November 06, 2008

Marriage Amendment Opponent Proves the Point

As part of their campaign against the Florida Marriage Amendment, opponents repeated proclaimed that the measure was unnecessary because the Florida law already limited marriage to one man and one woman.  Proponents of the Amendment, of course, explained that the measure was needed because, as we have seen in numerous other states, activist judges are all to ready to impose their own will and strike down such laws.  By placing the language in the state constitution we protect marriage from these judges and other threats.

Given that the opponents used this argument so frequently, I could not help but chuckle at the response by Kenneth Quinnell, the Executive Director of the Florida Progressive Coalition (who himself promoted the idea that the Amendment was unnecessary).

"... this law will eventually be shot down as unconstitutional at the federal level..."

Odd, that while on the one hand we were supposed to believe that marriage was already protected by a state statute, it is now proclaimed that a federal court will abolish a provision of a state constitution.

Over 62% of Florida voters cast a vote for traditional Marriage this week.  30 states have passed similar measures.  And since opponents to traditional marriage are finding that they can't convince the you, people, to turn on marriage (not even in California) they're just going to try and get an activist Court to jam it down your throats.

November 05, 2008


What?  Surprised to see a claim of victory on a Conservative blog after an election night where the most liberal candidate for president ever claimed the White House?  Don't despair, my friends!  Though the Republican party suffered many defeats last night, True Conservatism scored some major victories, in our own state and some other unlikely places.

The State of Florida passed a Marriage Amendment.

The State of Arizona passed a Marriage Amendment.

And while the votes are still being gathered in California, their Marriage Amendment is ahead as well!  And with over 96% of precincts there reporting, signs are good that it will pass.

So what is the count?  As of now, 29 states have passed marriage amendments, with California pending, it could be 30.  Arizona, the one state to ever actually fail to pass a marriage amendment (in 2006), now has a marriage amendment.

North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota

We've already stared to hear, and will continue to hear the word "mandate" thrown around frequently.  Many are suggesting that this election broke the back of the Republican party.  Some are claiming this election was a referendum on Conservatism and that our ideology is on its way out.

But consider the fact that this year, when the democrat voting presence was stronger than ever, Marriage Amendments passed.  In our own state which went to Obama, it passed with more than 62%.  That tells me that traditional family values and True Conservative social values are both alive and well and there is indeed Hope for the future.  That gives us a reason to celebrate.

November 04, 2008

Chairman of Gators for McCain votes for Obama

Several blogs have picked up the news that Josh Simmons, Chairman of Gators for McCain at UF has publicly announced that he voted for Barrack Obama. Simmons had also been serving as Executive Director of the Florida Federation of College Republicans.

Simmons submitted his resignation to both organizations over the last 2 days.

This is all water under the bridge at this point... except for one small detail - Simmons voted for Obama just after the Colin Powell endorsement and still continued to operate in both capacities.

Click here for 2 press stories: The Gator and the Huffington Post

Below is my response to Mr Simmons. I know him dating back to my term as State Chairman of the College Republicans:


Mr Simmons,

While I certainly would not impugn your motives as to your vote, I would also add that as it is clear you didn't just come to these conclusions November 2, your public announcement appears to be as much informative as it is calculated.

Using Colin Powell as an example as you have, you might also bear in mind that he currently holds no offices within the party or the Bush administration. His criticism is therefore rendered as a private citizen and elder statesman, not as an official of the party or the McCain campaign.

You on the other hand remained on the job as the senior representative of the McCain campaign at UF after you had already cast your vote for Obama. While you may consider that unimportant, it lends itself strongly to the notion that you've used the circumstances of someone in your position voting for Obama to gain you public noteriety.

If your decision to vote for Obama was merely a matter of a change in your feelings toward McCain you should have simply resigned from your positions, cast your vote, and then gotten on with your life.

It would even have been a different story if you had resigned, voted for Obama, and then volunteered to help the Obama campaign as a Republican who switched over. Then you could have legitimately claimed your decision was a matter of conscience.

But you didn't do either of those things. Instead you've made a public spectacle out of the fact that the Chairman of Gators for McCain voted for Obama. 1 day before the election.

