VIDEO: THE QUAD the conservative news show for high school and college students launched

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, who is only 18 years old is the new leader of the conservative youth movement. He is challenging the Liberal and Progressive hold on our youth. His charisma, his intelligence, and his amazing understanding as to how to reach the youth of the country with the conservative message is something to behold.

Turning Point USA is a student run 501 C4 Non-Profit educational group, dedicated towards educating the youth about the realities of generational theft, and educating students across the country about fiscal responsibility living within ones means, and government transparency.

An email announcing the launch of THE QUAD Kirk states, “This is a weekly program that I feel will become very popular on YouTube.”

Watch the inaugural episode of THE QUAD:

Read Kirk’s column titled “How College is Harming American Entrepreneurship: A 19 Year Old’s View of Today’s “Bumper Bowling Generation“.

RUBIO’S REPUBLICAN ADDRESS TO THE NATION

Republican Address To The Nation

Remarks As Prepared For Delivery

Senator Marco Rubio

February 12, 2013

ENGLISH REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

Good evening. I’m Marco Rubio. I’m blessed to represent Florida in the United States Senate. Let me begin by congratulating President Obama on the start of his second term. Tonight, I have the honor of responding to his State of the Union address on behalf of my fellow Republicans.  And I am especially honored to be addressing our brave men and women serving in the armed forces and in diplomatic posts around the world. You may be thousands of miles away, but you are always in our prayers.

The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is. For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance.

But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.

Like most Americans, for me this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here in pursuit of the opportunity to improve their life and give their children the chance at an even better one. They made it to the middle class, my dad working as a bartender and my mother as a cashier and a maid. I didn’t inherit any money from them. But I inherited something far better – the real opportunity to accomplish my dreams.

This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn’t bestowed on us from Washington.  It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.

Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.

But President Obama?  He believes it’s the cause of our problems.  That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.

This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead.  It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities.  It’s going to limit them.

And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs.  It’s going to create uncertainty.

Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can’t afford to follow.

Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.

And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.

For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle class Americans afford health insurance.  But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with.  And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring.  Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.

Now does this mean there’s no role for government?  Of course not.  It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government’s role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can’t play its essential role when it ignores those limits.

There are valid reasons to be concerned about the President’s plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the President’s agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.

When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.

When we suggest we strengthen our safety net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them – he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves.

And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.

But his favorite attack of all is that those who don’t agree with him – they only care about rich people.

Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They’re immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.

The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs.

And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.

So Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.

Hard-working middle class Americans who don’t need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They want a plan to grow the middle class.

Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class.  Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012.

But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create millions of middle class jobs. And it could reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Tax increases can’t do this. Raising taxes won’t create private sector jobs. And there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.

One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called “clean energy” companies like Solyndra, let’s open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. And let’s reform our energy regulations so that they’re reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China.

Simplifying our tax code will also help the middle class, because it will make it easier for small businesses to hire and grow.

And we agree with the President that we should lower our corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world, so that companies will start bringing their money and their jobs back here from overseas.

We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world’s best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.

Helping the middle class grow will also require an education system that gives people the skills today’s jobs entail and the knowledge that tomorrow’s world will require.

We need to incentivise local school districts to offer more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training.

We need to give all parents, especially the parents of children with special needs, the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice.

And because tuition costs have grown so fast, we need to change the way we pay for higher education.

I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn’t have gone to college without it. But it’s not just about spending more money on these programs; it’s also about strengthening and modernizing them.

A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today’s students aren’t only 18 year olds.  They’re returning veterans. They’re single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they’re workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.

We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.

When I finished school, I owed over 100,000 dollars in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they’re taking out.

All these measures are key to helping the economy grow. But we won’t be able to sustain a vibrant middle class unless we solve our debt problem.

Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn’t being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren’t hiring.

The President loves to blame the debt on President Bush. But President Obama created more debt in four years than his predecessor did in eight.

The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending 1 trillion dollars more than it takes in every year. That’s why we need a balanced budget amendment.

The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in. One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.

I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.

Republicans have offered a detailed and credible plan that helps save Medicare without hurting today’s retirees. Instead of playing politics with Medicare, when is the President going to offer his plan to save it? Tonight would have been a good time for him to do it.

