Analysis of the Prop 8 and DOMA “gay marriages” cases before US Supreme Court — what’s going on and what could happen.

The following comprehensive analysis is provided by MassResistance.org:

As most people know, this is a terribly critical time regarding the imposition of “gay marriage” on America.

On Tuesday, March 26, the United States Supreme Court in Washington heard arguments on the lawsuit to overturn the Proposition 8 Constitutional Amendment vote in California. The following day, the Court heard arguments on the lawsuit to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Either of these would be huge wins for the homosexual movement and could change the country similar to the way that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” changed the military.

Christian-bashing. Homosexual activist taunts Christians gathered near US
Supreme Court building during “gay marriage” arguments. Expect to see
more of this if any of these cases wins.

Both of these cases were strategically targeted and crafted for maximum success. And they were filed in carefully chosen venues to get the most gay-friendly federal judges. All of that worked out stunningly for the homosexual legal teams. Both cases sailed through the federal courts with barely a hitch. And both, as we shall see, were further aided by less than stellar representation by their opposition.

Both cases have generated mountains of paperwork in their filings, amicus briefs, and rulings, along with the myriad of groups and individuals that have been involved on each side,. It can be quite overwhelming. Our aim here is to explain all this in reasonably simple terms.

Most important to understand is that both of these cases have used the “equal protection under the law” clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment as their primary argument. And in our opinion, this what the pro-family side has largely failed to effectively defend.

The Proposition 8 Case

Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex “marriage.” An additional state, Hawaii, passed an amendment to allow the legislature to decide. Nine states currently allow same-sex “marriage.”

The homosexual movement calculated that it could undo all of this by getting a federal court to declare such an amendment unconstitutional. They decided to target the California amendment, known as “Proposition 8”, which was passed in 2008.

Tolerance? During Proposition 8 campaign in California, two lesbians parked this car in front of home of parents and 5 children who supported Proposition 8.

There were good reasons for this choice. California is in the very liberal 9th Circuit federal court district. But in addition, they were able to arrange for Judge Vaughn Walker to preside over the case. Walker, who later publicly acknowledged he was homosexual, struck down the amendment. (However, he did order a stay of enforcement until it worked its way through the legal system. This stay was challenged in court by the homosexual legal team but in this they were not successful.)

The gist of the case, as mentioned above, is that under the “equal protection under the law” clause of the US Constitution, homosexuals who want to marry were being treated differently from heterosexuals who want to marry. Instead, California allows them to enter into civil unions. Such discrimination is unconstitutional, they argue. Homosexual couples should have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals, because they as citizens have the same basic civil rights. The federal judge and the appeals judges all agreed with that reasoning.

The counter-argument was that the same laws on marriage apply to everybody — i.e., everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex — therefore, there’s no “equal protection” problem. But that was rejected by the judges. The fact that the lawyers on our side accepted California’s civil union law as a legitimate compromise made that argument difficult to defend. (That was another strategic reason for choosing California as the target.)

But beyond that, the pro-family handling of that case was widely criticized as a “perfect storm” of incompetence and non-aggression. See the MassResistance report from 2010 on this.

It’s always appeared to us that the only effective way to discredit the “equal protection” argument would be to discredit homosexual behavior itself. It should be easy. There’s certainly an enormous amount of material to do that. But the pro-family lawyers have almost completely avoided that approach.

Thus, during the US Supreme Court arguments, when the right made a brief foray into some stronger points, it didn’t go well. Here’s how (the far-left pro-gay) Mother Jones magazine reported on pro-family lawyer Charles J. Cooper’s interchange with the justices:

When Cooper argued that California was justified in enacting the ban because of “society’s interest in responsible procreation,” Justice Elena Kagan asked if it would be constitutional to ban marriages between infertile couples. When Cooper argued that it’s possible that same-sex marriage harms children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that there were already more than 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California. Asked by Kennedy and Kagan how same-sex marriage could have a negative effect on “traditional” marriages, Cooper couldn’t offer any examples.

According to reports, throughout all the court hearings the pro-family lawyers were trying craft arguments that would fit the predicted the temperament of Justice Kennedy, the assumed “swing vote,” rather than on the strict legal aspects of the case. It’s an interesting type of calculated risk.

If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the lower courts, what does that mean? The answer: It’s devastating. 

It would effectively strike down all laws and state constitutional amendments in the US against same-sex “marriage.” This is the holy grail of the entire homosexual movement. It will basically undo all the work that’s been done in defending marriage, and in one stroke will completely redefine the family unit for the entire country. Like the 1973 abortion ruling, it would be a sweeping mandate by judicial fiat with no possibility of fighting back by the citizens.

The Defense of Marriage (DOMA) case

DOMA was passed in 1996 by huge majorities in Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law (1) bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” in any of its laws, programs, benefits, etc. It also (2) gives individual states the legal option not to recognize them, even if other states allow them.

The homosexual movement’s strategy here was to file several cases and hope that at least one was successful. In 2009 and 2010 four separate federal lawsuits seeking to overturn DOMA were filed: two in Massachusetts, one in Connecticut, and one in New York. All four were filed in “pro-gay” federal court venues with relatively gay-friendly judges presiding.
July 9, 2010: The DOMA ruling in Boston Federal Court was celebrated in the mainstream press as a great civil rights victory.

July 9, 2010: The DOMA ruling in Boston Federal Court was celebrated in the mainstream press as a great civil rights victory.

But the “equal protection” clause was the primary argument they used, but one of the Massachusetts lawsuits also invoked the 10th Amendment “states’ rights” argument. (Ironically, the “states’ rights” argument has also been used — more persuasively — by lawyers on our side of this case. They argue on the rights of states NOT to recognize “gay marriage” on a federal level.)

MassResistance had followed the two lawsuits in Massachusetts, one filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) legal group, as they went through the federal court in Boston. Read our analysis published in 2010.

VIDEO: Telling it like it is. After the Boston Federal Court ruling, Brian Camenker of MassResistance was interviewed by CNN.(Also see video of local TV interview.)

All four anti-DOMA lawsuits won in the federal courts. A contributing factor was the weak-kneed defense of DOMA by the Obama Administration’s justice department. The DOJ’s reluctance to be aggressive was admitted to in a statement in February, 2011.

From these, the US Supreme Court selected the New York case, Windsor v United States, to hear. But after seeing how poorly the Obama Administration defended the DOMA case in the lower courts, the House of Representatives sued and won the right to hire its own legal counsel to defend it before the Supreme Court. They hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

After Clement accepted case, his high-profile firm, King and Spaulding in Atlanta, caved in to pressure from homosexual activists and withdrew the firm it! So Clement resigned from the firm and has continued defending DOMA.

The DOMA lawsuit targets particular part of the law (Section 3 in the statute) which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’

The plaintiffs have argued that the federal government must treat “gay marriages” the same as regular marriages throughout all its laws, regulations, etc., because “gay people” have the same rights as everyone else and “gay marriages” are still marriages. Otherwise, “gay people” are not being treated equally under the law. And it’s the right of the states to determine that.

Unfortunately, in our opinion, Clement’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court and in his briefs were only moderately better than the pro-family Proposition 8 lawyers. He didn’t aggressively take on the heart of the matter regarding “equal protection” — the issue of homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Instead, he mostly stuck to the states’ rights argument and the traditional purposes and reasons for the institution of marriage.

Interestingly, it was Justice Kagan who brought out the fact that DOMA was originally passed because of the widespread disgust over homosexuality in America. As Politico reported:

Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA which described the statute as a way to resist the immorality of homosexuality. “I’m going to quote from the House report here….’Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,'” she said.

How important are these points? No one can really tell.

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling and overturns the key Section 3 of DOMA, the homosexual movement can accomplish the following:

  • It would require the federal government (funded by taxpayers in all 50 states) to include homosexual “marriages” in all federal benefits. This includes Social Security, federal pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran’s benefits, and everything else involving marriage, including filing jointly on Federal income taxes.
  • It also includes access to federal programs and other things run or controlled by the federal government, such as housing, federal loans, passports, health insurance, military housing, burial in military cemeteries, etc. Thus, the federal government would recognize homosexual behavior as equal to regular marriage throughout the range of all its activities.

  • But even more frightening: Given the wording of the decision it would also likely extend to any activities that receive federal funding, such as state programs, college programs, and virtually anything else involving federal money, such as federal contracts. We believe that the Obama administration would use this as a lever to accelerate the forced equalization of homosexuality with heterosexuality in all federal activities or anything connected to federal money — similar to the way it did in the military with the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Also going on: Massive nationwide PR assault

The two Supreme Court cases are the homosexual movement’s “ground war.” There is also the “air war” going on.

Most people, even pro-family activists, don’t realize that for the last few months America has been under what’s likely the largest and most expensive public relations campaign in the history of the homosexual movement.

All of those politicians (including some Republicans) who are suddenly very publicly “coming around” on the “gay marriage” issue isn’t a coincidence but clearly the result of a very intense lobbying effort — targeted for the time when the Supreme Court would be considering the “gay marriage” cases.

The same goes for the huge news generated when Sen. Portman’s “gay” son conveniently persuaded them to change his mind at just the right time. And how does it happen to get into all the right media in the right way? It goes on and on. There are the full-page ads in major newspapers listing the major corporations supporting “gay marriage.” The influx of gay-marriage and gay-relationship issues on this season’s TV shows. The magazine stories, including TIME with the homosexual kisses. Even the flood of Internet ads (even on conservative sites) on gay marriage. And of course, the phony polls on major networks showing a huge national support for gay marriage. We’ve even seen “gay rights” sidewalk canvassers in some cities.