And thus in the end although you claim to have not sought this "as a personal affront to anyone I have worked with over the past several months," you appear to have put your personal interests ahead of the interests of the group you were responsible for leading.


November 03, 2008

Thoughts on Election Eve - How is This Race Even Close?

As we head into the election tomorrow, the media is telling Republicans to brace themselves for a landslide victory for Senator Obama.  Landslide has, apparently, now been defined as 300+ electoral votes.  But, while the media and the left fawn over the sheer majesty of Obama, I can't help but find myself surprised that the race is as so close.

Consider this:

Two years ago, before we even knew who the candidates were, it was commonly held knowledge that it would be practically impossible for a Republican to win the White House in 2008.  The Republican Congress had done everything they could to destroy the party's claim of fiscal responsibility and ended up turning control back over to the democrats in a crushing 2006 congressional election.  Statistically speaking, Republicans had the most unpopular president of all time in office and the president's legacy, the war in Iraq, seemed to be a doomed effort.  The democrats couldn't ask for a better stage to win the White House.

Add to this that the democrat nominee is one of the most charismatic, inspiring, and likable candidates ever.  Further, the fact that his election would be a landmark in our country's history because of his race.

In response, the Republicans nominate a 72 year old white guy who the Republican base doesn't like.  That nominee then selects the governor from a non-contiguous state, a governor whom no one had ever heard of until a few months ago and a selection few like except the Republican base.

Add to this mix the fact that the democrat candidate raises more money for his campaign than has ever been raised by a campaign.

The recipe above is indeed a recipe for a landslide democrat victory.  It should be impossible for the Republicans to win.  But on the eve of the election, though Obama has a clear advantage, the race is delightfully close. Going into election day, Obama has an average poll lead of less than 5% in the key battleground states of Florida, Virgina and Ohio.  In Florida, the average is 1.8%.

Obama may win with a huge electoral victory, but the electoral numbers will not tell the story of how tight this race truly was.  Less than 5% of voters, and in some cases, less than 2%, in a handful of states will be the deciding factor.

Democrats have every reason they could hope for to win this election, but rather than a being the mere formality on the way to coronation that they had hoped for, it is going to be incredibly close, regardless of who wins.  Despite democrats having everything going their way, there are still enough of us out there who aren't buying the bill of goods the democrats are selling to cause this election to come down to the wire.

THAT gives me hope for the Future.

October 17, 2008

Colin Powell may endorse Obama

101508_powellFormer Secretary of State Colin Powell may endorse Barack Obama as early as this weekend, a variety of news sources are reporting. Politico

The fact that this eventuality has been sepculated for months makes this less than surprising.

While I would never impugn Colin Powell's motives, I do think this falls somewhat short of a bold move considering the conventional wisdom has already as much as declared Obama the winner.

It's also not surprising considering that Powell has always appeared less than completely comfortable with the party and was never in the conservative camp.

October 16, 2008

As if we needed any more proof

Well now no one is safe.

It seems that because Joe Wurzelbacher aka "Joe the Plumber" has caused an illumination into his Lordship Barack Obama's penchant for redistribution of wealth, the press is now apparently investigating him.

From the Politico:

The Toledo Blade is reporting that Joe the Plumber is actually not licensed. But that,combined with his apparent tax lien, isn't lessening McCain's ardor.

He said in an interview with Fox's Carl Cameron today that he hoped to hook up with the instantly famous Ohioan soon.

"I'm probably going to call him this morning," McCain said. "I thought he would probably be up late. I heard that his --- that his phone lines were pretty well flooded. But I think we're going to be spending some time together."

What the hell does the staus of his license got to do with the question at hand that Obama's tax plan will hurt middle class businessmen like Joe?

We definitely need a free press - I'd never say anything different.

Unfortunately, far too many in the media have used the free press clause of the first amendment to absolve themselves of the obligation of acting responsibly, to say nothing about acting honorably.

October 15, 2008

I don't know whether to laugh...

... or, well, just be completely unsurprised.

