Why Floridians should Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 1

I know most of us have been very distracted over Common Core and all the arms that are attached to it, but we have a serious issue coming up on the ballot in November of which is a serious issue to every homeowner in Florida – AMENDMENT 1 Florida’s Water and Land Legacy Water & Land Conservation Amendment.

This Amendment has the potential to relieve every homeowner in the state of Florida of their own personal property.

Today I received the VOTE YES sides answer to those of us pushing for NO.  The state of Florida currently owns 28% of the Florida/Federal land which is far too much for a state to own. Not only that, Forever Florida, which had run out of money and Scott decided to replenish it, uses OUR tax dollars to buy up the land to then tell us we have no right to object to how the land is used. They under sell, under bid and if they have to use Eminent Domain to steal your property at will.

All of this falls under the United Nations Earth Charter/Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 platform. Thank you Bill Clinton! What they are doing is removing large portions of land from the tax roles which hurts the county involved. To make up their financial losses your property taxes will go up. When you no longer can afford to pay your property taxes, they will then take your land. This is the United Nations way! Not only that, the state is also in debt in this deal – using money first and worrying about where to pay it back later.

Not only are they stealing our property with our tax dollars, they are also still throwing billions of dollars down the toilet in massive road construction when the bottom line according to Agenda 21 is we are not to even have any cars to need these roads. Additionally, they are stealing what we have left in funds to force rail on the citizens for the same type of people as those getting rich off of the education of our children – Public Private Partnerships with hundreds of documents of which the general public cannot understand.

HERE is their Response Statements:

  • Amendment 1 does not create taxes now or in the future. No it doesn’t, however as stated above, the removal of the land from the county tax roles forces the counties to raise your property taxes to make up the difference. They plan to take 33% of our land.
  • Amendment 1 would dedicate one-third of EXISTING fees collected by the state when real estate is sold to protecting our waters and natural areas. Currently they are taking the funds from the General Fund (still using our money) and are intending to steal 1/3 of the fees collected when you buy or sell your property. There is no provision to cap the amount taken and it is still using our tax dollars and as with everything else, we have no say on how it is used.
  • The Financial Impact Estimating Conference – the state’s budget writers – determined that Amendment 1 would have no impact on state revenues because it imposes no new taxes. This is true for the state, but there is no mention as to your individual counties – they are the ones loosing the financial base by loosing the taxes collected by the loss of the land on their tax roles. Who is going to make up that difference – YOU! It is very nice of them to tell us this Amendment will help the state manage THEIR budget – but what about ours? Do they not have better things to be doing then creating a world of “conservation land” of which we are NOT even going to be able to use? What is our share of this crooked deal? Who are these people sitting on the Financial Impact Estimating Conference?

This is stating this Amendment will bring to the state $648 million in 2015-2016 and in 12 years increase to $1.268 billion. Do you think this money could be used in better ways such as a larger per capita amount for each child’s education and raising the salaries of our teachers – NOT ADMINISTRATION – they are being paid FAR too much – FL is Admin top heavy! It also states no local costs are involved but then they certainly are not going to tell you that they are messing with your counties tax base and eventual your tax roles will be cut so low – your taxes will go up.

Don’t forget California and how they shut their water off by having the control to do so and the farmers lost their food crops – some states are saying you can’t save rain water?  I really wonder where they got those 700,000 signatures to get this Amendment on the books and were every one of those signatures verified.

If you use Facebook, please go to “Vote No on Amendment 1” and ask your friends to also – you can all post your information and thoughts.

You might also find these links interesting:

Salaries of Elected County Constitutional Officers and School District Officials for Fiscal Year 2014-15

Revenue Estimating Conference Public Education Capital Outlay Trust Fund

Florida Office of Economic & Demographic Research reports

The Midterm Forecast: Clear Sailing for the GOP and Stormy Weather for the Democrats

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Ten seasoned election scholars offer predictions for the 2014 US midterm elections in PS: Political Science and Politics, published by Cambridge University Press for the American Political Science Association.

James Campbell, professor of political science at the University at BuffaloSUNY, and guest editor of the forecasting series, notes that “it is likely to be a good year for Republicans and a rough one for Democrats.”

The five forecasts for the House range from a 4- to 16-seat gain for the Republicans, with a median forecast of a 14-seat GOP gain. Campbell remarks, “This would be the largest Republican House majority in more than 80 years (248 Republicans to 187 Democrats).”

The Senate forecasts range from Republicans adding another 5 or 6 seats to a gain of 8 seats. With Republicans needing a 6-seat gain to control the Senate, the forecasts rate the odds of a Republican Senate takeover “between a toss-up and somewhat more likely than not,” explains Campbell.

This research will be published in the October 2014 issue of PS: Political Science and Politics, scheduled for release in early October.

The forecasting scholars include Alan Abramowitz (Emory University); Joseph Bafumi (Dartmouth College);James Campbell (University at BuffaloSUNY); Robert Erikson (Columbia University); Benjamin Highton(University of California, Davis); Michael Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa); Eric McGhee (Public Policy Institute ofCalifornia); John Sides (George Washington University); Charles Tien (Hunter College, CUNY); and Christopher Wlezien (University of Texas, Austin).

About the American Political Science Association

Founded in 1903, the American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 13,000 members in more than 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments, and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe to expand awareness and understanding of politics.

VIDEO: Florida Amendment 2 — The Drug Dealers Protection Act

Vote No On 2 has released its first television advertisement titled “Not What It Seems.” The following is the full text of the new advertisement:

Amendment 2 isn’t what it seems – it’s “caregiver” provision gives legal protection to marijuana dealers. Even felons and drug dealers could be “caregivers.” Amendment 2 “caregivers” don’t need background checks or medical training. So what looks like a safeguard, is really a loophole. Amendment 2 “caregivers” can’t be arrested or sued if their pot hurts someone. They don’t call it the drug dealer protection act – but they should.

Amendment 2 is NOT designed to help the sick – it’s designed to legalize pot smoking in Florida. WATCH to Learn the LOOPHOLES within the ballot language of this flawed constitutional amendment. Democrat gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist is all in on Amendment 2. As a lawyer Crist knows about loopholes. Amendment 2 has many of them because the ballot language is so broad and open ended.

The below video titled “The Devil is in the Details” explains the key loopholes in Amendment 2:

Floridians must understand what Amendment 2 actually says, not proponents say about it. An informed voter is critical to the constitutional amendment process.