“Gay” ads flood the Internet. And we meaneverywhere! Actual screenshot of National Review Online website, Feb. 13, 2013 with two prominent ads for Human Rights Campaign, radical homosexual group. Ads say: “Take a stand against fear, hate-mongering, and bigotry. Make a monthly gift.”

Most of the money for this seems to be flowing from established groups like Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. But there are obviously other vehicles that are less visible at work.

It a D-Day-like effort to persuade the nation — and especially the Supreme Court — that “gay marriage” is inevitable and that trying to fight it is fruitless.

A tale of two marriage rallies: DC and Boston

The two “gay marriage” rallies that took place the first day of the first Supreme Court “gay marriage” oral arguments said a lot about the nature of this battle.

On Tuesday, March 26, thousands of regular pro-family people made the trip to Washington DC and marched outside the Supreme Court building, easily outnumbering the homosexual activists gathered there. The speakers were various pro-family activists, group leaders, and a few politicians.

That same day in downtown Boston it was the elites: The homosexual lobby and the liberal establishment held its own rally celebrating the DOMA lawsuit which was first filed in Boston. It attracted a few hundred activists and press. But the speakers were an impressive gathering of at least a dozen prominent city, state, and federal politicians, including the Mayor of Boston, Congressman Ed Markey, along with major homosexual activist leaders. (There was one Republican, US Senate candidate and current state rep. Dan Winslow, who gave a rousing pro-gay speech.)

VIDEO: What it was like. Scenes from the two marriage rallies: Washington DC the Boston.

How will the Supreme Court rule?

As the battle continues across the country, over the next few months the Justices and their staffs will digest the oral arguments and the large number of amicus briefs submitted by both sides, and also discuss the cases among themselves. It’s generally predicted that they will release their decision in the latter part of June, just before this year’s session ends at the end of June.

If this were decided strictly on the rule of law, we think that both cases would lose. Applying “equal protection under the law” to homosexual behavior is absurd by any rational application. And the states’ rights argument is far-fetched, despite the liberal Boston judge’s ruling; DOMA was written to protect states’ rights. But unfortunately, there’s a long history of the courts ignoring the obvious constitutional law.

The conventional wisdom is that Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote on this. So most of the national focus has been on him. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are considered safe traditionalists expected to decide against both cases, and Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are seen as left-wing on just about everything and will support both. (The fact that Sotomayor and Kagan, the Obama nominees with documented radical pasts, are even on the Supreme Court is a testament to the cowardice of the Republican Party for not blocking them when they should have.)

Many commentators have also read in their tea leaves that Kennedy is not eager to have the courts mandate national “gay marriage” by fiat the way the court did with the much-maligned and contentions 1972 abortion ruling. But it’s hard to believe that they would leave the homosexual movement with nothing at all.

Our prediction is that Kennedy will not overturn Proposition 8 and mandate gay marriage everywhere. But he’s likely to strike down DOMA to at least some degree, and force it throughout the federal government.

But who knows? Whatever side of the bed Kennedy gets up on that day could determine the fate of the family structure and morality in America. It’s a terrible situation. The Founding Fathers never intended courts to have this kind of despotic power over the country. But our politicians (and ultimately the citizens) and have allowed it to happen.

On the other hand, there’s still two months to go. Anything can happen. If anything the fight needs to be stepped up.

Bill Maher: Bloomberg’s Nanny State ‘Makes Me Want to Join the Tea Party and Marry Ann Coulter’

Clash Daily reports on an interview between Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher:

Here is the video:

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST: Mayor Bloomberg is somebody that…

BILL MAHER: [Sighs] Ohh.

KIMMEL: Now, what do you think of his efforts to protect us from carbonated beverages and the like?

BILL MAHER: I don’t like it. You know, I think it gives liberals a bad name. I really do. It makes liberals look like bullies who want to tell people what to do. And they never met a regulation they didn’t like. I mean, obviously we do have a problem with child obesity. I don’t want our children to be 99 percent Mountain Dew. But this is not the way to go about it.

You know, I mean, because, first of all, we all do something that hurts our health, you know? We all eat stuff we shouldn’t. Probably the optimal food for primates is bread, fruit, lawn clippings and rain. But at a certain point that gets old. And we just don’t want, I mean, we don’t want to be a nanny state like this. I mean, you know, I don’t know what Mayor Bloomberg has in mind, but there’s something wrong about the seventh richest man in the world sitting in bed at night thinking, “You know what people shouldn’t do? Drink too much Sprite. Let’s make that a law.” That makes me want to join the Tea Party and marry Ann Coulter, you know, and that’s not where I want to be.

Read more.

RELATED COLUMN: 

Harsanyi: Jeremy Irons rips Michael Bloomberg, Nanny State

Fertility (Dis)Figure(d) – A view from an American woman in Paris

Column by Nidra Poller (February 2013) an American journalist living in Paris, France. She is reporting on the movement in France to question where it is as a culture.

Fertility (Dis)Figure(d)

Un enfant quand je veux si je veux… The battle cry of the feminists marching for freedom from fertility—“a baby when I want one if I want one”—was ringing out in the streets of Paris when I came to live here in 1972. After lagging behind the United States, where the diaphragm + spermicide had been available to married women since the 1940s and oral contraception since 1957, France caught up with The Pill in 1967 and legalized abortion in 1975, championed by Auschwitz survivor and then Health Minister Simone Veil. The process has gone forward on all fronts, with generalized use of fail-proof methods, unfettered access to abortion when fail-proof fails, reimbursement across the board including, just recently, 100% free contraceptive pills for women 15 to 18.

Contraception and abortion alone could not bring about the desired transformation of the female condition. They were the technology. The metaphysics was what has become known as “gender studies.” In the early days of Women’s Liberation it was makeshift ideology peddled in volumes of look-alike fiction and non-fiction best sellers shouting that maternity was a drag, femininity a hype, sexual differences induced by cynical manipulation, love and marriage an extension of the military industrial complex, and men were chauvinist pigs. No more pink for girls and blue for boys. Sexually marked toys were not abandoned but switched: cars and trucks for girls, dolls and tea sets for boys. Women wanted, or were told they wanted, something called equality.

The harbingers of this “sexual revolution” were, more often than not, closet lesbians. Later we not only discovered that they were lesbians telling heterosexual women to kick their men in the balls and out of their lives, they were also playing stereotypical sexual roles in private, some as simpering mistresses to others more macho than any man could be.

In the space of one generation we went from the prohibition of pre-marital sex to promiscuity for all. The stakes were high for a young woman in the 50s. Sleeping around or, oh horrors, getting pregnant killed her chances of a good marriage… only way to climb the social ladder. Unmarried women could not be fitted for a diaphragm. There was no place to make love decently. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin in 1952, female students under 21 were not allowed to live off campus. We were quartered in dorms, with 10 PM curfews. The lower classes and a dissolute bohemian minority did what they wanted and dealt with the consequences as best they could. Decent women waited to discover the pleasures or disappointments of conjugal life. Twenty years later, a young man with nothing to offer and nothing to lose, would mumble his momentary itch; if the chick dared to decline, he’d toss off a whiny “what’s the matter, you got hangups?” before shuffling off to another.

Teenage girls rushed to lose their virginity before getting their first bra. The boys they slept with had a pressing need for freedom. Don’t cramp my style, don’t try to hold on to me, I’m not into commitment. A girl who, for whatever reason, didn’t solve the fertility problem by taking The Pill was too much of a bother. Women were supposed to be liberated… meaning, available 24/24 with no strings attached. Somehow Women’s Liberation turned out to be an emergency exit for men, inclined to run out on their responsibilities and give in to their more shiftless instincts.

Well- educated, professionally accomplished, financially independent women made babies with a male friend or part time lover, with the clear understanding that the woman would assume 100% of the responsibility for raising and providing for the child. Looking back, it’s almost laughable to see how feminine they were! Liberated from drudgery they voluntarily opted for impossible burdens. A woman’s work is never done. Marriage was spurned or diluted by up-front adultery. Lovers and mistresses joined the family for dinner, children’s birthday parties, and family vacations. Wives and husbands moved in and out, and it was no more dramatic than changing seasons.

None of this nullifies the undeniable improvements in the lives of women, our chances for fulfillment in love, marriage, maternity, and a wide range of professions. No longer on the outside looking in, we can see for ourselves how the working world is organized, how power is won and exercised, how many seemingly fascinating jobs are less interesting than, for instance, taking care of babies. Today, young women deserve our help in re-examining the past to reconceive the equilibrium between biology and choice. They have heard enough about what was acquired. What about the losses?

Fertility is formidable. Connecting unbridled fertility to irresistible sexual pleasure is a work of genius. Is it true that primitive people did not make the connection between making love and making babies? Everything has been arranged to make young fertile men and women forget it… until it’s too late. The consequences are enormous. Mouths to feed, and a lifetime of responsibility. Women, until just recently, could be left holding the bag… unless the man voluntarily took his share of the burden and attendant joys. At the same time, women took the blame for sterility. In the understandable wish to get beyond all of that primitive stuff we have, of course, created new problems.

While reassuring women that the advantages of oral contraception outweigh the dangers, the French Health Ministry has issued warnings about 3rd and 4th generation contraceptives after a young woman suffered a debilitating stroke. But these dramatic risks are the visible peak of a throbbing ache that has never been addressed. Women who cannot bear the changes induced by oral contraceptives may be a minority but those who are uncomfortable with the effects associated with artificial hormonal activity are probably a silent majority. How does the body regain the intelligence of reproduction when it has been silenced for years by oral contraception or IUDs?