Of course, we face other challenges as well. We were all heart broken by the recent tragedy in Connecticut. We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. But unconstitutionally undermining the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.

On foreign policy, America continues to be indispensable to the goal of global liberty, prosperity and safeguarding human rights. The world is a better place when America is the strongest nation on earth. But we can’t remain powerful if we don’t have an economy that can afford it.

In the short time I’ve been here in Washington, nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the ones the President laid out tonight.

The choice isn’t just between big government or big business. What we need is an accountable, efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs.

We don’t have to raise taxes to avoid the President’s devastating cuts to our military. Republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms.

In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn’t have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need.  Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.

And the truth is every problem can’t be solved by government. Many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. And the answers to those challenges lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians.

Despite our differences, I know that both Republicans and Democrats love America. I pray we can come together to solve our problems, because the choices before us could not be more important.

If we can get our economy healthy again, our children will be the most prosperous Americans ever.

And if we do not, we will forever be known as the generation responsible for America’s decline.

At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can’t or won’t make the right choices anymore.

But our strength has never come from the White House or the Capitol.  It’s always come from our people. A people united by the American idea that, if you have a dream and you are willing to work hard, nothing should be impossible.

Americans have always celebrated and been inspired by those who succeed. But it’s the dreams of those who are still trying to make it that sets our nation apart.

Tonight, all across this land, parents will hold their newborn children in their arms for the first time. For many of these parents, life has not gone the way they had planned.

Maybe they were born into circumstances they’ve found difficult to escape. Maybe they’ve made some mistakes along the way. Maybe they’re young mothers, all alone, the father of their child long gone.

But tonight, when they look into the eyes of their child for the first time, their lives will change forever. Because in those eyes, they will see what my parents saw in me, and what your parents saw in you. They will see all the hopes and dreams they once had for themselves.

This dream – of a better life for their children – it’s the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true.

But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.

Each time our nation has faced great challenges, what has kept us together was our shared hope for a better life.

Now, let that hope bring us together again.  To solve the challenges of our time and write the next chapter in the amazing story of the greatest nation man has ever known.

Thank you for listening.  May God bless all of you. May God bless our President. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

SPANISH REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

Buenas noches. Soy Marco Rubio. Me siento bendecido por servir al estado de la Florida en el Senado de los Estados Unidos. Quiero felicitar al presidente Obama por el comienzo de su segundo mandato.  Esta noche, tengo el honor de responder a su discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión en nombre de mis colegas republicanos. Me siento especialmente honrado de estar dirigiéndome a nuestros valientes hombres y mujeres que prestan servicio en las fuerzas armadas y en cargos diplomáticos alrededor del mundo. Aunque están lejos de nosotros, siempre están en nuestras oraciones.

El discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión siempre es un buen recordatorio de que lo que tenemos aquí en los Estados Unidos es especial. Durante casi toda la historia, la gente ha estado atrapada en sociedades estancadas, donde la misma gente siempre se mantiene en la cima y todos los demás nunca tuvieron una oportunidad.

Pero los Estados Unidos es excepcional porque, aquí, creemos que cada ser humano, en cada una de sus etapas, es preciosa, y que todo ser humano tiene un derecho dado por Dios a llegar tan lejos como sus talentos y trabajo les permitan.

Como para la mayoría de los estadounidenses, este ideal es personal. Mis padres emigraron aquí en búsqueda de oportunidad para mejorar sus vidas y ofrecer a sus hijos la posibilidad de una vida mejor.  Ellos lograron ser parte de la clase media, mi padre trabajando de barman y mi madre de cajera y camarera. Yo no heredé dinero de ellos. Pero heredé algo aún mejor – la oportunidad de hacer realidad mis sueños.

Esta no es sólo mi historia. Aunque los detalles son diferentes para cada persona, cada estadounidense también tiene una historia especial.  Esta es la increíble historia de los Estados Unidos.