Support for Amendment 2 plummets — Bad news for Charlie Crist

J.J. Whitson, Campaign Manager for the Vote No On Amendment 2, in an email reports that support for Amendment 2 has plummeted. Amendment 2 is supported by Democrats John Morgan and Charlie Crist. Support is also fading for Charlie Crist’s gubernatorial campaign.

Tampa Bay Times political Editor Adam C. Smith reports:

“The race between Rick Scott and Charlie Crist for Florida governor has long been seen as a toss-up, and recent polls bolster that perception of a campaign that could go either way.  But conventional wisdom among Florida’s political elite has shifted decidedly in Gov. Scott’s favor, the latest Tampa Bay Times Florida Insider Poll shows.

When we surveyed more than 130 of Florida’s savviest political hands seven weeks ago, a slight majority predicted Scott would beat Crist. This week, two thirds of our Florida Insiders – including 38 percent of the Democrats participating – said they expect Scott to beat former Gov. Crist.” [Emphasis added]

Are the plummeting numbers for Amendment 2 having an impact on the race for governor?

According to News-Press.com:

potpoll0924

Chart courtesy of News-Press.com. For a larger view click on the image.

The SurveyUSA/WFLA tracking poll finds that 53 percent of likely voters support Amendment 2, 32 percent oppose and another 15 percent are undecided. To pass, the initiative needs to top the 60 percent mark.

In Southwest Florida, those numbers drop to 48 percent in favor, 38 percent against, with the remainder unsure.

It’s a far cry from the halcyon days of summer when a Quinnipiac poll found nearly 90 percent support for the measure.

The SurveyUSA poll marks the worst showing to date for the initiative and only more data will tell us whether this is an outlier or a trend. Other polls in September show the measure hovering just above or below the critical 60 percent mark.

Despite this bad bit of polling news for backers, The News-Press forecast model puts the probability of Amendment 2 passing at 63.9 percent. Our model, based on all available data, predicts a 61.2 percent to 38.8 percent outcome.

The SurveyUSA poll of 588 likely voters was taken Sept. 19-22 and has a margin of error of +/-4.1 percent.

Barney Bishop III, President and CEO of Barney Bishop Consulting, LLC, in a Context Florida op-ed states:

As time goes by, it appears that Amendment 2 is facing serious opposition from likely voters.

[ … ]

But to get to the core of the proponents’ arguments, their message is pretty simple: Medical pot is needed to help the sick and dying.

Though simple and straight-forward, it’s just not true. Medical pot won’t be for just the sick and dying and therein lies the problem that the proponents must face if the amendment has a chance of passage.

The reason is because of the “loopholes” that have been thoroughly discussed by this author and by many others.

Interestingly, the proponents’ campaign manager simply answers the questions by stating that our side is simply using scare tactics.
OK, that could be true, but are you going to show how our arguments are actually false, or just claim that we’re wrong.

Because if all you’re going to do is to cry foul, then the arguments have validity until you prove otherwise.

First and foremost, Amendment 2 is not needed because Florida is already in the process of procuring rules for Charlotte’s Web, the low-THC, high-CBD oil that is extracted from weed to help sick patients.

Read more.

Bishop concludes his op-ed with, “So, dudes, let me come clean. I’m a former pothead. The difference between me and you is that I can live without it. Unfortunately, you don’t want to. Amendment 2 isn’t about medical pot. It’s about high-THC pot, period. If law enforcement is against it and the medical profession is against it, it makes sense that it’s not right for Florida.”

Election 2014: How to Stop a Socialist State

As election day Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 approaches it is important for voters to understand how politicians create a socialist state. According to Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” there are eight levels of control that must be achieved before a socialist state is created. According to Alinsky, the first is the most important.

  1. Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people (Obamacare). This legislation violates every American’s 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment Rights. Be not afraid. Obamacare started as Romney-Care in Massachusetts. If Romney runs for President in 2016 vote for the Conservative candidate. Romney is no different than Hillary Clinton.
  2. Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if government is providing everything for them to live and survive. This is done by higher and higher taxes on the middle class. This is under way and accelerating.
  3. Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. Politicians use this as an excuse to increase taxes, rather than reduce spending. Debt will produce more poverty. Seventeen Trillion dollars and growing. Approved by Obama, allowed to continue by the U.S. Congress under the weak Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s leadership.
  4. Gun Control– Remove the ability of the people to defend themselves from the Government. Anti-Second Amendment politicians are able to create a police state by disarming law abiding citizens. Solution. Buy more guns and ammunition! Be ready to defend yourself. Get proper safety training on your newly acquired weapons. Vote out any anti-Second Amendment politician or any politician supported by Michael Bloomberg.
  5. Welfare – Take control of every aspect of a citizens life (food, housing, and income). Obama is on it. President Obama’s objectives: destroy jobs (Obamacare mandates) while expanding dependence (Medicaid, EBT cards, welfare, etc.). The GOP Controlled Congress keeps writing the checks for EBT cards, welfare, Obamacare and on and on.
  6. Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. Common Core State Standards is the one size fits all central control system devised to indoctrinate America’s children. Common originated in the United Nations, the National Governors Association with funding from Bill Gates. State run media like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN support it. By the way, Common Core is endorsed by former Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush. If he runs for President in 2016 vote for a Conservative Republican boys and girls.
  7. Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools. This violates the 1st Amendment  right to free exercise of one’s religion. A Progressive/Socialist/Communist cannot control you if you follow a greater power than man and him a.k.a. Obama.
  8. Class Warfare – Divide the people into categories, wealthy/poor, white/black, legal/illegal/, etc.. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor, who are created by increasing poverty (see #2 above).

To the voters who read this column, this is a litmus test for anyone on your 2014 ballot.

If you allow any of the above to continue, as written by Saul Alinksy, endorsed by Hillary Clinton, led by President Obama, embraced by Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, you will be responsible for the revolution that will be coming your way.

Free Americans will not allow this Progressive/Socialist/Communist take over of the American Constitutional Republic to continue. It would be advisable that you the voter put on notice your city, county, school board, state and Congressional politicians and candidates from all parties. Tell them to start following the U.S. Constitution or they will lose their jobs and/or be defeated on November 4th, 2014.

True Americans are working on taking this country back via the ballot box in 37 or so days.