Fertility is a daunting challenge, a stunning competitor that interferes with our short and long term plans. It should not be treated as an enemy. Granted, we need some control over this magnificent life force that doesn’t exactly go with our current lifestyle. But if we smash it, suppress it, rough it up, and fail to honor it we wake up one day with a problem that few futurists imagined: drastic population decline. Just as a family can wither away and disappear in a few generations, a nation can lose its bid for posterity. We find ourselves with advanced societies collapsing on an upended age pyramid while the under-25 majority of retrograde populations are out in the streets throwing rocks and firebombs or drugging themselves on heroin and despair.

And then there is AIDS. Super safe birth control that theoretically allows for super carefree pleasure notwithstanding, the clumsy old condom was brought back into service.

Once and for all defined as progress, women’s liberation is stubbornly entrenched. Thinking women, happy to be involved in board meetings, business travel, financial transactions, and research projects, have pocketed the progress and ignored the twisted paths that take us away from our destination. The fine arts and literature, seemingly locked into the hysterical phase, do little to help women conserve or recover the delicate skills that help us nurture the masculinity of men. Women have used more clout to get the right to drive buses, work on automobile assembly lines and now, in the US, go into combat than to improve the balance between work, maternity, and child care.

We keep getting hit with the downside of our miracle solutions. For example, the two-for-one baby boom. I am not qualified to say whether the proliferation of twins is due to post-contraception sterility, pre-menopausal maternity or new techniques of assisted procreation, but it is troubling when every third stroller you pass on the street is a double. First, contraception has to be 99.9% reliable for women at the peak of fertility, then medical genius has to compensate for damaged fertility… there is a time for everything but who knows what time it is?

Un enfant quand je veux comme je veux. The motor of Progress must not idle. Having established the religion of free love, liberated women from the disgusting femininity-maternity couplet, placed abortion on the same level of noblesse as procreation, demanded parity everywhere from floor sweepers to CEOs, purified language of the despicable undifferentiated masculine collective, the battalions of Progress are back on the front lines and their battle cry is “A child when I want how I want.” Are homosexuals the latter day saints of love marriage and procreation? The issue of same-sex marriage is currently debated in the French legislature. Debate is a euphemism for the arrogant steamroller of the left wing majority, reveling in a no holds barred shouting match against the opposition. Deaf to the outcry of a huge segment of the population, indifferent to reasoned argument, secure in the certainty that President Hollande will not put the question to a popular referendum, the majority is having a ball.

The bill, in an inimitable French lace formulation, is called “mariage pour tous [marriage for everyone]. It actually means “marriage for no one,” in that the institution will be gutted and the shell decorated with garlands of flowers. Lurking behind this mariage nouveau is a devious plan for “procreation without biological borders.” With imperial disdain, a government, elected with a modest majority is dismantling the basic building block of society. Long stretches of the proceedings at the National Assembly are broadcast live on our equivalent of C-Span. Dozens of mini-Robespierres grab the microphone as if it were a whip and lash out at the Opposition, accused of homophobia, retrogradia, and obstruction of the wheels of History. Following the lead of Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, whose corn rows are meant to be an argument in themselves, deputies alternate revolutionary thunder with cooing over kitschy homosexual weddings with all the trimmings and heartfelt pleas for the children (hundreds? thousands? who knows?) who will finally bathe in the crowning glory of marriage for their homoparents.

Indulgent media visit the happy homes of happy homosexuals with their happy broods. No complaints from these child soldiers. Daddy plus Daddy makes a house a home. And aren’t two mothers better than one? Who are the dastardly reactionaries that would deprive innocent children of the dignity of married homoparenthood? How dare they insinuate that same sex parents are not as good if not better than heterosexuals? Who are they to say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman intending to make a family? Homosexuals deserve the same rights to marry and found a family as heterosexuals!

The opposition claims “mariage pour tous” is a Trojan horse: procreation-booster rights will inevitably follow the same-sex marriage & adoption bill. In fact, MAP (medically assisted procreation) for lesbian partners, included in an earlier draft of the bill, was withdrawn due to opposition within the majority party and the French electorate. It will eventually be tacked on to a family affairs bill initially promised for March, now postponed to October, pending—but not depending on—the recommendations of the Bioethical commission. Opposition deputies predict that males will demand and obtain, on the grounds of equality, legalization of surrogate motherhood. The majority cries Foul! You don’t want same-sex marriage so you drag in unrelated issues. False, shouts the opposition, and the memorandum shows what’s up your sleeve. For some reason the Justice Minister issued a memorandum last week notifying consular officials that recourse to surrogate motherhood– a criminal offense under French law– is not in and of itself grounds for refusal to naturalize the child.

Once these fait accompli children are brought to France, the father(s) will demand official filiation. Does the wish to have children–against the implacable laws of nature–justify cheating? Other subterfuges are detailed in a chuckling article in Le Monde.1 One member of a lesbian union hides all evidence of her partner during the adoption procedure. Then the two women raise the adopted child together… until they separate. The once-hidden partner now fears her ties to the child might be broken. Karim was the odd man out when his partner Yann fertilized a Ukrainian woman, but today they live happily with their five year-old twins in a remote village where friendly neighbors are satisfied to learn that that both men are “papas d’intention” [daddies by intention] of the children born via a “maman de naissance” [birth mommy]. Yann doesn’t like the term “maman porteuse” [carrying mommy]; it sounds too industrial. He says there’s nothing inspiring about the biological bond. “The act itself is shabby– masturbating into a test tube–and the consequences are a monstrosity.” I assume he means the pregnancy.
Members of the left wing parliamentary majority, infuriated by the Trojan horse argument of the opposition, cannot in fact justify the same-sex marriage juggernaut without the hidden procreative project. Back in 1999, their predecessors promised that the PACS [contract of civil solidarity], tailored to the needs of homosexuals, was the last and final stage. No marriage, no adoption, no procreation, no filiation. Of 142,738 contracts signed in 2012, 3,680 were male-male, 3,064 female-female, and 135,994 male-female. Did homosexuals shun the PACS because it was beneath them or because they weren’t really interested in forming more perfect unions? And what if a tiny minority of a tiny minority will actually take advantage of same-sex marriage? How can that justify the slapdash, sloppy, ill-considered, unjustified dismantling of marriage and filiation?

Can the impossibility of making children without a male and a female participant be solved by same-sex marriage, MAP, and surrogate motherhood? Isn’t it a way of forcing the children born under these circumstances to perpetuate the myth of homoparenthood? Neither our respect for homosexual friends and family nor individual examples of wonderful children raised by same-sex partners can resolve this dilemma. The question is what shall society encourage, allow, condone, facilitate, tolerate, forbid or punish.

The idea that a child needs a mother and a father is suddenly labeled reactionary! One might as well burn all the world’s literature and retool humanity into heartless robots. Who can deny the suffering of a child who loses a mother or a father by illness, accident, abandonment or divorce? Proponents of mariage pour tous claim the opposition is motivated by base prejudice against equality in marriage, while they stubbornly deny the inequality imposed on the children brought into the world via this misconception. An infant doesn’t need to be cradled against a mother’s breast and held in strong male arms? The orchestration of contrasting male-female sensations–muscles, odor, voice, rhythm, mentality– is a vital need for children. It has nothing to do with socially-imposed stereotypes; it is a corollary of the ineluctable reality that reproduction is only possible when a female ovule is fertilized by male sperm.

Advocates of same-sex marriage portray homosexuals as innocent victims of discrimination; there is nothing intrinsically distressing about their biologically sterile sexuality. Evil lies in the eyes of the beholder. End the social disapproval, costume homosexuals in bridal attire, and let them get on with their normal lives. The reality is far more complex. Honest acceptance of homosexuals does not exclude a guts rejection of their sexuality. In your face lurid gay pride, smoldering hostility to heterosexuals, coteries and rainbow flag nationalism can’t be ignored. The slogan on a banner carried in a Mariage pour Tous demonstration — “Une paire de meres est mieux qu’un père de merde” [a pair of mothers is better than a shitty father]—reminds us of the 70s: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” When homosexuality was a disgrace, many hid their shame in heterosexual marriage; when coming out was in style, homosexuality was worn as a badge of honor. Many of the children raised in same-sex households today were born of heterosexual marriages that ended when one of the partners discovered his or her homosexuality. Children should not be dragged like rag dolls into these complications.

At a time when half the children born in France are technically out of wedlock, why would homosexuals be dying to get married? Why not create an institution that is truly adapted to their difference? No. If we don’t give them our marriage and turn ourselves into fish farms to provide them with progeny, we’re selfish reactionaries. Same-sex marriage, we are promised, will subtract nothing from marriage; it is the simple addition of one unjustly excluded category of citizens to the existing cohort. Though the opposition doesn’t have the votes to defeat the mariage pour tous bill, the National Assembly debate has the merit of casting light on its hidden consequences. The “simple” addition of same-sex unions nullifies marriage, makes spaghetti of filiation, axes the patronym, betrays the biological facts of procreation by deleting their representation in law and language, and dumps centuries of continuity into muddy confusion. The nation is sterilized. Justice Minister Taubira pours an acid smile on opposition deputies who object to some 200 radiations of the words (and the concept) “father and mother” from the Code Civil. Voyons, messieurs, it’s replaced by “parents.”(“Parents” means parents or relatives.) And what’s wrong with replacing “mari” and “femme” by the unisex “époux.”

The government and its majority are now spelling opposition “o-b-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.” No one must stand in the way of the forward march of History. Or should it be called Itstory?