Esta oportunidad – de ser parte de la clase media o más, sin importar donde se inició uno en la vida – no provino del gobierno. Se trata de una economía vibrante en la que la gente arriesga su propio dinero para abrir negocios. Y cuando tienen éxito, emplean a más personas, que a su vez invierten o gastan su dinero, ayudando a otros a iniciar un negocio y crear puestos de trabajo.

Presidentes en ambos partidos – desde John F. Kennedy a Ronald Reagan – han reconocido que nuestra economía de libre empresa ha sido la fuente de prosperidad para nuestra clase media.

Pero el presidente Obama cree que es la causa de nuestros problemas. Él cree que nuestra crisis económica sucedió porque nuestro gobierno no cobró más impuestos, no gastó más ni controló más. Y, como lo escucharon esta noche, su solución es darle al gobierno más dinero para gastar.

Esta idea – que el gobierno siendo demasiado pequeño es lo que creó nuestros problemas – no es cierta. De hecho, la causa de nuestros recientes problemas fue una crisis de vivienda creada por las políticas irresponsables del gobierno.

Y, la idea de que un gobierno que gaste más es la mejor forma de ayudar a la clase media es una idea que ha fracasado siempre que se ha implementado.

Más gobierno no les ayudará a salir adelante.  Les mantendrá estancados.

Más gobierno no les brindará más oportunidades.  Les limitará.

Y más gobierno no inspirará nuevas ideas, nuevos negocios y nuevos puestos de trabajo en el sector privado.  Crea más incertidumbre.

Porque el gobierno crea reglas y leyes complicadas que un pequeño negocio no tiene el dinero para cumplir con ellas.

Porque le sube los impuestos a los dueños de empresas quienes después pasan el costo a sus empleados a través de menos horas de trabajo, salarios más bajos y la eliminación de puestos de trabajos.

Y es así como muchos programas del gobierno que se pronuncian a favor de la clase media, al fin los lastiman a ustedes.

Por ejemplo, el programa Obamacare estaba supuesto ayudar a las personas de clase media a obtener seguro médico.  Pero ahora, algunos están perdiendo sus planes de salud.  Y ya que Obamacare creó costosos requisitos para empresas con más de 50 empleado, ahora muchas de estas empresas no están empleando.  Y algunas incluso están despidiendo o reemplazando empleados de tiempo completo por trabajadores de tiempo parcial.

¿Ahora, esto significa que no hay un papel legítimo para el gobierno?  Claro que no.  Sí tiene un papel crucial en protegernos, hacer cumplir las reglas y ofrecernos cierta seguridad frente los riesgos de la vida moderna.  Pero ese papel lo limita nuestra Constitución.  Y nuestro gobierno no puede cumplir su papel esencial cuándo ignora esos límites.

Hay razones válidas para estar preocupados por el plan del presidente para crecer el gobierno.  Pero cuando algunos de nosotros cuestionamos la agenda del presidente, él y sus aliados usualmente responden atacando nuestros motivos.

Si se le señala que no importa cuántas leyes aprobamos, nuestro gobierno no puede cambiar el clima, se nos acusa de querer agua sucia y aire sucio.

Si sugerimos que debemos fortalecer nuestros programas de protección social, dándole más flexibilidad a los estados para manejarlos, él nos acusa de querer dejar a las personas mayores y discapacitadas para que se cuiden por sí mismas.

Y esta noche, él hasta nos criticó por negarnos a subir los impuestos para evitar recortes a nuestras fuerzas armadas – recortes que él mismo propuso, en primer lugar.

Pero su ataque favorito es que aquellos que no apoyan su agenda – sólo están preocupados por los ricos.

Señor Presidente, yo todavía vivo en el mismo vecindario de la clase trabajadora donde crecí. Mis vecinos no son millonarios. Son jubilados que dependen del Seguro Social y Medicare. Son trabajadores que tienen que levantarse temprano en la mañana e ir a trabajar para pagar las cuentas. Son inmigrantes que vinieron aquí porque estaban permanentemente sumidos en la pobreza en los países donde el gobierno dominaba la economía.

Los impuestos y gastos de déficit que usted desea le quitarán a los trabajadores de la clase media su aumento salarial, beneficios y tal vez incluso sus puestos de trabajo. Y lastimará a las personas mayores porque no hace nada para salvar a Medicare y el Seguro Social.