A friend of mine sent this link to me that I thought was very instructive concerning what is probably a significant segment (and I'm being kind here) of Obama supporters.

Apparently Howard Stern (who I don't normally listen to) sent one of his people into Harlem to ask a few people why they were supporting his Lordship.

Frankly its too unsurprising to even be considered sad.

Click here

October 07, 2008

New Marriage Amendment Poll

A SurveyUSA poll done for a CBS affiliate over the past several days shows support for the Marriage Amendment to be at 47% with 42% opposed and 10% undecided.

Oh, by the way, this poll was done in California and is in reference to Proposition 8, California's attempt at a state Marriage Amendment.

Support in our own state is at 58% for, 37% against with 5% undecided according to a recent poll.  We need 60% to pass the Amendment.

Amendment 2 vs. Religious Liberty?

Today I stumbled across the website for the group Florida Clergy for Fairness.  The group claims to be a coalition of "religious leaders from a broad spectrum of faith traditions."  How true that statement is, or how many of them there are, I don't know.  But I found their position statement interesting.

The statement echoes a concern voiced yesterday in a comment to an post on the subject.  The concern is that it is not government's place to define marriage for us and that to do so restricts our religious liberty.  We should get to choose who to marry, right?  As the position statement explains, "It is surely not the government’s role to prefer one religious definition of marriage over another, much less to codify such a preference in the Florida Constitution."

I'd suggest that the "religious liberty" argument is misplaced. The Amendment, if passed, will not prevent anyone from participating in any type of religious ceremony.  Even under the Amendment, homosexual couples can hold ceremonies.  They can even call them "wedding ceremonies."  They can make whatever commitments to each other they like, they can put those commitments into a legal structure.  They can tell their family, friends and loved ones that they are married.  The Amendment does not change that.  It merely solidifies that the State of Florida will only treat one form of union as marriage, but does not require anyone else to behave any differently.

As for the allegation that it is not the role of government to define marriage, I'd suggest that the government must define marriage.  In fact, it does so already.  Why?  Because government issues benefits and requirements to married couples to encourage and stabilize marriage.  We can debate whether or not government should do this, but currently it does.  As a result, when government attempts to issue those benefits and impose those requirements for married couples, it must identify those couples.  Who is married?  Who can be married?  We need a definition.

Further, we need a definition solidified in the state constitution because, as we have seen across the country and even in our own state, activist judges have sought to impose their own definitions and preferences over those contained in state law.  The Amendment will place this definition beyond the reach of judicial tyranny.

To argue that it is not the place of government to define marriage, to identify those to whom government issues certain benefits and requirements, is silly.  We can and should debate whether those benefits of marriage should be extended to homosexual couples, but arguments like this one add nothing to that discussion.

October 03, 2008

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz

Amidst all of the post debate analysis last night, I almost missed our own Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from South Florida once again embarrass me as a citizen of Florida

On an appearance on Hannity and Colmes, Rep. Wasserman had the following (heated) exchange with Hannity.

HANNITY: Let me ask you a question, the bottom 50 percent of America what percentage of the federal tax bill do you think they pay? Do you have any idea? Answer that, do you have any idea?

SCHULTZ: What percentage of the federal tax bill?

HANNITY: The bottom 50 percent of wage earners?

SCHULTZ: I think what matters -

HANNITY: No, no, answer that question. What percentage do the bottom 50 percent pay?

SCHULTZ: That is not the question.

HANNITY: How much? Take a guess.

SCHULTZ: I do not know.

HANNITY: 2.9 percent. The top 10 percent pay 80 percent of the bill.

SCHULTZ: Look, when it comes who to is contributing the bulk of the revenue that we need, it is not the wealthiest few. They are doing just fine in the last eight years under the Bush administration.

The stunning part of this exchange was not that Schultz could not give the percentage of the tax burden shouldered by the bottom 50% of America (though, you would hope that a Congress member would at least have an idea of these numbers).  Rather, it is her follow up statement that surprised me.

"Look, when it comes to who is contributing the bulk of the revenue that we need, it is not the wealthiest few.

No, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, that is completely and totally incorrect.