We have reached the endpoint of a package of social changes that began in the sixties. Instead of reexamining the premises and consequences, today’s activists want to take us over the cliff. Before we can help our homosexual citizens, we have to ask ourselves why the femininity decried in women is acceptable when parodied by men. Why men were male chauvinist pigs but macho women can simultaneously be husbands to their female partners and mothers to “their” children. Why is everything organized so that young women at the most propitious time for childbearing use overwhelming contraception while women in their forties and same sex partners resort to every possible stratagem to have children?

And how can we maintain the prohibition against incest when Johnny Appleseed donors are spreading their sperm to the winds with no return address?

ABOUT NIDRA POLLER:

Nidra Poller is an American writer and translator who has lived in Paris since 1972. She has contributed to English-language publications such as The Wall Street Journal, National Review, FrontPage Magazine, and The New York Sun.

Poller has been described as a novelist, author of illustrated books for youth, and also a translator, notably of the philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas. Her writings include observations on society and politics, including the Muhammad al-Durrah incident and the Ilan Halimi trial.

What the Boy Scouts can learn about Gays in Leadership Positions from the Catholic Church and Penn State

Raynard Jackson a president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm, wrote in his Black Press USA column Boy Scouts Shouldn’t Become ‘Gay Scouts’:

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards. In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy statement, including the following as a “Youth Leadership” policy:

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.”

The Boy Scouts of America are reported to be reconsidering their position on gays becoming scout leaders.

What can the Boy Scouts of America learn from others who have put gays into leadership positions? Perhaps the experiences of the Catholic Church and Penn State University are two case studies that will predict what could happen.

BishopAccountability.org, an “online archive established by lay Catholics,” reports that over 3,000 civil lawsuits have been filed against the Catholic church, some of these cases have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements with multiple claimants.

In 1998 the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas paid $30.9 million to twelve victims of one priest ($44.1 million in present-day terms). From 2003 to 2009 nine other major settlements involving over 375 cases with 1551 claimants/victims, resulted in payments of over $1.1 billion. The Associated Press estimated the settlements of sex abuse cases from 1950 to 2007 totaled more than $2 billion. BishopAccountability.org puts the figure at more than $3 billion in 2012. Addressing “a flood of abuse claims” five dioceses (Tucson, Arizona; Spokane, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego) got bankruptcy protection. Eight Catholic dioceses have declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse cases from 2004-2011.

Penn State University (PSU) had a similar experience with Jerry Sandusky. The Sandusky scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky’s part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them.

In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a “total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims” for 14 years and “empowered” Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse.

On July 23, 2012 the NCAA imposed sweeping penalties on Penn State—among the most severe ever imposed on an NCAA member school—including a fine of $60 million, a four-year postseason ban and vacating of all victories from 1998–2011. In doing so, NCAA President Mark Emmert stated that the sanctions were levied “not to be just punitive, but to make sure the university establishes an athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of education, nurturing and protecting young people.” The Big Ten Conference subsequently imposed an additional $13 million fine. Spanier, Curley and Schultz have since been brought up on criminal charges for their role in the cover-up.

In addition 40 scholarships were stripped from Penn State University in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.

Sandusky was a pederast, as were all of the Catholic priests involved in the abuse of young boys. All pederasts are gay according to Liberty University Visiting Professor of Law Judith Reisman, who said that “post the ‘landmark’ Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003, paraphrasing Justice Antonin Scalia, everything goes.” Professor Reisman said, “Following Alfred Kinsey ‘sexologists’ began to occupy our schools, so that educated professionals have largely been trained to be a form of sexual anarchists.”

“Although the stupidity of advocating harmless amoral sexuality overwhelms us daily, our arrogant ‘educated’ populations say morality has no place in our sexual lives,” Reisman said. “Just as AIDS is a natural outgrowth of amoral sexual education and media, so too is child sexual abuse. We are breeding a new human character and child sexual abuse is increasingly part of that character.”

Tensions Abroad

WDW received the column below which was written by Matthys van Raalten, a Dutch citizen. It is reprinted with his permission. It is important to understand what is happening in the EU as member nations like Holland are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine for “multiculturalism”.

Tension Abroad by Matthys van Raalten:

The best way to understand what is going on in Europe, is to look at small details. The overall picture can be confusing. An outsider can be deceived easily by the intelligent political moves of its leaders. Just one example: PM Cameron of the UK says he wants a referendum about the European Union. Could this not be just a smart move, in order to stop the rising star of Nigel Farrage?

The real issues in Europe center around two themes: the development of a political union, by critics dubbed “EUSSR” and multiculturalism. Was all the work to liberate Europe just wasted, when the Europeans choose for a big bureaucratic semi-socialist state, ruled from Brussels and Strassbourg? What about the safety and the freedoms? Are the Europeans really going to sell that all by letting millions more Islamic immigrants come over?

Let’s have a look at some relatively small matters, in my home country; the Netherlands.

Last week, I wanted to buy a book with a work of Vondel, the country’s greatest poet. Joost van den Vondel lived from 1587 until 1679. This was an important period in Dutch history, as the country liberated itself from Spain in an eighty-year lasting war. Vondel is to the Dutch, what Shakespeare is to the English-language world, or Goethe to the German speaking world. He is our Ovid, and he also translated beautifully the works of Ovid into Dutch. He also composed plays about, among others, stories from the Bible. He was a devout Christian, without doubt one of our patriarchs. I could only find a single soft-cover book with a work by him in the city center of Amsterdam, in its most famous bookshop. Therefore, I turned to a large second-hand bookshop. They had a couple of writings by his hand, one about Joseph in Dothan for 1 Euro 50 only. Though I could have been happy that I had such a cheap buy, I was sad instead. Is this the fate of my heritage? Aren’t the Dutch people interested in their own cultural heritage any longer? I have been informed by the way, that there is very little in print of Vondel these days, so also in the future we shouldn’t expect the bookshops of Amsterdam to fill their shelves with his jewels.

Now let’s take a look at the Christian parties in Holland. Wilders says he wants to defend the Judeo-Christian foundation of our country. But what are the Christians themselves doing with their foundations? The Dutch political parties CDA (medium-large) and ChristianUnion (medium size) are hardly making a fist against the Left, who have already made abortion and gay marriage the new foundations of the new Dutch culture. Only the very small SGP party seems to be wanting to get back to our real roots, but they can’t make a fist, too small in size.

A Florida Citizens Letter To Senator Marco Rubio on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

The following is a letter WDW recieved from a Florida resident. The letter was sent to Senator Marco Rubio:

VIA: senator@Rubio.senate.gov

RE: “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform (Read Amnesty)

Senator Rubio:

Let me say as a Florida resident I vividly remember you blocking 6 immigration bills when you were Speaker of the Florida House in 2008 stating “The House was too busy” to deal with state immigration laws.

I remember you campaigning to be senator opposing amnesty (though you supported the Florida Dream Act early in your state legislative career) as you followed in the footsteps of previous Cuban Senator Martinez who campaigned opposing amnesty and three years later in 2007 led the charge for it. It seems you couldn’t wait three years to change positions back to what you supported during your early state tenure.

That said, let me respond to what I have read regarding your proposed legislation and zero in on Comprehensive which to me means dealing with all related topics to amnesty.

It is a well known fact constantly blared by open border types Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and that is correct having researched all the latest numbers. Their chant is you better deal with the criminal illegal aliens if you want our support. Look at the immigration numbers and they are correct. The tail is now wagging the dog and how did it happen? It happened through the Family Reunification immigration program you heartily support with no limits basically emptying peasant villages in Mexico and Central America and moving them into balkanized barrios around the country. It has also happened through the failure of the U.S. Government Executive Branch performing its duties in protecting our borders and regulating visa holders with no outcry from Congress.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE PURPOSE OF IMMIGRATION?

In 1962 then President Kennedy called for a reform of the immigration system. He did not call for an increase in immigration quotas stating we need not increase the level of immigrants allowed because “we have no lands left to settle.” Following his death the Democrat controlled Congress concocted the Family Reunification visa program introducing mass immigration favoring Hispanic countries and why is a good question? Prior to 1965 the large majority of under 250K allowed in the country annually were educated, had a skill and spoke English. Following 1965 legislation the overwhelming majority imported have been a perfect democrat candidate being unskilled, uneducated and non English speaking. When politicians and talk show hosts scratch their heads about the level of poverty in the country and how to lower it they aren’t looking at the primary cause being the importation of an endless stream of poverty. Statistics show 68% of legal MX immigrants with children are in or near poverty. The study by CIS also shows over 50% of Mexican immigrants are still on welfare 20 years after arriving in the country. Other Hispanic immigrants have similar statistics.

You have recently stated you are a BIG BELIEVER in family based immigration. Please explain why since it has shown to simply be the conduit for exporting poverty from banana republics to here?

We never had a mass amnesty in this country until President Reagan in an unwise move granted the first ever amnesty in 1986. From then until 2000 there were 6 more for a grand total of 6 million amnesties granted in 14 years. In 2012 President Obama directed an amnesty by fiat without Constitutional authority affecting more than a million criminal illegal aliens and nary a peep was heard from Congress. Representative Steve King promised on 8/17/2012 to challenge Obama’s amnesty by fiat and in my inquiry a week ago to his office he was still gathering facts. WOW!

As a result of the 7 previous amnesties we now have, based on government numbers I find highly suspect, 12 million waiting in line for amnesty. If that is the number you want to use then promise to cap it at that number.

Attempting the same thing over and over again is a form of insanity. Actually, I believe the Congress is quite content with the millions of unskilled joining the work force ranks keeping wages low for their large corporate donors like Walmart and at the same time providing them ever new customers. As far as illegal immigration goes it satisfies the needs of criminal illegal alien employers wanting cheap labor in a modern day version of slavery.