Entonces señor Presidente, no me opongo a sus planes porque quiero proteger a los ricos. Me opongo a sus planes, porque quiero proteger a mis vecinos.

Y personas como ellos que no necesitan un plan que haga crecer el gobierno. Ellos quieren un plan para hacer crecer nuestra clase media.

El crecimiento económico es la única forma legítima para ayudar a crecer la clase media. Desafortunadamente, nuestra economía se contrajo durante el último trimestre de 2012.

Pero si pudiéramos hacer que la economía creciera un 4 por ciento por año, se crearían millones de empleos para la clase media.  Y esto podría reducir nuestro déficit en casi 4 trillones de dólares durante la próxima década.

No hay ningún aumento de impuestos que pueda logar eso. Aumentando los impuestos no va a crear puestos de trabajo en el sector privado.  Y no existe un aumento de impuestos realista que pueda reducir nuestra deuda por casi 4 trillones de dólares.  Esa es la razón por la cual yo espero que el presidente abandone su obsesión de aumentar los impuestos y trabaje con nosotros para lograr este tipo de crecimiento real en nuestra economía.

Una de las maneras más rápidas en que podemos promover el crecimiento es a través de nuestra industria energética. La energía solar y del viento debe ser parte de nuestra estrategia.  Pero Dios ha bendecido a nuestro país con recursos naturales, incluso carbón, petróleo y gas natural. En vez de seguir desperdiciando el dinero del contribuyente en apoyar compañías en bancarrota como Solyndra, debemos abrir las tierras federales para explorar más energía en forma segura y responsable.  También debemos reformar las regulaciones para que sean razonables y basadas en el sentido común. Eso ayudará a crear mejores empleos para la clase media en la industria energética, y traerá de nuevo la producción industrial de lugares como la China.

Simplificando nuestro código tributario también ayudará a crear oportunidades para la clase media al hacerlo más sencillo para las pequeñas empresas que buscan contratar a nuevos empleados.

Y estamos de acuerdo con el presidente de que debemos reducir nuestros impuestos corporativos – que actualmente son entre los más altos del mundo – para que nuestras compañías tengan más incentivo para traer su dinero y puestos de trabajo aquí, desde el extranjero.

También podemos ayudar a que nuestra economía crezca si tenemos un sistema de inmigración legal que nos permita atraer a los mejores y más brillantes profesionales del mundo y asimilarlos a nuestra forma de vida. Necesitamos una solución responsable y permanente para el problema de los que están aquí ilegalmente. Pero primero tenemos que cumplir con las promesas del pasado, asegurar nuestras fronteras y aplicar nuestras leyes.

Más allá de estos temas, un sistema educativo que le dé a la gente las habilidades y conocimientos que necesitan para los trabajos de la clase media de hoy y mañana – es otra forma en que podemos fomentar el crecimiento de la clase media.

Necesitamos que los distritos escolares locales ofrezcan cursos de enseñanza más avanzados y con más formación profesional y entrenamiento para carreras.

Tenemos que ofrecer a todos los padres, especialmente a los padres de niños con necesidades especiales, la oportunidad de enviar a sus hijos a la escuela pública o privada de su elección.

Y porque la matrícula universitaria ha crecido tan rápidamente, tenemos que cambiar la forma en que pagamos la educación superior.

Yo apoyo la ayuda financiera federal.  Yo nunca habría podido ir a la universidad sin esta ayuda.  Pero la cuestión de estos programas no es sólo gastar más dinero; es de mejorarlos y modernizarlos.

La fuerza laboral de este siglo no debe aceptar las soluciones educativas del siglo pasado.  Los estudiantes de hoy no son sólo de 18 años de edad. Son los veteranos que regresan de la guerra. Son los padres solteros que deciden obtener la educación que necesitan para ganar un salario decente. Y son los trabajadores que han perdido los empleos que nunca volverán y necesitan ser re-entrenados.

Necesitamos ayuda estudiantil que no discrimine contra los programas de los que dependen los estudiantes de mayor edad – como cursos en el Internet, o programas que le dan crédito por experiencia laboral.