Hillary Clinton: An Unfit Woman

What are the odds that the American people, after being plagued for eight years by the most incompetent president and the most lawless attorney general in American history, will want to take a chance on another Democrat in the White House? If past history is a reliable measure, the chances are not good, even though the Democratic Party remains populated by the same low-information voters who twice elected Barack Obama. But would the people really understand what they’re getting in a Hillary presidency? What do independent voters need to know about Hilary that would cause them to reject her?

On January 21, 2009, Hillary was confirmed by the US Senate and sworn in as Secretary of State. Then, on March 6, 2009, just forty-four days after being sworn in, Clinton demonstrated that she is just as clueless and incompetent in foreign affairs as Barack Obama and the rest of his administration. On her first trip to Russia as Secretary of State, she attempted to engage in a bit of gimmickry, which often serves as real substance in the Obama administration.

As she met for the first time with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Hillary turned on the charm. Laughing (cackling), she said, “In anticipation of this important meeting and our time here together, I wanted to present you (with) a little gift which represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying. We want to reset our relationship.”

Lavrov opened the box and held it up for all to see. The box contained a large red button with the English word “reset” and the Russian word “peregruzka” emblazoned on it. Lavrov was understandably puzzled. The word “per-e-GRUZ’-ka” means “overcharged” in Russian. The correct word for “reset” in Russian is “per-e-ZA’-gruz-ka,” So while a little “za” among friends may not seem important, it was just one more piece of evidence that Hillary Clinton is no more competent at surrounding herself with people who can accurately translate a single English word into Russian, than she was in her ability to find staffers who could respond appropriately to an ambassador’s plea for added security at a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.

Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 and later moved on to Yale Law School. There, while enrolled in a civil liberties class taught by Professor Thomas I. Emerson, nicknamed “Tommie the Commie” by his students, Hillary met Bill Clinton, of Hope, Arkansas. They began dating in the spring of 1971 and were married four years later, in October 1975.

As part of their course work in Emerson’s civil liberties class, students were assigned to monitor the trial of Black Panther leader Bobby Seale, who was charged in connection with the torture and murder of a former Black Panther, Alex Rackley, who was suspected of being a police informant. Hillary was charged with the responsibility for scheduling her fellow students to monitor the trial, looking for what “Tommie the Commie” might view as a violation of Seale’s civil rights. It was a major stepping stone in the radicalization of Hillary Rodham.

The following year, as the House Judiciary Committee prepared articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, Hillary joined the staff of Jerry Zeifman, counsel to the Watergate Committee. She was recommended for the job by a former law professor, Burke Marshall, who represented Ted Kennedy when he was being investigated for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a senate aide, at Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts, on July 18, 1969.

However, Hillary and other Democratic staffers were apparently not interested in justice for Richard Nixon. According to recollections published by Zeifman… who came forward when Hillary was running for president in 2008… she and other Democratic staffers wanted Nixon to remain in office so that Ted Kennedy, or another Democrat, would have a far better chance of being elected in 1976. As they saw it, if Nixon remained in office as a disgraced president, he would be far more valuable to Democratic prospects than if he were successfully impeached. When the investigation was completed, Zeifman fired Hillary and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. When asked in 2008 why he had dismissed Hillary in 1974, he replied, “Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

Zeifman explained, “In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham, a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.” He regrets that he did not report her unethical behavior to the bar association for investigation and possible disbarment.

Then, in October 1978, after moving to Arkansas to marry Bill Clinton… who was elected governor the following month… Hillary decided to build a financial nest egg for their future. However, with just $1,000 to invest, and with no experience in futures trading, she relied on the advice of attorney James Blair, who served as outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas’ largest employer. Under the careful guidance of Blair and an associate, the First Lady of Arkansas invested in cattle futures, turning her $1,000 initial investment into $100,000 in just ten months.

One wonders, has the statute of limitations run out on Hillary’s futures trading fiasco? On September 4, 2014, former Republican governor Robert McDonnell, of Virginia, and his wife Maureen, were found guilty of trading political influence in exchange for plane flights, golf trips, and a $20,000 shopping spree, all financed by Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams. A federal jury in Richmond found McDonnell guilty on 11 counts of a 13-count indictment, while his wife was convicted on nine of 13 counts. The McDonnells, who are scheduled to be sentenced on January 6, 2015, each face as much as 30 years in prison.

But aren’t Bill and Hillary Clinton guilty of essentially the same crime? And would it not be appropriate for us to refer to her… not as the former First Lady of Arkansas, not as the former First Lady of the United States, not as a former senator from New York, and not as a former Secretary of State… but as an unindicted co-conspirator?

Most Americans know only the Hillary Clinton they see on television… the plastered smile, the pastel pants suits of every color in the rainbow, and her cackling laughter. But there is another side to Hillary that the American people will become acquainted with if she runs for president in 2016 and wins the Democrat nomination. What they will be most surprised at is the foulness of her language and the utter contempt she demonstrates for her subordinates… as numerous former Arkansas state troopers and members of her Secret Service detail have confirmed.

Now, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi has conducted its first public hearings into events surrounding the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in the 2012 terror attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Raymond Maxwell, has come forward to tell what he knows of events that took place behind closed doors at the State Department as the Clinton-appointed Accountability Review Board (ARB) issued subpoenas for State Department documents. It appears to be the “smoking gun” that the House Oversight Committee has been seeking for nearly two years.

In the days leading up to the investigation by the ARB, co-chaired by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Maxwell arrived at the State Department on a Sunday afternoon, only to find one of his subordinates, along with a number of other State Department employees, sorting through boxes and stacks of documents in a basement operations center. Maxwell has told investigators that he had not been consulted about her weekend assignment and had not authorized it.

According to Maxwell, “She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the (Near Eastern Affairs) front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’ ” In State Department lingo, the “seventh floor” can mean only one thing: the offices of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her principal advisors. Maxwell asked, “But isn’t that unethical?” To which she responded, “Ray, those are our orders.”

Shortly thereafter, two high-ranking State Department officials, Cheryl Mills, then-Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, entered the room.

The documents that were being “scrubbed” were documents under subpoena by the ARB… a serious criminal act… while the presence of Mills and Sullivan appears to connect Hillary Clinton directly with a conspiracy to obstruct justice. So, just as Richard Nixon had his John Dean, Hillary Clinton has her Ray Maxwell. The difference is, no one died in the Watergate affair. When she next appears before the Benghazi Select Committee, under oath, Hillary will have a lot of explaining to do. It should make for very interesting TV viewing.