If Congressional members really cared about American workers do you think they would have allowed 125K new immigrants a month to continue to be imported to worsen the employment picture for 23 million Americans suffering through the worst recession since the great depression? I never heard a word from one Congressman or woman to at least suggest a pause of the onslaught of the endless stream of immigrants month after month. Not one word was ever even uttered and that silence is a damn loud message to American workers and all citizens.

Senator Rubio, these are tasks that need to be accomplished long before the amnesty discussion even begins for criminal illegal aliens. You said in an interview you wanted to solve their problem. Sir, who cares about solving their problem since they brought it upon themselves. The most important thing is how it will affect the citizens of this country. They are the ones who self inflicted their pain and it could end quickly by returning to their home country instead of demanding a path to citizenship.

End the nonsensical family reunification visa program that has simply uprooted tens of millions of peasants who couldn’t even spell the United States of America in English before arriving and come simply to start sucking on the government teat that is nearly dry.

Secure the borders. President Obama and Sec. Napolitano say the border has never been more secure. I suppose then the signs posted 70 miles north of the border warning travelers to beware of illegal aliens were previously 100 miles north of the border. The Border Patrol recently issued a statement they only intercept 61% of illegals attempting to enter the country and who knows how little as a percentage of the drugs entering illegally.

Senator, when you talk about securing the border I hope you mean the same way we protect the Korean border at the 39th parallel. We have been there for 60 years and rarely if ever is the border breached by anyone. If that is the case then great. However, what you promise has to be executed by the Executive Branch and President Obama has no appetite for securing the border. In fact, neither has Congress since it was promised over 25 years ago. We protect a foreign countries borders half way around but not our own and the citizens deserve to know the reason why.

Get the Visit USA program to work so visa over stayers can be located and deported. Over 40%, or perhaps more of the criminal illegal alien population has supposedly come legally and just melted into a city to live and work. With over 100 Million visitors to the United States annually the 40% number of total criminal illegal aliens appears awfully low.

Make it a felony to enter the country illegally or overstay a visa. This is a common sense measure since we currently treat the crime like jaywalking. Get permission to house the lawbreakers in Guantanamo to end their appetite for breaking our laws.

Make E-Verify mandatory for all employers and direct the SS administration to check the user is who they say they are. You achieve that by having the SS office issue a new tamper proof card with picture to all prospective employment seekers to eliminate document fraud (HR98). Regarding Mandatory E-Verify in a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research 89% of Whites, 81% of Blacks and 76% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans were in favor of it.

Pass and enforce Childbirth legislation that would remove a magnet to come here now granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to foreign parents by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act (HR140) requiring at least one parent be a citizen ending the anchor baby link to the welfare system. Over 200K births like this are performed annually with taxpayers footing the majority of the bill. There is a cottage industry for birth tourism for wealthy foreign women making a mockery of our citizenship requirements. Coincidentally you would not have been a citizen either if the law is changed since when you were born your parents were not citizens of the United States but still of Cuba.

Repeal the antiquated Cuban Adjustment Act which is a knee jerk cold war relic reaction meant to damage Castro’s Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and grants any Cuban who arrives in the USA anywhere preferred treatment and a path to citizenship. This is especially important since Cuba is now granting travel Visas to their citizens. The last thing we need is an aerial version of the Mariel boat lift that forever changed Miami into what is now the fifth most impoverished City in the USA and where English is the second language.

End the corrupt Diversity Visa lottery Program that brings in people to the USA from supposedly countries that need greater representation under the guise of diversity. Senator Rubio, name a more diverse country than the United States of America; You can’t.

End the Temporary Protected Status program that is permanently temporary. Case in point are the over 200K EL Salvadorans brought here after an earthquake in their country and undoubtedly sucking on the welfare teat since. They are only here temporarily 10 years later wink wink.

Dramatically reduce the corrupt refugee program and remove the UN’s participation in determining who comes and make the US groups profiting from the refugee business get the approval from the locales where they want to dump the refugees before doing so. I understand every refugee entering costs the U.S. government $20K for shipping and handling.

End the work visa program which Milton Friedman correctly identified as corporate welfare. Work visas that allow maids and lawn mower operators into the country as specialty occupations illustrates the lengths companies will go to avoid paying U.S. workers and the fica. If the US is not graduating candidates to fill America’s needs whose fault is it since we are the third most populated country in the world and had, I emphasize had, a great education system when I attended and undoubtedly has been ruined since by the teacher unions and Federal interference.

Commission a study to determine the impact of the 12 million criminal illegal aliens will have on our welfare system, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environment and the impact on American workers.

Commission a independent study to determine the optimum population the United States can comfortably sustain. When talking about immigration I have never heard a politician mention what our optimum population should be regarding Natural Resources and avoiding similar terrible human conditions suffered today in India, Bangladesh and China. Publish all the findings.

Senator Rubio, do those tasks necessary to get a clear picture of what you propose to do and its impact on American Society so the facts speak for themselves as to whether it is in the national Interest of the citizens of the United States of America to support or reject amnesty for the criminal illegal aliens.

I am also sending along a speech given by Democrat Ex. Governor Richard D. Lamb several years ago titled “I Have a Plan to destroy America and many parts of it are underway.” Read it and see if you can relate it to what is happening in the country today from a speech written 10 years ago.

George Fuller

Sarasota, Florida

The 10 Worst Regulations of 2012

The Heritage Foundation published its 10 worst regulations of 2012. Here they are:

1. HHS’s Contraception Mandate

The Department of Health and Human Services on February 15 finalized its mandate that all health insurance plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives. To date, 42 cases with more than 110 plaintiffs are challenging this restriction on religious liberty.

2. EPA Emissions Standards

The EPA in February finalized strict new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utilities. The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually.

3. Fuel Efficiency Standards

In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency, finalized fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars.

4. New York’s 16-Ounce Soda Limit

Not all regulations come from Washington. On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

5. Dishwasher Efficiency Standards

Regulators admit that these Department of Energy rules will do little to improve the environment. Rather, proponents claim they will save consumers money. But they will also increase the price of dishwashers, and only about one in six consumers will keep his or her dishwasher long enough to recoup the cost.

6. School Lunch Standards

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in January published stringent nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs. More than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools are affected—at a cost exceeding $3.4 billion over the next four years.

7. Quickie Union Election Rule

In April, the National Labor Relations Board issued new rules that shorten the time allowed for union-organizing elections to between 10 and 21 days. This leaves little time for employees to make a fully informed choice on unionizing, threatening to leave workers and management alike under unwanted union regimes.

8. Essential Benefits Rule

Under Obamacare, insurers in the individual and small group markets will be forced to cover services that the government deems to be essential. Published on November 26, the HHS list of very broad benefits has created enormous uncertainty about the extent of essential treatment.

9. Electronic Data Recorder Mandate

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 13 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to mandate installation of electronic data recorders, popularly known as “black boxes,” in most light vehicles starting in 2014. The government mandate understandably spooks privacy advocates.

10. “Simplified” Mortgage Disclosure and Servicing Rules

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its proposal for a more “consumer friendly” mortgage process, with a stated goal of simplifying home loans. The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. Then, one month later, the bureau proposed more than 560 pages of rules for mortgage servicing.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “It seems that no aspect of American life can escape government regulation. In the past year, regulators drafted rules that addressed everything from caloric intake to dishwasher efficiency.”

“Most of these rules increase the cost of living, others hinder job creation, and many erode freedom. Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course, but increasingly, the rules imposed by the government have less to do with health and safety and more to do with whether government or individuals get to make basic pocketbook and lifestyle decisions that affect them. And it is not just the regulators who are to blame. Congress writes laws that give unelected bureaucrats the broad powers they wield,” warns the Foundation.

The Keyser Soze School Of Ruthless Politics

If you’ve seen the movie The Usual Suspects then you know that Keyser Soze is not a nice guy. But he’s sort of the good guy.

Somebody is going to take advantage of you and your political party. It’s not a question of if, just when. And if you’re not ready for it, everything you’ve built could come tumbling down.

To quote the movie, this is what you’re up against:

“There was a gang of Hungarians that wanted their own mob. They realized that to be in power, you didn’t need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn’t.”

And this is the Keyser Soze solution:

“And then he showed these men of will what will really is.”

A Test Of Political Will And Integrity

The ruthless political tactics that some people use are void of integrity. They’re so far over the the ethical line that it should be criminal. Most of the time it’s not. Not exactly.

With experience, you learn to see it coming and you can just walk away from the political deal. But even the most savvy political people get taken from time to time. And this is where you have to make a choice.

Do you keep your integrity intact? Or do you get ruthless?

Okay, let’s switch gears here and get a little more serious. The truth is, there are some good, solid political practices that you can follow when you’re neck-deep in it with ruthless politicians.

Real Political Solutions For Bad Political Situations:

  1. Stay afloat. Don’t ignore your good constituents. It helps you moving forward and brings some light to a dark day.
  2. Keep cool and calm. Overreacting is acting without thinking. The ruthless gang of politicians you’re dealing with expect it. They’re probably even hoping for it.
  3. Strategize. You need a comprehensive plan. And maybe tightening up the political ship. You want to figure out their possible reactions to your action. And how you’re going to steer the political situation to make their reactions mute. The best political plans forge forward no matter what they say or do. Or don’t say and don’t do.
  4. Be persistent. Stick to your guns and execute your political plan. If you can’t go around them, keep banging on the door until someone answers and meets your demands to rectify the political situation. Every day, go back and bang on the door again. And twice on the Sunday talk shows.
  5. Learn. Don’t get in deeper once you realize there’s a problem. And if there are similar loose ends in other areas of your politics, tie them up so it doesn’t happen again. Exercising some basic political due diligence is important. ‘Cause you never know.

