearly trying to paint my public service career as antithetical to personal freedom. Nothing could be further from actuality.

I served 13 months in Vietnam as a U. S. Marine helicopter pilot where I flew over 200 combat missions and served as Forward Air Controller for the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, on the ground, where my job was to call in air support when my unit was under fire. My service to my country — whether in Vietnam or with the St, Johns River water Management District, or the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority — attests to my dedication to public service and a free American Democracy and should not be confused with any uneducated thoughts to the contrary.

Nevertheless, let me share some thoughts for you to consider.

I appreciate your passion for individual liberty—it's THE cornerstone of our democracy. Having spent decades in water management, I can tell you firsthand that responsible governance isn’t about controlling people. It’s about protecting the freedoms we all depend on, i.e., clean water, public lands, access to natural resources that aren’t owned by any single individual or corporation, etc.

Regulation, when done right, isn’t a power grab—it’s a safeguard against exploitation, short-sighted development, and the erosion of shared assets (see Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).

I’ve seen what happens when deregulation goes unchecked: polluted and disappearing springs, dried up lakes and wetlands, saltwater intrusion, loss of access to public lands, and communities left to foot the bill for someone else’s profit or unintended mistake.

And let me be clear: I’ve never met a regulator who regulates for the sake of regulating. The professionals I’ve worked with—scientists, engineers, planners—don’t wield personal authority. They operate within frameworks created by elected officials, tasked with implementing laws passed through democratic processes. As you know, in Florida, as elsewhere, regulatory authority is not self-generated, it’s provided through laws and rules propagated by the legislature or other elected bodies.

In fact, if memory serves, you were the Speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives, the very institution from which water management regulatory authority emanates pursuant to Florida’s Constitution. So you are very much aware that the rules we subsequently developed weren’t dreamed up in a vacuum. They were guided by your statutes and further guidance by administrative dictates of the Governor’s Office and State departments AND, then debated at an advertised public forum, voted on, and enacted by water management Board members appointed by the Governor.

So, when we talk about regulation, there’s no regulating just to regulate. We’re talking about the will of the public expressed through laws, laws designed to protect the long-term interests of Floridians, not to stifle them.

Freedom isn’t just the absence of rules. It’s the presence of fairness, accountability, and shared responsibility. That’s what I’ve spent my career defending, not bureaucratic control, but the kind of thoughtful balance that, hopefully, will keep Florida’s natural heritage and sensitive natural systems intact a little longer for future generations.

Sandspur

Former Speaker Johnnie Byrd comments and Sandspur Responds

In response to my post of October 3, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Johnnie Byrd, https://www.facebook.com/johnniebyrd, asked me this question:

"Sonny I am wondering if you could spell what a great job Kamala would be doing if elected other than to bring in another 10 million undocumented Democrats …"

Photo courtesy of

The Florida Bar

Here's my response:

Dear Johnny,

Thank you for your interest in my post written by Heather Cox Richardson who provides a factually documented - and frightening - summary of events that are threatening the very essence of our American Democracy.

I find it unfortunate that you, a person of significant stature, would choose to ignore Ms. Richardson's extraordinary assessment of the dangers facing the future of our country and instead pose a meaningless and blatantly untrue tired political trope to score some kind of point.

Nevertheless, here some facts you might want to consider:

The claim that Kamala Harris would “allow 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the country” is not only misleading—it’s factually baseless and politically inflammatory. As someone who has spent years working in public policy and community advocacy, I believe we, you and I, owe it to whomever might read this to separate rhetoric from reality.

The facts:
Kamala Harris has never proposed an open-border policy. In fact, her immigration stance would blend enforcement with reform. As Vice President, she supported a bipartisan border security bill that would have added over 1,500 Border Patrol agents, expanded detention capacity, and increased the number of immigration judges to reduce backlogs.

As Vice President her primary assignment on immigration was diplomatic: to address the root causes of migration from Central America. She worked with leaders in Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico to reduce violence, poverty, and corruption—factors that drive irregular and illegal migration. It was a long-term strategy aimed at stabilizing the region, not encouraging unlawful entry.

The “10 million” figure you cited actually refers to cumulative border ENCOUNTERS—not successful entries. Many were repeat attempts, and the vast majority are processed and either expelled or detained. According to Customs and Border Protection, THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF MIGRANTS ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. SINCE 2021 IS CLOSER TO 2.4 MILLION—a far cry from your hyperbolic claims.

Finally, Ms. Harris has stated her support for creation of legal pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, long-term undocumented residents, and essential workers. This approach is consistent with long held American values and economic interests, not partisan manipulation.

Many believe that a Harris administration could “chart a new course” by restoring asylum protections, managing the border humanely, and recognizing immigrants’ contributions to our communities. That’s a far more nuanced and responsible vision than the extreme and hurtful measures now underway by the radical right.

For your consideration.
Sandspur