So this is the real Hillary Clinton, the woman that few Americans have ever been allowed to see. She is, as her former boss on the House Judiciary Committee staff described her, a woman unfit “for any future position of public or private trust.” Like virginity, integrity is lost in an instant. And, like virginity, integrity cannot be regained once it is lost. Hillary Clinton’s virginity, or lack thereof, is of no concern to anyone but herself, but every American has the right to know that she is totally lacking in integrity.

Is the Democrat Candidate for Florida’s House District 72 seat a Parrot or a Goat?

Democrat Greg Para is running for the Florida House of Representatives in District 72. Para’s campaign website states, “Greg is a former senior sales and marketing manager in the industrial and energy sectors.  He is a current and former small business owner, including a successful painting business, an educational training company, and Para’s Parrots.”

A varied business background to be sure. But has Para been “successful” in his business ventures?

According to his Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest – Form 6, Para has no liabilities, assets of $4,500 (a 2006 Dodge van $3,500, and Para’s Parrots, Inc. $1,000)  and a net worth as of May 2014 of $7,000. Para declares that his annual income is solely from government agencies totaling $38,758 ($17,062 from State of Florida, $10,560 from the Navy and $11,136 in disability payments).

goat programIt appears from his public disclosure that he has not been very successful as the President of Greg Para, Inc., founded in 2004. This is interesting because he and his wife Pearl Dahmen Para, Vice-President of Greg Para, Inc., co-authored a book titled “The GOAT Program”. According to the abstract, “THE GOAT PROGRAM is a systematic approach to success.” Para is described in the “About The Author” section as follows:

Greg Para is a former Fortune 500 manager, corporate executive, successful businessman and creator of THE GOAT PROGRAM. As featured on television’s Beyond The Bottom Line, he used GOAT when he and his family moved to Florida with no contacts or money and created a successful business in 30 days. As a parent, professional speaker and trainer, Greg touches and inspires teens and entrepreneurs.

Perhaps Greg Para should re-read his own book? Para’s creation of a “successful business in 30 days” is unproven after 10-years in business according to his Form 6. If you go to www.TheGoatProgram.com it defaults to Para’s campaign website. Is the goat business a gone business? Para also sells parrots. However if you Google Para’s Parrots it also defaults to his campaign website.

Para was a volunteer with Save Our Seabirds. According to a July 2013  article in The Observer by City Editor Robin Hartill, Para led a protest against the organization. The protest accused Save Our Seabirds of having rats, dead birds and mold in their facility. Hartill reported, “Here’s what Sarasota city staff didn’t find at Save Our Seabirds during an unannounced inspection June 20 [2013]: rats or black mold. The facility was clean, filled with visitors and free of rats and dead birds…” Oops, false alarm.

Para on his campaign website states he is, “active with Florida Veterans for Common Sense, a veterans’ advocacy and assistance organization.” Florida Veterans for Common Sense began as an anti-Katherine Harris political advocacy organization, it has not changed its political focus. The group petitioned to become a member of the Sarasota County Veterans Commission. The request was denied because it was not a non-profit veterans’ advocacy organization (501c) but rather a political organization with a strong left wing bent. Another Para misstatement?

Recently Para took two interesting positions at a Sarasota Tiger Bay candidate forum.

Para opposes a bill introduced by FL Rep. Greg Steube “[T]hat would have allowed Florida teachers with military or law enforcement experience to carry guns if their school district signed off.” Para stated, “I am not a proponent of having anybody other than the sheriff’s department or police to be able to protect my children.” Having served in the U.S. Navy Para must know the importance of responding to deadly force in a timely manner with appropriate force to defend oneself. Surely he knows, based on response times to school shootings, that by the time the police arrive on the scene the event is over. The students have no chance unless there is a significant deterrent on campus. What Para is actually saying is let the children die because I am anti-Second Amendment.

Para also wants to restrict, as does President Obama and the EPA, Florida’s ability to produce cheap and reliable power.

Zac Anderson from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported, “The Republican-controlled Legislature repealed two of former Gov. Charlie Crist’s signature energy initiatives in 2012, proposals that aimed to establish a ‘cap and trade’ system for carbon emissions while requiring electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from renewable energy… Para told the Tiger Bay crowd that the lack of momentum on renewable energy is the result of lobbying by big utility companies, which donate large sums to lawmakers ‘so they don’t have to worry about competition’.” This is especially interesting given Para lists working for “the energy sector” on his resume.

Cap and trade is all about taxing and regulating CO2 emissions. This is part of the global warming, now climate change, narrative used to impose unsustainable regulations on the energy industry. Sean Hackbarth in his column “Broken Windows: The Flawed Economic Logic of EPA’s Carbon Regulations“, writes:

One unseen cost of EPA’s attempt to restructure the power grid, will be the shutdown of reliable coal-fired power plants. For instance, Duane Highley, CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. and Arkansas Electric Cooperatives Inc., told Arkansas Business he “would prefer to invest in scrubbers” for the 1,480-megawatt plant near Redfield, “and let it run for another 20 or 30 years” rather than shut it down.

What’s more, enormous investments that have already been made to many of these plants to make them meet other EPA standards. Take the Ferry Power Station in Hatfield, PA. The plant’s owner installed $650 million of scrubber technology in 2009, but closed it four years later because of more EPA regulations.

During a July 23 [2014] hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) summed it up when she said that EPA’s regulations will force the premature retirement of efficient, low-cost coal-fueled generation; lead to the potential loss of billions of dollars in investments made over the last decade to make coal plants cleaner; require construction of higher-cost replacement generation; and increase natural gas prices.

Like Charlie Crist, Para is a proponent of destroying Florida’s energy producing infrastructure. Para, like Crist, wants to close all coal and natural gas plants in Florida and replace them with costly and inefficient renewable energy plants – wind and solar. This position will impact every Floridian with higher energy prices. But Para and Crist know that.

Florida District 72 voters need to ask themselves: Is Greg Para a parrot for the Democrat agenda or a Democrat goat?

Florida’s Deceptive Common Core Implementation and Teacher Training

Despite Gov. Rick Scott’s executive order (Executive Order 13-276) replacing the Common Core and withdrawing Florida from PARCC, teachers are still being trained in Common Core as the Florida Standards are essentially the Common Core State Standards with another name, slight renumbering of standards, and a few additional standards.