Predatory politicians will always be around. They move from place to place constantly; they’re always there for a good time, not a long time.

Hold them in one spot for long enough, and just like sharks, they can’t breathe.

Sorry Keyser. We don’t need you on this one.

This column is an adaptation of the The Keyser Soze School Of Ruthless Business posted by Shane in 2007.

RELATED COLUMNS:

The Fiscal Cliff And The Keyser Soze Option

More Members of Congress Threaten to Take Economy Over the Fiscal Cliff

Clip from the movie The Usual Suspects:

Progressives: Focusing on the Micro, Ignoring the Macro

Many wonder why so many people embrace the progressive utopia.  There are progressives in all political parties, in every community, state and nation. There have been many theories put forward on why individuals become progressives. One that is not addressed is: Progressives consistently focus on the micro and ignore the macro. From finance, to politics, to public policy, to national security, to foreign affairs, to science, the progressive, like a laser, focuses on the smallest common denominator.

Progressives proverbially cannot see the forest for the trees.

Some practical examples are in order.

Foreign Policy – Take the current crisis in the Middle East and the progressive diplomatic approach. Progressives focus upon the Israel-Palestinian conflict ignoring the larger issue of the rise of radical Islam in the fifty-six members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). OIC members consist of 1.4 billion people, of which the most powerful militarily surround Israel. Progressives see Israel as the bully or aggressor. Taking a broader view one sees that it is Israel that is the victim of aggression on multiple fronts and from multiple aggressors. It is outnumbered, out spent and out manned.

Public Policy – Progressives view public policy in terms of the smallest common denominator – the individual. Programs are created not to make society better but rather to address the needs of the individual. Crime is a consistent problem, so progressives focus on guns. Control or get rid of guns and crimes of violence will disappear is the mantra. They focus on an individual case, such the  Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida, to make the case for gun control and against self-defense, while ignoring the daily violence occurring in places like Chicago, St. Louis and Philadelphia. If guns were the cause of murders then cars cause accidents and spoons cause obesity.

Social Policy – Progressives focus on contraception to reduce the number of un-wed mothers. Progressives ignore the larger issue of a consistent decline in the number of  wed-mothers and traditional families, the building block of every prosperous society. With more traditional families more children are welcomed as a good for society. It is single parenthood and the cycle of single parents begetting more single parents that is the greater challenge for society. Progressives subsidize un-wed mothers, while punishing traditional families. Abortion on demand deprives the US of over 772,000 new citizens each year. More than enough to meet our long term workforce needs, without immigration.

Financial Policy – Progressives focus on the 1% who pay more than their fair share of taxes, rather than the 50% who pay no taxes at all. Micro-managing a financial system such as that of any nation is impossible. Such management done by government leads to errors on a grand scale. Witness various nations with central banks failing in Europe and the West. Industriousness and entrepreneurship are replaced with risk aversion. Banks not longer hold the risk, government does. Homeowners do not own their mortgages, FHA does. Businesses do not focus on customers they focus on government. Economic micro-management inextricably leads to more government micro-mangers, debt and ever more spending.

Politics – Progressives focus on sub-groups and sub-sub-groups rather than fundamental policy. Big ideas are replaced with pandering to individual voters.  Attacking the political opponents is preferred to debating ideas and finding solutions for big problems. The more the bigger picture is ignored the more likely progressives will be elected.

Science – Progressives focus micro science. Evolution is micro-science. Earth science is reduced to single meteorological events and ignoring recorded weather patterns over long periods of time. The earth historically warms and cools in cycles. Climate changes by its very nature. Man cannot make nature, or weather, change. However, progressives focus on the polar bear population rather than the human population to create policy.

Governing – Finally, progressives govern in the micro at every level of public office. This is the mantra of progressives – think little. Whether it is regulating big gulps or what health insurance you may purchase they consistently think of ways to interject themselves in every aspect of  individual lives. From providing rules of behavior like eating habits to micro-managing entire systems like medicine, progressives are always there.

The only thing that will stop progressives is Herbert Stein’s Law, which he expressed as, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

 

Congress Forces Israel to Negotiate With Terrorists

Editor’s Note: I was a member of a Presidential committee that created the national security policy under President Reagan that the United States would not negotiate with terrorists. This lead to the Iran-Contra Affair where Congress accused the Reagan administration of trading arms for hostages held by terrorists in Lebanon.

This op-ed column was sent to me by Stanley Zir, author and creator of the NeverAgainIsNow.net website. Given events taking place in Israel and the Middle East it is worthy of consideration. The op-ed column is posted with the permission of the Mr. Zir:

House Votes Israel Negotiate with Terrorists

Introduction

This op-ed was written on July 16, 2011 exclusively for the membership at NAIN It was never published. We have wasted the last four years ignoring the fact that Congress like President Obama embraces a foreign policy towards Israel that gives equal consideration to terrorists. As a result the whole Islamic world now feels free to attack Israel with impunity, for they no longer fear America’s resolve. Even Iraq has joined this deadly exposition.

I am presenting this article, one among many I’ve written, about the Israel Palestinian dispute, because I refuse to spend another four years pontificating about the actions we must take to end this conflict, which is self – evident. . Liberty did not survived for over 200 years based on compromise with tyranny and fascism

Essay

It matters not that terrorists recognize Israel; it matters greatly that America never recognize terrorists. Members of Congress: How is it that you would take the liberty to curry support for an initiative that would require Israel to negotiate with people who elect and/or support terrorist organizations and agendas – based on promises signed on worthless pieces of paper – promises that you, yourselves, would never have the American people sign on to?

How can I, as an American, observe these acts of cowardice and betrayal? Am I supposed to sit here and watch everything our nation has stood for and fought against for more than 233 years be dishonored, desecrated, and defiled?

America: Israel is being consumed by the lie that the PLO and Fatah are partners for peace, when in fact they are known terrorists. It is our leaders who distorted the truth, insisting that reconciliation with the Islamic world through the establishment of a Palestine would ensure Israel’s safety, our economic security and prevent a third world war. Because of their absurd miscalculation, the whole world continues to turn a blind eye to the reality that peace cannot be achieved with populations who openly give their allegiance to religious tyrannical edicts.

As a result of their misstep, even as Israel, America’s greatest ally, faces the threat of Iranian nuclear attack and an imposed suicidal two-state FINAL solution, Congress still tries to convince us that America can avoid conflict and achieve peace with people who are willing to die to end our freedoms.

The representatives who signed the non-binding resolution ( H.RES.268) on July 7th, knowingly or not, embraced that position. Like President Obama, they have become nothing more than false prophets of peace, thus posing a far greater threat to Israel’s existence than we had ever envisioned

DAY OF BETRAYAL

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, July 7, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to reject a Palestinian pursuit of statehood through the UN with a non-binding resolution (H.RES.268). It also recommended the Obama administration consider suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority because of their alliance with Hamas, which is on the US State Department’s terrorist list

The resolution said the goal was two states, “a democratic Jewish State of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition.” Republicans and Democrats alike signaled their strong support for Israel and a resumption of direct negotiations.

Who could argue with a resolution so artfully crafted, appearing to meet all the criteria to secure the safety of Israel and bring peace between two peoples?

But for one critical oversight, they might have succeeded in their good-faith exercise. With whom was Congress asking Israel to begin negotiations? A Fatah-Hamas terrorist alliance? Or one with Fatah who revealed they are part of a terrorist initiative? Is there yet another terrorist alliance they overlooked that would be more suited to “guarantee” peace through negotiations?

The reality is, Congress’s call for a resumption of direct negotiations with the Palestinians and Obama’s G8 resolution are cut from the same cloth – both place Israel in a most indefensible position, insisting she negotiate with terrorists. D

What the Jewish people require from Congress is a Binding Agreement that demands that peace pacts with nations that embrace hatred of the Jews and the destruction of Israel be rebuked – and further demands that America’s allies unite in opposition to all who sanction the insidious belief that terrorists, fascists and Israel are equal partners for peace.

The non-binding agreement that Congress proposed was nothing more than the proverbial crumb to AIPAC and supporters, to provide the semblance of sincerity while diminishing the audience’s fervor and vigilance needed to maintain Israel’s security. And the audience was duped again; Israel’s borders were to be squandered.

Whether it’s Hamas or Fatah, whether you label them religious terrorists or secular moderates, the DNA of hate and destruction is what binds both political parties to a common objective – their determination to create another terrorist Islamic state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The attacks that Israel is facing from her enemies today are in essence no different than those America faced from Japan and Germany during World War II, which were for the sole purpose of conquest and subjugation of the human spirit.

In Japan, acts of suicidal bombers appeared under the dictates of a religious totalitarian government. The rise of absolute power in the name of the Sacred was a cancer that consumed the Japanese and filled them with hatred and disdain for other people’s beliefs – thus resulting in some of the most egregious acts of torture and terrorism ever inflicted on humans.

Like the Japanese of that era, controlled by their emperor, the Palestinians of today, under the influence of imams, still do not give a second thought to committing similar atrocities against innocents, and like Japan, it will only take a force — more powerful than the tyrannical god they now worship that can convert them to civilized behavior — to end their reign of terror.

The time for America’s bending to the will of oil extortionists and bowing to their tribal chieftains must stop! Free people cannot serve two masters. As the champions of freedom’s cause, America must support the Sovereign State of Israel’s right to declare an Act of War against any group, people, or nation who actively pursues the destruction of the Jewish State, a right reserved for all sovereign nations.