Cuando yo terminé mis estudios, debía más de cien mil dólares, una deuda que terminé de pagar hace apenas unos meses. Hoy, muchas personas enfrentan enormes deudas de préstamos estudiantiles.  Tenemos que encontrar una forma de dar a los estudiantes más información sobre los costos y beneficios de los préstamos estudiantiles que están pidiendo.

Todas estas medidas ayudarán a que crezca nuestra economía.  Pero no podremos sostener una clase media vibrante si no resolvemos nuestra deuda nacional.

Cada dólar que el gobierno toma prestado es dinero que no está creando puestos de trabajo al ser invertido en una empresa. Y la incertidumbre causada por la deuda es una razón por la cual muchas empresas no están contratando a nuevos empleados.

Al presidente le gusta echar la culpa sobre la deuda al presidente Bush.  Pero el presidente Obama creó más deuda en cuatro años que el presidente Bush creo en ocho.

La verdadera causa de nuestra deuda es que el gobierno ha estado gastando un trillón de dólares más de lo que recibe en impuestos cada año.  Por eso necesitamos una enmienda a la Constitución que requiere un presupuesto balanceado.

Y la gran parte de nuestra deuda se debe a programas con gastos controlados por la ley.  Uno de estos, Medicare, es especialmente importante para mí. Proporcionó a mi padre el cuidado que necesitaba para combatir el cáncer y en última instancia morir con dignidad. Y paga por el cuidado que mi madre recibe hoy día.

Yo nunca apoyaría ningún cambio a Medicare que haga daño a las personas mayores como mi madre que se encuentran actualmente en el programa. Porque cualquiera que esté a favor de dejar Medicare exactamente de la forma en la que está ahora, está a favor de su bancarrota.

Los republicanos ya hemos ofrecido un plan detallado y creíble que ayuda a salvar a Medicare sin afectar a los jubilados de hoy. ¿En vez de jugar juegos políticos con Medicare, cuándo el presidente va a ofrecer su plan para salvarlo?  Esta noche hubiera sido un buen momento para ofrecerlo.

Obviamente, enfrentamos otros retos. Todos sentimos el dolor tras la reciente tragedia en Connecticut.  Necesitamos lidiar con la violencia en nuestro país.  Pero disminuyendo los derechos constitucionales de los estadounidenses bajo la Segunda Enmienda no es la manera de hacerlo.

Y en el extranjero, los Estados Unidos sigue siendo indispensable para realizar las metas de libertad, paz, prosperidad y la protección de los derechos humanos. El mundo es más estable porque los Estados Unidos es el país más poderoso.  Pero no podemos seguir siendo la nación más poderosa, si no tenemos una economía sostenible.

En los dos años que yo he estado aquí en Washington, nada me ha frustrado más que el flujo constante de falsas opciones entre las que siempre se nos pide escoger – como las que el presidente presentó esta noche.

No tenemos que escoger entre un gobierno grande o las grandes empresas. En lugar de eso, necesitamos un gobierno limitado pero eficaz que permita a las pequeñas y nuevas empresas crear empleos para la clase media.

No tenemos que subir los impuestos para evitar los devastadores recortes a nuestras fuerzas armadas.  Los republicanos hemos aprobado un plan que reemplaza estos recortes con reformas responsables.

Para balancear nuestro presupuesto, no tenemos que escoger entre impuestos más altos o negarles a las personas la ayuda que necesitan del gobierno. En lugar de eso, vamos a permitir que la economía crezca para que estemos creando nuevos contribuyentes, en vez de nuevos impuestos, y para que nuestro gobierno pueda seguir ayudando a los que realmente necesitan ayuda.

Y la verdad es que todos nuestros problemas no pueden ser solucionados por el gobierno.  Muchos son causados por la descomposición moral en nuestra sociedad. Y las respuestas a estos desafíos se encuentran principalmente en nuestras familias y nuestras creencias, no en nuestros políticos.

A pesar de nuestras diferencias, yo se que ambos los republicanos y los demócratas aman a nuestro país.  Le pido a Dios que podamos unirnos a resolver nuestros problemas, porque las opciones ante nosotros tendrán un impacto profundo.