The numbers from the National Taxpayers Union and National Taxpayers Union Foundation from 2006 back up Sean Hannity's statement; the bottom 50% only pay 2.99%.  And while his statement about the percentage paid by the top 10% is off according to that same report (they pay 70.79%) we get a clear picture that is exactly opposite to what Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is trying to paint.

The wealthiest few do contribute the bulk of all tax revenue.

The Tax Foundation's numbers for 2007 show that:

The bottom 50% pay 3.07%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 1% pay 39.38%

Again, the wealthiest few do contribute the bulk of all tax revenue.

This leaves us with one of two conclusions: either Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is completely ignorant about the impact of the current tax code upon tax payers OR she knows better but is promoting a falsity to push a political agenda.  Neither conclusion speaks well for our Congress woman from South Florida.

Consider yourself 'bailed out'

Now that all is once again right with world following the House passage of the financial bailout bill, I thought it might be instructive to take a look at some of the earmarks contained therein.

Click here

I'm not really sure how $2 million for the makers of wooden arrows for children helps the financial markets. If things like these are needed to attract Republican votes, perhaps I should change my moniker to Mr LP.

Sounds like we need to sick Club for Grow on a few of these Republicans!

October 02, 2008

Enough already - He's not African American

I haven't posted here in a very long time and had basically "retired" from writing.  I can't stand it any longer however, so here we go.

What can't I stand?  The BS being tossed around this country's "media" as fact.  BARACK IS NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN!  If the unthinkable were to happen, Obama would not be the first African American President of the US, he would be the first President whose father was from Kenya.  His mother is white in case you don't know - no one talks about that FACT.  The reason it isn't brought up is because the left has mastered the race card.  You are only allowed to talk about race if you are a democrat.  Let me add, I don't give a rat's furry ass what color you are as long as you are qualified to hold the office you are running for. 

Obama has nothing in his career that qualifies him to run for the office of POTUS.  Writing books does not qualify you.  Wikipedia carries the following (by the way, almost anyone can add to wikipedia the facts as they see it):   

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.

He HELPED create legislation, he made OFFICIAL trips (whatever that means), he HELPED create more legislation.  This tells me that he may be, read it again - may be qualified to run for VP.  He's a helper, not a leader.  Also, the part about "care for returned US military personnel" - please!  This is the same guy that said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” …

He doesn't give a damn about our troops.  Certainly one with hopes of being President, a person who truly loves our country, wouldn't make that remark.

October 01, 2008

The Double Standard Rears its Head Again

To call the treatment of Governor Sarah Palin 'character assassination' would, I think, understate things a bit.

She's been attacked because of her religious beliefs; been attacked for her physical appearance; been attacked for her family; and even as I mentioned in my last post, attacked for reading a speech off a teleprompter.

Now, she's even being attacked for her accent.

It's incredible to behold when the liberal media's double standard is right out there where everybody can see it, and in a completely unapologetic way as well.

I can't remember the last time I saw an article examining a national candidate's accent as if such a thing should even require explaining.

It would seem like a better use of the media's time would be to explain what happened to all that TV footage of Franklin Roosevelt attempting to calm the nation.

Perhaps they've been hidden on an Amtrack train somewhere...

Crist is 2 for 2 on Florida Supreme Court Justices

Just over a month after his fantastic selection of Charles Canady, Jr. to join the Florida Supreme Court, Governor Crist hit another home run.  Today Crist announced that he is naming Judge Ricky Polston to fill another vacancy on the Court.  Judge Polston is currently a judge on Florida's First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee and he is a judge committed to the interpretation of law as opposed to the creation of law by judicial activism.

I have to admit, upon his election I had some major concerns with the types of judges Governor Crist would appoint, but with his selection of Judge Polston, and he previous selection of now Justice Canady, he has my full trust on the issue.  With two more current Justices hitting the forced retirement age this year, Crist will get to select another two Justices for the Court.  This means that within the first few months of 2009, Governor Crist will have selected a majority of the Court and based on his first two picks, that is a very, very good thing.

PRFL Contributors


Copyright and Disclaimer