In an email sent to me from Cheryl Etters (FLDOE Spokeswoman) as a response to a media inquiry, she termed my assertions rooted in fact as “opinions,” which is one of their dismissive tactics when the FLDOE and State officials are called on to explain their deceptive and misleading campaign to stealthily implement the Common Core State Standards in Florida schools and the continued training of Florida teachers in the Common Core State Standards.

Why are Florida teachers, including me, being trained in the Common Core State Standards a year after Gov. Scott’s executive order when they were replaced by the Florida Standards?

The simple answer is that they are one and the same with minor differences- a plan meant to appease President Obama, Jeb Bush, and the testing industry (AIR, Pearson).

To satisfy your own mind, read and compare for yourself: Common Core ELA Standards and the Language Arts Florida Standards (LAFS); and Common Core Mathematics Standards and the Mathematics Florida Standards (MAFS).

It’s amazing that Gov. Scott, Education Commissioner Pam Stewart, and FLDOE personnel cannot come clean and respond whatsoever to these claims- because they cannot in an honest fashion!

I have been waiting about a week for a response to our media inquiry; but when faced with fact and evidence, a response is difficult for them to formulate.

Beacon Educator, through FLDOE regulation, is the largest online provider of professional development courses and still offers training in Common Core but not (and has not as of yet) the Florida Standards.

Why is Beacon Educator not offering professional development courses in the Florida Standards? By continuing to offer professional development courses in the Common Core, is this an admission by the FLDOE and the State that the Florida Standards and Common Core are one and the same?

Ms. Etters’ response was: I’m not quite sure how to respond to your opinions. A mention on Beacon Educator – they appear to be a private vendor and are not associated with the Florida Department of Education. What do you mean by “through FLDOE regulation?”

            If Ms. Etters consulted the Beacon Educator website, she would know.

Concerning Beacon Educator, Beacon has three disclaimers suggesting they adhere to/meet FLDOE requirements and that it received past funding through the FLDOE:

Beacon Educator provides facilitated online courses for busy educators. These courses comply with the National Staff Development Council Standards, Florida Department of Education Professional Development Protocol Standards, and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates.

Forming a consortium with other districts including Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Gadsden, and the PAEC districts, Beacon Learning Center received the U.S. Department of Education Technology Innovation Challenge Grant (2000-2006). Other funding sources included Bay District Schools and the Florida Department of Education through grants including the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, (1997-2000), Florida Goals 2000 (1998-99), and other Florida Department of Education grants (2002-2003).

Furthermore, Beacon Educator is not a private vendor, but a public one: “Beacon Educator, the professional development division of Beacon Learning Center, is a self-supporting, internet-based enterprise within Bay District Schools.”

Given that, the Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development and Retention within the FLDOE approves each school district’s Master Inservice Plan to offer professional development: “The master plan shall be updated and approved by local boards on an annual basis by September 1 of the current year with written verification submitted annually to the Commissioner of Education by October 1 of the current year.”

Bay County Public Schools has an approved Master Inservice Plan from the FLDOE, hence FLDOE regulation, and thus offers professional development through their owned entity- Beacon Educator.

Doesn’t Ms. Etters and the folks at the FLDOE know this?

Notice the attached Weekly Briefings (May and August 2014) from Miami–Dade County Public Schools and the associated flyers (May and August 2014).

Both briefings offer the exact same courses, but the Briefing from May, under Online Modules, says in the second bullet: “New Florida State Standards (Common Core).”

The proof is in the pudding! I took all of the courses and earned credit in them per my Beacon Educator transcript and M-DCPS Staff Development (SD) Record– eight months after Gov. Scott’s executive order supposedly ending the Common Core in Florida.

Notice the credit entries say “Common Core” and not “Florida Standards.”

There’s no denying- Common Core is going full steam ahead with disastrous results unless appropriate action is taken.

By appropriate action, I mean taking action at the ballot box: Adrian Wyllie for Governor.

Both former Gov. Charlie Crist and Gov. Scott support Common Core and its implementation.

Charlie Crist gave us Common Core; Rick Scott is implementing them.

Crist, who likes to be liked, stands for nothing and forced it on Florida to appease President Obama and Jeb Bush.

Gov. Scott, like Crist, is implementing Common Core, and lying to us in the process, under the guise of the Florida Standards to appease Jeb Bush and the testing industry- his base and support. He has to under false pretenses (Florida Standards) for political survival and in a way that is acceptable to both president Obama and Jeb Bush.

Moreover, both of them do virtually nothing to those caught cheating on standardized tests, and you know cheating will take off like wildfire on these new Florida Standard Assessments.

Therefore, if you are in true opposition to Common Core, then the appropriate course of action is to vote for Adrian Wyllie unless you want Common Core under Gov. Scott or Common Core and PARCC under Gov. Crist.

Florida will have 1,789 pot shops if Amendment 2 passes

The Florida Department of Health has estimated that Florida will have 1,789 pot shops if Amendment 2 passes. The five counties with the largest estimated number of pot shops are:

  1. Miami-Dade with 239
  2. Palm Beach County with 126
  3. Broward County with 168
  4. Hillsborough County with 118
  5. Orange County (Orlando) with 112

In states like Washington and Colorado pot shops out number Starbucks in some areas.

Pot shops are coming to Florida should Amendment 2 pass. It is a booming business in other states. Growth is exponential.

Does this sound like medical use only?

Go Away. Hillary

Other than earning her law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own. Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

Had she not been the First Lady, would anyone have ever heard of her in the context of high power political posts? The short answer is no. She had traded on her celebrity and name recognition to become a Senator from New York and then, after a failed bid to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, accepted the position of Secretary of State.

Obama wanted to make sure she was “inside the tent” during his first term and, following that, her resignation has permitted her to now begin distancing herself from a man that many regard the worst President the nation has ever had.

Let’s back up a moment. Is there a single piece of major legislation during her term as a Senator from January 3, 2001 to January 21, 2009 attributed to her? The answer is no even though she served on important committees that included the budget; armed services; environment and public works; health; education; labor and pensions; and a special committee on aging. No point reviewing her voting record. If her former votes pose a political problem for her now, they will simply be dismissed.

During her four years as Secretary of State, can you name a single treaty that generated any significant media coverage? Again, no, If what political pundits believe and her own book reflects, her views on foreign affairs, strategic objectives and other weighty matters was entirely directed from the Oval Office of the White House. Now, it is true that the Secretary of State’s job is to carry out the President’s foreign policy, but at this point we know he had no consistent or strategic policy other than to ignore the Middle East and make nice with Russia.