Si podemos hacer que nuestra economía crezca nuevamente, nuestros hijos serán como nunca los estadounidenses más prósperos. Y si no lo hacemos, entonces nosotros siempre seremos conocidos como la generación responsable por dejar caer en decadencia a los Estados Unidos.

En un momento cuando nuestra política ha venido convirtiéndose en un teatro, donde un enfrentamiento tras otro termina en operaciones a corto plazo que hacen poco o nada sobre nuestros verdaderos problemas, algunos creen que no somos capaces de tomar la decisión correcta.

Pero nuestra fortaleza nunca ha venido de la Casa Blanca o del Capitolio. Ha venido siempre de nuestro pueblo. Un pueblo unido por la idea americana de que, si uno tiene un sueño y está dispuesto a trabajar duro, nada debería ser imposible.

Aquí, celebramos a quienes tienen éxito. Pero siempre han sido los sueños de los que todavía están tratando de alcanzar el éxito que nos separa del resto del mundo.

Esta noche, en toda esta tierra, hay padres que abrazarán a su hijo recién nacido por primera vez. Para muchos de ellos, la vida no ha seguido el camino que habían planeado.

Quizás han nacido en circunstancias que han encontrado difícil de escapar. Quizás han cometido algunos errores en el camino. Quizás son madres jóvenes que están solas esta noche, porque el padre de su hijo se fue hace mucho tiempo.

Pero esta noche, cuando miren a los ojos de su hijo por primera vez, su vida cambiará para siempre. Porque en esos ojos verán lo que mis padres vieron en mí y lo que sus padres vieron en usted. Verán todas las esperanzas y sueños que alguna vez tuvieron para sí mismos.

Este sueño – de una vida mejor para sus hijos – es la esperanza de padres en todas partes. Muchos políticos aquí y en todo el mundo han hecho la promesa de que un gobierno más grande puede hacer realidad esos sueños.

Pero nosotros siempre hemos sabido mejor que esto. Desde nuestra fundación, hemos confiado en la libertad económica. Y por eso, éste es uno de los pocos lugares en el mundo donde estos sueños aún tienen la oportunidad de realizarse.

Cada vez que nuestra nación ha enfrentado grandes retos, nuestra esperanza de una vida mejor nos ha unido.

Ahora, dejemos que esa esperanza nos una nuevamente – para resolver los desafíos de nuestro tiempo y escribir el próximo capítulo de la increíble historia de la nación más grande que el hombre jamás ha conocido.

Gracias por escuchar.  Que Dios los bendiga a todos ustedes. Que Dios bendiga a nuestro Presidente. Y que Dios continúe bendiciendo a los Estados Unidos de América.

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) will respond to the State of the Union speech

Earlier today, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) rehearsed the Republican Address to the Nation. Senator Rubio is set to deliver a live response from the Speaker’s conference room in the U.S. Capitol, immediately following the President’s State of the Union address. He will pre-record the same speech for Spanish-language networks earlier this evening. At the same time Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) will give the TEA Party Address to the Nation from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Viewers will be able to watch Senator Paul’s speech live on the conservative website RedState.com.

Who will be the most watched: Marco or Rand?

Frank Hagler from Policy Mic reports:

For the third year in a row, two Republicans have been selected to give the GOP response to the SOTU address. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will give the “official” GOP response and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will give the Tea Party Express response. This unusual practice started in 2011.

After the Tea Party helped usher in a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, they began exercising their power in the party. The Tea Party Express tapped Michele Bachmann to give a response that was televised to the nation. Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer explained “The Republican Party doesn’t represent everybody in the Tea Party movement, and they certainly don’t speak for us.”

Scott Conroy from Real Clear Politics reports:

With Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul set to deliver the Tea Party’s third annual response to the State of the Union speech on Tuesday, the pressure is on for the group to prove its ongoing influence, particularly amid growing criticism from establishment Republicans who accuse it of promoting un-electable candidates at the larger GOP’s expense.

In an interview with RCP, Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer acknowledged the moment’s significance.