Congress must stand up now. Israel can no longer wait – the time has come to evict the Arab-Palestinian terrorists and end their occupation of the land they use to launch attacks against Israel. The time has come to end any hope of the PLO, Fatah, or any other terrorist affiliates have of making Judea and Samaria their homeland.

So that there’s no longer any doubt in any nation in this world about the actions Israel must take to protect her sovereignty, so that there’s no longer any confusion among the Jewish People that sanctions can provide a viable solution to end the Iranian threat, in the name of the Holocaust victims as representatives of the Jewish People here and around the world, “We, the Living,” have a moral obligation to speak out for Jews in need and/or in peril. Ours must be a unified voice of compassion and justice. It must be an unequivocal voice of strength, reason and protection against the “two-state FINAL solution” that would lead to the destruction of the Jewish State from within, and a mighty call for Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure now.

When facing the lethal combination of terrorism and tyranny, WAR, not negotiations, is the only agent of peace. Withdraw your support from those who lack the moral courage to act. The window of opportunity is small. Only with a unified voice and one purpose of mind, can we and will we be victorious.

Florida Election Night 2012 – What you should look for

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Jamie Miller from Battleground Group:

Some people have asked me “what should I look for in Florida election night?” Here are my thoughts – I’ve grouped the Florida counties below in three categories – Strong Obama, Strong Romney and true swing counties. Every campaign has a path to victory mostly in these counties. These counties will indicate early if Florida is trending toward a 5-point win for Romney like 2004 for Bush or a 2.8 % win for Obama like 2008.

It does not appear that there is major intensity for Obama like 2008, but Romney is not an incumbent President like Bush in 2004.

Strong Obama counties –

Miami/Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia and Alachua (Obama is going to win more counties than this, but these five are the counties where they can build bigger “swing” and will be a likely indicator of what Romney has to overcome to carry Florida. If Romney only loses these counties by less than 400,000 votes, he should have a very good night, but if Obama is able to push his margins in these five counties up to 500,000, he could be on a path to a victorious night.

Miami-Dade – In 2000 and 2004, Bush mitigated his losses here by less than 50,000 votes. In 2008, Obama won by nearly 140,000 votes. One would think Obama needs a margin of at least 100,000 if he is going to carry the state.

Palm Beach – The margins in 2000/2004 was 115,000 votes but in 2008 Democrats carried the county by an additional 20,000 votes for a 135,000 margin.

Broward – This is the big prize for democrats. Again 2000 and 2004 had almost identical margins of victory for Democrats with wins of 209,000 votes before Obama won the county by 254,000 in 2008. If Obama approaches a win margin of 250,000 it could be a long night for Romney.

Alachua – Home of the University Florida and the Florida Gators. This is a strong county for democrats that historically favors them by 14,000, but in 2008 Obama carried the county by an additional 13,000 for a 27,000 vote win.

Volusia – This is the home of Daytona Beach. This county often votes Republican in gubernatorial elections but normally supports the democrat in Presidential years. This county is an outlier in the fact that it is one of the few democrat-leaning counties where Bush lost the county in ‘04 by just 3,500 votes. GW and McCain lost this county in ’00 and ’08 by similar 14,000 votes. If Romney loses Volusia by less than 10,000 votes, it could be a good night for him. More than 10,000 would show stronger than expected support for the President.

Strong Romney counties –

Southwest Florida counties (Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee and Collier); Brevard County on the Spacecoast; Northeast Florida’s Duval; three counties in central Florida Marion, Polk, and Sumter; and Northwest Florida’s GOP strongholds of Okaloosa and Escambia.

Many of these counties mimicked each other in 2000 and 2008. So it could be these counties are a greater indicator of Romney’s strength and determine if the “GOP motivation” advantage is real. Obama did well in and really mitigated his losses in these counties in 2008.

Duval is the home of the city of Jacksonville and normally goes big for Republicans. George W. won here by 44k votes in 2000 and more than 60k votes in 2004. Obama didn’t win here but he lost by just 7,900 votes. Duval is historically one of the first large counties to announce vote tallies and should be a good indicator of whether Romney will do well in Florida. It is one area of the state that Romney did not do as well in the primary, however.

Brevard is one of Florida’s hardest hit counties by the great recession. It is one of the counties that Republicans can run up a large margin in just one area. GW won by 18k and 43k in ’00 and ’04. McCain split the difference and won by nearly 30k votes. So, it is more of an indicator of how well Romney is doing and not necessarily how bad Obama may be doing in the state. Romney needs to win here by 40-50k votes.

Southwest Florida – These five counties provided G. W Bush with margins of about 90,000 votes in 2000 and 136,000 votes in 2004. Romney really needs to be above a 100k vote margin in these five counties if he’s going to win the state. Obama lost this area of the state by just 74k votes.

Polk, Marion and Sumter counties are indicative of where rural counties are going to go. Polk is the one “non-swing, GOP, I-4 corridor” county. Republicans won here by 15k votes in 2000 and 2008. In 2004, Bush was able to push his margin here to nearly 38k. A 15k-vote win here for Romney probably shows a very close race like 2000 or a GOP loss like 2008. Marion County is a GOP county but is an indicator of how well a Republican is going to do in the state. GW won this county by just 10k in 2000 and 24k in 2004. McCain did well in this county in 2008, however winning by nearly 19k votes. So Marion is more an indicator of how seniors are voting and not necessarily an indicator of an Obama loss. Sumter is a former rural county that now is home to The Villages retirement community. GOP wins have grown every election cycle and I don’t think that will change. GW won here in 2000 by 2,400 and in 2004 he won by 8,200. Like Marion, Sumter County performed well for McCain. He won here by 13,200 votes. Anything less than that would spell real trouble for Romney.

Northwest Florida – The polls stay open here in the Central Time Zone until 8 p.m. (EST) and two of the larger counties where a Republican can build margins are Escambia and Okaloosa. If Okaloosa trends toward a 50,000+ win like Bush in ’04 and Escambia trends toward Bush’s 45,000 vote victory in ’04, it would be good news for Romney. The total of the 10 counties in the Central Time Zone needs to approach 180,000 margin for a big victory on election night.

That brings us to the major swing counties in the state. I include Orange (Orlando) and St. Lucie in this group even though Obama is going to win both of these counties. The others to watch in this category are Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco.

Orange County is the first county in the history of the state to switch from Democrat to Republican and now back to Democrats. GW lost here by 5k vote in ’00 and just 800 in ’04. But, Obama won huge here in 2008, by more than 85,000 votes. Obama likely wins big here again, but if it is “only” by 50k, it could be an indicator that Obama didn’t motivate his voters like he did in 2008. It is possible for Obama to win here by 100k votes and lose Florida, but it would surely be an indicator of a much closer race than most final polls indicate.

Hillsborough – Florida’s latest bell-weather county. This county, the home of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, voted in favor of Bush in ’00 and ’04 by 11k and 31k respectively. But, this county swung to Obama by more than 36,000 votes in ’08. No one is going to win by just the margin in this county, but it would likely be an indicator of how well each campaign’s television ads were received during the campaign.

Pinellas County is home to some of the nicest beaches in the state, but is also a “lean-Democrat” County. Bush won Pinellas in ’04 by just 226 votes. If Romney wins here, it is an indicator that he won Florida big. An Obama win here of 25,000 votes, might be an indicator of a long night for both campaigns.

Pasco County north of Tampa is also a county that democrats can win, but can provide large margins for Republicans. GW lost this county in ’00 by about 1,000 votes but won here four years later by more than 18k votes. This county is an indicator of where “swing” voters are going with their votes. These are also economic voters and Obama lost here in ’08 by about 8,000 votes.

That brings us to St. Lucie County which is nestled between Democrat strongholds in SE FL and the GOP stronghold on the Space Coast. Prior to 2000, St. Lucie was Florida’s bell-weather county, but it has trended toward democrats in the past three elections. GW lost here twice both times by less than 7,000 votes. Obama beat McCain here by almost twice that margin, nearly 15,000 votes. If Obama approaches that type of margin, he may be in the midst of an upset in the state.

So, who wins Florida?

We will know in just a few hours, but in short, it’s the candidate who motivates his base, mitigates his losses in his weaker areas of the state, and who is able to keep from being blown out in the I-4 corridor. My prediction? I think Romney wins Florida big, by 5-6 points. If it turns out to be a bigger margin than that, we could have an upset in the U.S. Senate race, but I think Romney would have to win really big in Florida, by 8 points, to provide coattails for Congressman Mack.

Jamie Miller from Battleground Group

ABOUT JAMIE MILLER

Jamie Miller is a political consultant specializing in political campaign management, strategic planning, public relations, grassroots motivation, and crisis communications. He has been involved with running and managing political campaigns since 1994. Learn more at Battleground Group.

REPORT: Child Obesity Caused by Single Parent Households

In 2010 Michele Obama made it her mission to address the “child obesity epidemic”. The goal of Mrs. Obama is to reduce child obesity from the current 20% of all children to 5% by 2030. WebMD reports, “To accomplish this, the plan makes 70 recommendations for early childhood, for parents and caregivers, for school meals and nutrition education, for access to healthy food, and for increasing physical activity.”

According to WebMD, “Obesity is an excess proportion of total body fat. A person is considered obese when his or her weight is 20% or more above normal weight. The most common measure of obesity is the body mass index or BMI.”

“U.S. kids haven’t always been obese. Only one in 20 children ages 2 to 19 was obese in the 1970s. But around 1980 child obesity began to rocket to today’s stratospheric level: Nearly one in three kids is overweight or obese, and nearly one in five is frankly obese,” notes WebMD.

What is the cause of this stratospheric increase in child obesity? ANSWER: Single parent households.