As Secretary of State Hillary spent most of the time flying anywhere in the world so as not to be seen that much with Obama, but when the Benghazi consulate was attacked on September 11, 2012, killing our ambassador and three security personnel, what we learned was that she had previously paid little or no attention to the question of its protection at a time when other embassies in Libya were closing their doors to avoid attacks. The picture that emerged following the attack was that of someone simply occupying the office without devoting much time to the management of the State Department.

It’s one thing to allocate management to those in the Department responsible for its vast responsibilities, but the buck still stops at the Secretary’s desk and what we learned following the attack is that she backed up the absurd lies of the President who claimed that it was the result of a video no one had seen and a casual group of men who decided to attack the consulate. On the anniversary of 9/11!!!  Questioned about it by a Senate committee, she famously said, “What difference at this time does it make?”  It makes a lot of difference when the President and Secretary of State lie to the nation and the world.

After returning to private life following Obama’s reelection Hillary outrageously claimed that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House. Hillary’s inclination to say stupid things and lie without any need to should be especially troubling should she run for President and, yes, she has been running for a very long time.

In Hillary we have a person who has given little evidence of legislative or management skills who wants to be the first woman President of the United States. It will look good on her resume.

What, in fact, does she have to offer? Just as Obama offered voters the chance to say they had voted for the first black candidate for President, Hillary offers them the chance to say they voted for the first woman President.

That is not reason enough to elect anyone, black, white, man or woman.

We have learned from the Obama experience that his Marxist ideology, attachment to Islam, and disdain for the U.S. military has proven to be a formula for economic and foreign policy disasters. His signature legislation, Obamacare aka the Affordable Patient Care Act, has proven to be the antithesis of his promises that one could keep their own healthcare insurance and doctor if they wanted. It has been an unmitigated failure since a Democratic Party controlled Congress voted it into law in 2009 without a single Republican vote. In 2010 the voters gave political power in the House to the GOP.

Would Hillary allow Obamacare to be repealed if that was passed by Congress? Would she take steps to destroy the Islamic State threat in the Middle East? Or simply said, would she cease to be an extreme liberal masquerading as a moderate or centrist?

Do we want to elect a woman who in early September told a conference in Las Vegas that “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collections of challenges we face. The threat is real, and so is the opportunity…if we make the hard choices.” This is abject idiocy.

I find all the talk of her candidacy at this point to be obscene. It is an insult to the Democratic Party, but then so is Obama. If she is not opposed by primary candidates within the Party or she floats to candidacy simply as a political celebrity, simply as a woman, then the Party deserves to be massively defeated in 2016. We may get an indication of that in the November midterm elections.

I wish Hillary Clinton would simply go away and permit a serious election to occur.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Where is Our ‘Voice in the Wilderness’ touting Conservatism?

For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?

The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.

The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push back if Republicans go down that road. This hogwash drives me nuts because Conservatism is not mean, Liberalism is mean!

Mr Romney you are an honorable man. But, if you are not going to boldly articulate the superior attributes of Conservatism; how it is rooted in compassion and why it is most beneficial to all Americans — if you are afraid to explain the foundational evils of Liberalism, please stay home; out of the 2016 presidential race.

In the first 2012 presidential debate, Romney kicked Obama’s butt with truth and facts. Then, Romney went on “prevent defense” in the next debate. His behavior said, “I have Obama on the ropes. I’m not going to say or do anything to blow my lead.” Consequently, in the second debate Romney allowed Obama to get away with lies.

Clueless low info voters believed Obama’s lies and his sycophant MSM allies said nothing. Romney’s lukewarm defense of Republican principles (Conservatism) led to 4 million frustrated Republican voters staying home, not bothering to cast their votes on election day.

Thus far, Romney is telegraphing that he will use the same failed “don’t-come-across-too-conservative” strategy again. Stay home Mr Romney. Please stay home.

Even the Bible expresses displeasure with those who are afraid to stand up for what they believe. “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Like President Ronald Reagan, I am a bold colors kind of guy.

Enough with the weak kneed apologizing and watering down what it means to be conservative; allowing certain Americans to break laws due to race, embracing immoral and culturally destructive behaviors in the name of inclusion.

I liked G. W. Bush, but I rue the day that he came out with his “Compassionate Conservatism”. He reinforced Dems/liberal’s lie that Conservatism is not by nature, compassionate. The truth is Conservatism is the epitome of compassion. When will someone have the backbone to stand up for Conservatism; tell Americans why it is far better for them than Liberalism? I am a black conservative because it would be idiotic and self-destructive to embrace Liberalism.

Conservatism 101: A Tale of Two Dads – Little Johnny Says He Does Not Want to Go to School.

Liberal dad’s reply: “Son, I feel your pain. School has too many challenges. Stay in bed. I will provide for and protect you.”

Conservative dad’s reply: “Johnny, you get your butt out of that bed this instant and get ready for school. I will speak to the principal, attend PTA and do whatever necessary. You need an education to have a happy and fulfilled life. I love you son.”

Which dad is righteous, loving and truly compassionate?

Folks, my little scenario illustrates the foundational beliefs under girding Conservatism and Liberalism in America. Conservatism is good for people, offering help to launch folks into self-reliance and personal achievement which creates self-respect and self-esteem.

Liberalism is notorious for dissing people, implying that they are stupid and weak in need of cradle to grave government dependency and intellectual liberals managing their lives.

This is why it is so frustrating to watch the MSM get away with branding the Tea Party “extreme” with very little push back and even support from the GOP. At the core of the Tea Party is Conservatism. Unlike liberals, we respect the individual. We are patriots who desire our government to abide by the Constitution. We desire smaller government, laws enforced equally, fiscal responsibility and a president who does not behave like our Imperial Dictator. And yet, we in the Tea Party are the ones called crazy extremists and a threat to our nation. Why won’t someone tell America the truth, who we really are?

Continuing to allow liberal’s lies about conservatives to go unchallenged is unacceptable. Liberal’s modus operandi is to accuse conservatives of the very crimes they commit.

For example: Liberals say conservatives are intolerant. Liberals are the epitome of intolerance. And for all their campaigning against bullying, liberals are notorious bullies. Talk about blood in the water; how many times have we witnessed the liberal MSM having a feeding frenzy ripping apart someone who dared to express a point of view other than their consensus on an issue?

Bloody victims barely hold on to life after suffering public humiliation and the loss of property and income. And yet, these vicious liberal bullies get all the credit; praised as paragons of compassion. The truth is compassion is the heart of Conservatism.