“I really think it’s more important than ever for us to do it this year because there have been reports of the Tea Party’s demise, but we’re absolutely still here and focused and engaged,” Kremer said. “The Republican Party doesn’t represent everybody in the Tea Party movement, and they certainly don’t speak for us.”

The TEA Party is flexing its muscles with the creation of the TEA Party Community website. Launched on February 2, 2013 the site now has over 109,000 members.

The struggle within the Republican party pits the old guard lead by Karl Rove, against the conservative faction lead by Senator Paul, Michele Bachmann and others. It was the old guard that gave Florida the likes of former Governor Charlie Crist who won the state house as a Republican, lost the race as an Independent for the US Senate seat currently held by Rubio. It is expected that now Democrat Crist will run against incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott in 2014.

Conroy notes, “Now, with Paul eager to rev up the Tea Party engine just as a new civil war against establishment Republicans appears on the horizon, the setting will look familiar.”

Perhaps now is the time for a civil war within the GOP?

County Republican Party passes Resolution supporting 2nd Amendment

The Sarasota County Republican Party Executive Committee (REC) met on Thursday, February 7, 2013. At the meeting a resolution was passed by the REC in support of the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

The resolution states in part:

“Whereas, said Amendment makes it clear, in it’s text, that the purpose of this right is NOT for hunting, target practice or sportsmanship, but to ensure the liberty of the people of the United States.

Whereas, the purpose of the Constitution is to strictly limit the authority of Government and to protect the “unalienable” rights of the people. Among these rights requiring protection, from all enemies foreign and domestic, are the right to life and the right to liberty. The Second Amendment provides for that through the right of the people to bear arms. Any attempt to thwart this right is illegal, unacceptable, and abhorrent to a free society.” [My emphasis]

The resolution concludes with:

“Now, therefore, the members of the Republican Executive Committee of Sarasota County petition Representative Vern Buchanan to take any and all steps necessary to prevent ANY further infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, including modern ammunition feeding devices and ammunition for those Arms.

It is, therefore, requested that Representative Vern Buchanan respond to this petition and inform the Republican Executive Committee of Sarasota County of his intentions in this matter.”

To read the full resolution click here.

According to REC member Tad MacKie, “This [resolution] will be sent to Vern Buchanan, Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson along with all of our local State Senators and Representatives. If you are a member of a civic organization and/or a political party executive committee or a concerned citizen, please feel free to use this as a template for your own letter to the editor or to use as a petition to your local, state and federal legislators.”

American Law for American Courts bill advances

The Florida Family Association issued the following report:

Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee votes 9-4 to approve bill which prohibits courts from considering certain provisions of international laws including Islamic Sharia law.

The Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted on HB 351 – Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases during the scheduled February 7, 2013 8:00 am meeting.

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases: Clarifies that public policies expressed in act apply to violations of natural person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by State Constitution or U.S. Constitution; provides that act does not apply to corporation, partnership, or other form of business association, except when necessary to provide effective relief in proceedings under or relating to chs. 61 & 88, F.S.; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system in proceedings brought under or relating to chs. 61 & 88, F.S., which relate to dissolution of marriage, support, time-sharing, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, & Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; declares that certain decisions under such laws, codes, or systems & certain choice of venue or forum provisions in contract are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by State Constitution or U.S. Constitution; declares that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied; limits construction of provisions in certain circumstances.

The language of this bill has been narrowed compared to the legislation offered in the 2012 session.

Florida Family Association applauds Representative Larry Metz’s sponsorship of HB 351 – Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases.

 

Unlike 2012 when this subcommittee voted 13-0 to approve the bill, all four Democrats voted against the legislation this year.   Here is how the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted:

Y  Boyd (R)                Y  Goodson (R)      Y  Oliva (R)       Y  Spano (R)
Y  Stone (R)              N  Clelland (D)       Y  Hager (R)     Y  Passidomo (R)
N  Stafford (D)          N  Waldman (D)     Y  Davis (R)      Y  Metz (R)
N  Rodríguez, J. (D)

 

Representative José Javier Rodríguez (Democrat representing part of Miami-Dade) led the charge against the legislation with a litany of questions and challenges.
Representative James W. “Jim” Waldman (Democrat representing part of Broward County) mocked Franklin Holder’s testimony in favor of the bill by laughing at his comments.