In July 2010 the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) reported, “Prevalence of childhood obesity and its complications have increased world-wide. Parental status may be associated with children’s health outcomes including their eating habits, body weight and blood cholesterol.” [My emphasis]

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 1988–1994 provided a unique opportunity for matching parents to children enabling analyses of joint demographics, racial differences and health indicators. Specifically, the NHANES III data, 1988–1994, of 219 households with single-parents and 780 dual-parent households were analyzed as predictors for primary outcome variables of children’s Body Mass Index (BMI), dietary nutrient intakes and blood cholesterol.

The NHANES survey found:

  • Children of single-parent households were significantly more overweight than children of dual-parent households.
  • Total calorie and saturated fatty acid intakes were higher among children of single-parent households than dual-parent households.
  • On average, Black children were more overweight than children of other races.

The study results implied a strong relationship between single-parent status and excess weight in children. The NHANES survey states, “Parental involvement in the development of school- and community-based obesity prevention programs are suggested for effective health initiatives. Economic constraints and cultural preferences may be communicated directly by family involvement in these much needed public health programs.”

Mark Mather from the Population Reference Bureau reports, “In the United States, the number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically over the past four decades, causing considerable concern among policymakers and the public. Researchers have identified the rise in single-parent families (especially mother-child families) as a major factor driving the long-term increase in child poverty in the United States.” To read the full report click here.

Data from the Sarasota County School Board shows that since President Obama took office the number of children who are classified as obese is Sarasota public schools has risen as the children progress from Grade 1 – to Grade 3 – to Grade 6. The cohort obesity numbers go down at Grade 9. For example, 15.7% of students in Grade 1 in the 2008/2009 school year were obese. In 2011/2012 school year 18.8% of students in Grade 3 were obese. An increase of 3.1% of students in grade during school year 2008/2009 18.8% were obese. In Grade 6 that cohort increased to 20.1%. The Grade 6 cohort in 2008/2009 data was 21.5% and in 2011/12 dropped to 17.6%.

Public schools do not keep data on obese children who live in single parent households. 

Many are questioning whether the First Lady is addressing the root cause of child obesity – single parent households. Some see this health initiative as expanding government control of parents and children. Setting caloric standards is the first step in setting eating limits. Limits lead to control of food sources, leading to the redistribution of calories. Should not we be focused on the rising number of single parent households?

Perhaps it would be better for the First Lady to focus on increasing the number of traditional two parent families? After all, she has a traditional family and her husband and children all have normal weights according to the BMI calculator.

JUST FOR FUN:

As an aside, Watchdog Wire looked at some well known public figures and calculated their BMI scores.

Using the BMI calculator we determined that New York Jets quarterback Tim Tebow, who is 6′ 3″ tall and weights 236 pounds, is overweight. If Tebow gains 5 pounds he will be categorized as “Obese Class 1”. In fact the entire New York Jets offensive and defensive lines are obese.

Muscle Chemistry lists the height and weight of actors. Those in Hollywood who are overweight according to the BMI calculator include: Whoppi Goldberg, Al Pacino, Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Sylvester Stallone is rated as Obese Class 1.

Danger: Energy Economic Zone Ahead

Government is famous for wasting time and money all at the expense of taxpayers. The greatest waste has been attributed to the “green movement” and its efforts to save the planet by controlling human activities, such as emissions of CO2. This political and uniquely unscientific movement has led the Florida legislature to create comprehensive planning legislation, implement caps on carbon emissions and most recently create an Energy Economic Zone (EEZ) pilot project.

Sarasota County has established by ordinance an Energy Economic Zone. The first public hearings on the EEZ pilot project in Sarasota County are being held in September. Citizens and business will learn what the EEZ is all about. But what is end purpose of an EEZ? What will be accomplished by establishing an EEZ in Sarasota County?

My answer: The greatest expansion of local government power over your and my pursuit of happiness.

Here are ten reasons why I believe the Sarasota County EEZ will fail:

1. Any governmental expansion of power always meets with stiff public resistance and the EEZ is meeting stiff resistance. The EEZ has been denounced with bi-partisan support in Sarasota County. Neighborhood associations, anti-growth proponents and Democrats are standing shoulder to shoulder with TEA Party groups, 912 Project members and the Republican Party of Sarasota Executive Committee to denounce this project and its attempt to control the lives of citizens.

2. Economic zones do not work. County Commissioner Nora Patterson in an e-mail to an opponent of the EEZ states, “Our existing enterprise zone [in Newtown] is truly a depressed area and I can tell you in advance that the overall situation has not improved, in fact quite the opposite given the economic downturn.” So Commissioners know that enterprise zones do not work from the Newtown failure. Why throw good money after bad? Because it feels good to do so. The EEZ is being driven by ideology, not by any proven method to create jobs or expand the economy in Florida.

3. One of the purposes of the EEZ is to create energy efficiencies and thereby reduce energy usage. This is a FALSE premise as greater efficiency leads inextricably to greater energy usage. This phenomenon is called the “rebound effect”. Increasing the efficiency of lighting encourages us to illuminate more. This means that we need more energy, not less to meet future demand, expected to increase by 30% over the next decade. The EEZ concept is a fallacy, even if the five sitting County Commissioners believe in this fallacy, it is still a fallacy.

4. The incentives provided in the ordinance as currently written are not defined. This makes the ordinance open to broad interpretation by staff in its implementation. We have experienced what happens when bureaucrats are given the leeway to implement policy in Florida. This has happened with numeric water standards being imposed on the state by the Environmental Protection Agency. Placing Draconian standards on water quality to save us from ourselves. Standards that cannot be met!

5. The incentives are front loaded without regard to clearly defined end results. Under the current proposed ordinance businesses would be awarded incentive grants in addition to tax abatements for job creation. The business would promise to create new “green jobs”. This is a failed model, see reason #2 above. You and I do not pay a business until the job is done. In this case County government is so trusting that they will pay upfront for a promise of future job creation. The County has tried this recently with Sanborn studios. Sanborn Studios closed its Lakewood Ranch facility in December 2011 after just one year in operation. The company that promised to produce Hollywood movies, TV shows and create more than 100 jobs in Sarasota got a $650,000 grant from Sarasota County. It is good to learn from experience right?

6. The EEZ is “crony capitalism” writ large. Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth. The proposed ordinance establishing an EEZ is the ultimate example of crony capitalism. Government picks the winners and losers, not the free markets. This always leads to corruption and political favoritism.

7. Government does not create jobs! The great myth is that government can via incentives create something from nothing. Jobs are created only when a business cannot meet the market demand for its products or services. That is an economic fact. What can government do to help create a market for a product or service? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What government can do best is to do the least. That is to say government is best that governs least. Protecting property rights is the role of government.

8. All of the County Commissioners are Republicans dedicated to limited government and the U.S. Constitution. The Republican Party of Sarasota Executive Committee passed a resolution condemning “local ‘sustainable development’ policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other ‘Green’ or ‘Alternative’ projects.” The EEZ falls squarely into all of these categories! A copy of the full resolution was presented to each Commissioner.

9. The County’s attempt to establish an EEZ has led to at least one law suit. According to Kathy Attunes, “The EEZ and attached Enterprise Zone incentives are separate statutes. It can be argued that the Enterprise Zone statutes exist independently of the EEZ statute (377.809), and these state Enterprise Zone statutes apply independent of any local eligibility requirements and a $300,000 cap. The EEZ green standards and $300,000 cap are not outlined in the Enterprise Zone statutes; the statutes do not mirror each other. We are concerned that the EEZ statute and linked Enterprise Zone incentives are in conflict, which potentially sets the County up for litigation brought by businesses who have met Enterprise Zone criteria but not County EEZ standards. We do not want the BCC to proceed with a program that opens the door to a flood of untargeted Enterprise Zone tax breaks, and the possibility of having local control negated by state statute.” I agree more litigation will follow.

10. Finally, this is just bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer money.

There are many other reasons why the EEZ is bad policy for Sarasota County but in the interest of brevity I have listed only my top ten.

I do not need nor want government telling me how to save energy. I am perfectly able doing that on my own. If I wish to waste energy then I will pay an economic price for that behavior. That is how personal freedom and free markets work. Government forcing choices upon me is morally wrong. The EEZ is morally wrong!

Which Presidential Candidate Sides With You?

Charles Schelle and Mark Maley in their Sarasota Patch column “Online Tool Matches Voters with Ideal Presidential Candidate” note that “Floridians’ presidential preference leans more Libertarian in this online free quiz that takes an in-depth look at your stance on a range of issues, then compares them to candidates’ responses … A new website launched earlier this year to help voters match up with their ideal candidate, and it’s quickly gaining popularity through social media channels. In fact, according to iSideWith.com’s homepage, more than a million people have taken the free quiz to determine their ideal candidate since it launched in March.”

The free quiz may be taken by going to iSideWith.com.

According to Schelle and Maley, “The selection of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan as Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s running mate has put presidential race into overdrive now that we know who all the players are.”

“But do you really know which presidential candidate best matches your stance on those issues? It may surprise you to find out who Floridians’ beliefs support,” note Schelle and Maley.

According to the iSideWith.com’s website Florida goes with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson on domestic policy, healthcare and immigration issues. Who Florida sides with by party are: 51% are Democrat, 41% Green,  39% Republican and 37% Libertarian. This non-scientific survey shows Florida’s favorites in order: Libertarian Gary Johnson, Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Ron Paul and Republican Mitt Romney. Note that the three conservatives are most in line with how Floridians stand.

The question is will the Libertarian and Ron Paul vote go for Romney in November? Ideology may trump candidate support once inside the voting booth.