With Obama’s declining approval numbers, GOP candidates have a golden opportunity to explain the superior attributes and benefits of Conservatism.

Who will be our John the Baptist? Who will be our voice crying in the wilderness proclaiming the good news of Conservatism?

Could Independent Scotland Become a Haven for the Free Market?

Thoughts on prospects for breaking from Britain by Robert Ramsey.

By leaving the United Kingdom, Scotland has a chance to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. These last few weeks have shown the Yes vote sitting at around 50 percent—an astonishing number considering that Scottish independence has for years merely been a pipe dream.

The future appears to be bright, but only if things don’t go as promised.

Those campaigning for the Yes vote have promised a currency union with England and a continuing supply of oil. Their economy would be tied to the oil and the security of the pound. If things go wrong, they say, the Brits will bail them out.

The English are in no way on board with a currency union, though, with several finance ministers, including Danny Alexander, the chief secretary of the treasury, insisting that there will be no union. The English have few incentives to enter a currency union, so the likelihood of one coming into existence is low.

If the currency union doesn’t work out, the Scottish National Party has stated that admittance to the EU, with access to the euro, is very likely. This appears to be a dubious claim as well, with several high-ranking European Union officials announcing in the last few weeks that Scotland will probably not be admitted, particularly without its own central bank.

This would leave Scotland with one option: to form an independent currency based solely on its own economy.

While this is the last thing the Scottish want—as it means they would be much more open to financial crisis—in the end it could be a very good thing.

The most prosperous nations in the world all have two things in common: They have small populations and smaller governments. Scotland has both of these things.

If Scotland has to depend on its own national currency, there will be two likely results:

One is they’ll have to lower regulations on the industries currently present in Scotland in order to make them stay. There is nothing more frustrating to a multinational corporation than to have to change up an already-working system, and so Scotland will have to sweeten the pot. This means incentives not only for companies to remain, but for new ones to set up shop.

Secondly, Scotland will be free from the giant Westminster bureaucracy. This would leave Scotland with a smaller government able to more nimbly adapt and adjust to changes. It would also mean that the government would be more accountable to the small population, which has always boded well as far as reducing waste goes.

The Scottish National Party, the primary driving force behind the Yes campaign, has also claimed that the oil fields in the North Sea will provide enough cash flow to build an economy mirroring that of Norway, a socialist utopia. This has become the crux of the campaign, and large numbers of critics have stood up to say that Scotland might very well soon run out of oil.

Like having an independent currency, running out of oil might play in Scotland’s favor. Currently, the oil is presented as being the crutch holding up the national economy. If this crutch were to disappear, then the economy might collapse altogether, according to critics. The answer to this is simple: If the Scottish economy is merely being propped up by oil taxes, etc. then maybe the taxes are the problem, not the oil disappearing.

Faced with shrinking oil production and an independent currency, Scotland may very well have to reduce taxes, regulations, and government spending on a drastic scale in order to ensure economic growth. In other words, Scotland might become a haven for the free-market, and with that will come wealth and prosperity for every Scotsman.

Strong Percentages of Americans Unlikely to Consider Voting for a Muslim, Transgender, or Agnostic/Atheist Presidential Candidate

NEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — It’s all about the issues, right? Not necessarily, according to a new Harris Poll. When asked to describe their likelihood to consider voting for a presidential candidate fitting a varied series of backgrounds, there are clearly certain characteristics which are deterrents to strong percentages of Americans. Specifically, just over half (52%) say they’d be either “not that likely” or “not at all likely” to consider voting for a Muslim candidate (vs. 28% who would be “very” or “somewhat” likely to do so); meanwhile, pluralities would be unlikely to consider voting for a transgender man or woman (48%, vs. 34% who would be likely to do so) or an agnostic/atheist candidate (45% vs. 39%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,537 adults surveyed online between August 13 and 18, 2014. It should be noted that when evaluating these hypothetical candidates, respondents were asked to assume each was qualified and in alignment with their own political views. It should be noted that while these questions give a good measure of the relative impact of different characteristics and backgrounds, they do not necessarily predict their real impact on voting behavior because such decisions are made based on a more comprehensive set of factors.

(Full results, including data tables, available here)

Voting booth biases

Americans are more split on the idea of a Hindu candidate (39% not likely vs. 37% likely) and a candidate unwilling to discuss his or her religious views (40% and 41%, respectively).

As for a candidate who won’t discuss their sexuality, 43% would be likely to consider such a candidate while 36% would not. While likely support outpaces opposition in this case, it’s important to note that this still means fewer than half of Americans would support a candidate declining to discuss this matter but who otherwise aligns with their political worldview. Similar results can be seen for Buddhist (43% likely and 36% not) and Mormon (47% and 35%, respectively) candidates, as well as candidates identifying as bisexual (46% and 38%, respectively) and homosexual (49% and 34%, respectively).

The safe bets? Majorities of Americans would be likely to consider voting for Protestant (72%), Catholic (72%) and Jewish (69%) candidates, candidates without children (72%), and candidates who have never been married (70%).

Generational disparities

Matures are more inclined than any other generation to say that they’d be unlikely to consider voting for a Muslim presidential candidate, while opposition is lowest among Millennials (74% Matures vs. 58% of Baby Boomers, 51% of Gen Xers and 39% of Millennials). As a rule, opposition to most of the candidate types evaluated is higher among older generations:

  • Looking at sexuality as a factor, older Americans are more inclined than their younger counterparts to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for transgender (59% Matures, 55% Baby Boomers, 46% Gen Xers, 37% Millennials), bisexual (52%, 43%, 33% and 30%, respectively), or homosexual (47%, 39%, 30% and 26%, respectively) candidates, along with those unwilling to discuss their sexuality (47%, 40%, 30% and 31%, respectively).
  • Turning to the impact of religious views, older Americans are also more inclined than those in younger generations to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for Agnostic/Atheist (65% Matures, 50% Baby Boomers, 40% Gen Xers, 34% Millennials), Hindu (50%, 44%, 35% and 32%, respectively), or Buddhist (48%, 43%, 34% and 27%, respectively) candidates, as well as those unwilling to discuss their religious views (52%, 45%, 39% and 30%, respectively).

Millennials, on the other hand, are more likely than any other generation to display reluctance to vote for a Mormon candidate (42% Millennials vs. 34% Gen Xers, 33% Baby Boomers and 27% Matures).

Political partialities

A similar story emerges along political lines, with Republicans more likely than Democrats or Independents to show resistance to many of the candidate types under consideration:

  • Looking at religion as a factor, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or Independents to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for Muslim (73% Republican, 39% Democrat and 53% Independent),  Agnostic/Atheist (63%, 37% and 40%, respectively), Hindu (55%, 31% and 38%, respectively), or Buddhist (53%, 28% and 35%, respectively) candidates, as well as those unwilling to discuss their religious views (56%, 34% and 34%, respectively).
  • As to the impact of sexuality, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or Independents to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for transgender (68% Republican, 34% Democrat, 50% Independent), bisexual (57%, 27% and 34%, respectively), or homosexual (52%, 23% and 31%, respectively) candidates, along with those unwilling to discuss their sexuality (49%, 31% and 31%, respectively).

Moving in the opposite direction, Democrats are more likely than Independents – who in turn are more likely than Republicans – to indicate reluctance when it comes to voting for a Mormon candidate (45% Democrat, 33% Independent, 25% Republican).

Independents present an interesting case: on the one hand, they are more likely than Democrats to show reluctance to vote for Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, transgender, bisexual or gay candidates; on the other, their views are more in line with those of Democrats in responding to candidates who choose not to discuss their religious views or sexuality.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online, in English, within the United States between August 13 and 18, 2014among 2,537 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, The Harris Poll avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Poll surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in our panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

SOURCE: The Harris Poll.

About The Harris Poll®

Begun in 1963, The Harris Poll is one of the longest running surveys measuring public opinion in the U.S. and is highly regarded throughout the world. The nationally representative polls, conducted primarily online, measure the knowledge, opinions, behaviors and motivations of the general public. New and trended polls on a wide variety of subjects including politics, the economy, healthcare, foreign affairs, science and technology, sports and entertainment, and lifestyles are published weekly. For more information, or to see other recent polls, visit the HarriPhoto – http://twitter.com/harrisints Poll News Room. To see other recent Harris Polls, please visit the Harris Poll News Room.

RELATED LINKS

http://www.harrisinteractive.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHarrisInteractive
http://twitter.com/harrispoll
http://www.facebook.com/HarrisPoll
http://www.facebook.com/harrisinteractive?ref=share
http://twitter.com/harrisint

EDITORS NOTE: These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls. The results of this Harris Poll may not be used in advertising, marketing or promotion without the prior written permission of The Harris Poll. Product and brand names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

Florida: GOP County Chairs unanimously vote to Oppose Pot Amendment

Saying it is filled with loopholes that would allow widespread access to pot, Republican county chairs voted unanimously Friday to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana.

Critics of the November ballot initiative, backed heavily by attorney and Charlie Crist supporter John B. Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan law firm, say the measure is so broadly written that it would allow people who don’t truly need medical marijuana to get it.

Others question the medicinal value of the drug.

“I do not want to see Florida turned into the pot capital of the world,” said Tony Ledbetter, Chairman of the Volusia County party.

The chairs also voted to oppose a proposed conservation amendment that would dedicate a share of real-estate tax revenues to efforts such as buying and preserving land.

Opponents say that measure would endanger property rights and tie the hands of the Legislature when lawmakers craft the state budget.

Here is the latest video ad featuring John (for the reefer) Morgan released by VoteNoOn2:

charlie-crist-john-morgan-in-florida-trend

Charlie Crist with John B. Morgan.

Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

As American essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner wrote, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” In this case marijuana makes strange bedfellows.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Welfare Recipients Can Use Debit Cards for Marijuana
Black market boom lays bare a social divide in Colorado’s marijuana market | The Guardian
Parents Warn Against Synthetic Marijuana After 19-Year-Old Son Dies | KTLA
New marijuana drug ‘Wax’ looks and feels like lip balm – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
Man Allegedly Shoots Teen Over Stealing Marijuana – Huffington Post
Two Teens Arrested for Marijuana Burglary
Porterville, CA teens busted for drugs at school with intent to sell, cops say – ABC News
Girl eats father’s marijuana-laced bar – AP

Republican within striking distance of picking up Delaware U.S. Senate seat

Kevin Wade

Kevin Wade, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware.

With the primary races over and growing attention at the local, state and national levels will be on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The real battle nationally is in the U.S. Senate. Millions will be poured into races to retain or obtain control of that body.

However, there is one key Republican U.S. Senate race – in Delaware.

Kevin Wade, a self-made business man, believes he can take Joe Biden’s former U.S. Senate seat and put Delaware solidly in the “R” column. A Battleground Tracker poll shows Wade within striking distance of the incumbent Coons.

DE_Senate

Historically the Delaware U.S. Senate seat is won with approximately 150,000 total votes. The race in November will likely hinge on about 8,000 voters changing their voting pattern on the General Election Day. It is projected that the Republican turnout will be 10% higher and 10% lower for the Democrats. That leaves 8,000 voters to be convinced to swing  this U.S. Senate Republican on November 4th.

This is the seat formerly held by now Vice President Joe Biden. That alone must have Delaware Republicans energized.

According to Wade, “It is all in reach. I don’t understand the fascination with ‘big state’ races at the national level. My vote in the U.S. Senate would count as much as California’s U.S. Senator. The yield on a donor dollar and volunteer hour is so much higher in this small voting universe in Delaware.”

Kevin Wade on the Two Americas:

Recently Wade was at the Gaza Frontier with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Wade notes, “No civilian was closer. I am a trusted friend and have trusted friends there. Because of this trust, senior IDF officers closed their eyes to my presence in the forward area. The soldiers I met were returning from house-to-house fighting inside Gaza. Others were going across the fence line to enter combat. It was and remains a tough fight. To be clear I was not in combat; just nearby. One explosion was so close I felt the blast wave and my ears rang.”

“The soldiers asked me to break bread with them at their late night mess. Another night I was invited to join their prayer circle for the traditional Soldiers Prayer before they entered combat. I went to Israel, when under attack by Hamas rockets, to form a personal impression. On my last night in Israel I was invited to be a guest on I24 TV, Israel’s “CNN” for a live worldwide broadcast about the conditions there. Thirty minutes later I was face down in a roadside ditch due to another rocket attack. I saw the two rockets rise up with a fiery tail from a field to my right,” recalls Wade.

Watch this short video of Wade’s visit to Israel:

To learn more about Kevin Wade visit WadeforUSSenate.com.