 

Perhaps Democrats gleamed from the 2012 elections that a certain constituency affected by this legislation voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.

Sadly for all Americans, these four Democrats did not see the importance of honoring only American laws in American courts but only saw the importance of votes to keep their political longevity alive.

Click here to see the video of the February 7, 2013 meeting.  The discussion on this bill began at 10:10 am.

Here is the vote from the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee in 2012 where a 13-0 vote was taken on January 31, 2012:

Abruzzo Y  Gaetz Y  Kiar Y  Passidomo –  Stargel Y  Bernard Y  Hager Y  Metz Y  Plakon Y  Steinberg Y  Eisnaugle –  Harrison Y  Oliva Y  Soto Y  Weinstein

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.

Rubio Tweets “There is only one savior, and it is not me. #Jesus”

Senator Marco Rubio took offense at the Times cover title “The Republican Savior”. In response he tweeted “There is only one savior, and it is not me. #Jesus”.

rubio time magazine cover

The TIME magazine column “Immigrant Son” by Michael Grunwald notes, “But while Rubio is a child of immigrants, he’s also a child of the conservative movement, an ambitious ideologue and former political operative who speaks partisan Republican with the fluency of a native. (Romney, by contrast, spoke it as a second language.) Like Paul Ryan, a potential 2016 rival, he’s part of a new generation of lean and hungry conservatives who grew up in the anti-government Reagan era and entered politics after the scorched-earth Gingrich revolution. Bipartisan compromise is not usually his thing.” To read the entire TIME magazine story click here.

There are questions being raised about the future of America and the role partisan politics plays in creating a country divided. At a recent TEA Party Sarasota meeting one member stated, “the political parties were merely two squads on the same team”. Big government, more regulation and higher taxes have been embraced by both Republicans and Democrats. This has led to crushing debt, unfettered spending and more government control.

Can any one politician actually make a different when the party system works against any change or reform?

We will see if Rubio will remain independent in his actions or will become part of his party’s leadership. Will political power trump his moral compass as he becomes the “new voice” of the Republican party?

Early civilizations were well aware of the danger of pride and power and knew that this could destroy kings and empires if not held in check. And thus a philosophy was developed by the very wise Greco-Roman philosophers (lovers of truth) in order to help their rulers and themselves to be vigilant about their behavior, lest they destroy themselves by pride. And thus when any great general (be it an emperor-to-be, a war general, or any victor of a great battle) was honored by a great manifestation such as a triumphal entry into his city-state, a slave (a lowly of lowlies) would ride in the chariot with him and whisper in his ear that he should remember that “he is not a god, but a mortal human being”.

A lesson that all politicians must learn?

Florida Secretary of State releases voting recommendations, says nothing about voter fraud

Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner released his recommendations on voting. What is most notable is that the word “fraud” appears only once on page seven of a twelve page report.

The Detzner report states, “Additionally, some Florida counties continue to operate without utilizing technological advances, such as electronic poll books, which can shorten the time it takes to do voter intake and minimize the possibility of dual voting fraud.” No other mention is made of the numerous allegations, lawsuits and documented examples of voter fraud during the 2012 election cycle.

Why does the report not deal in more detail with voter fraud and voting transparency?

Because the mandate for the report from Governor Scott was, “… making recommendations to increase the accessibility and efficiency in Florida Elections.” The mandate was not to insure all votes cast are counted once and only once.

The report states:

“Secretary Detzner and a team of Department of State employees from the department’s Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel and the Division of Elections’ Bureau of Voter Registration Services and Bureau of Voting Systems Certification traveled throughout Florida to meet with county supervisors of elections and their staffs and receive their input on how to improve Florida’s election system. Secretary Detzner also sought out and received valuable input from other elected officials and knowledgeable Floridians and organizations such as the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections and the League of Women Voters. The Secretary also considered input from Florida voters, poll workers, Miami-Dade’s Election Task Force, the Miami-Dade Grand Jury report and Division of Elections’ staff.” [My emphasis]

Those consulted are those with a vested interest in, lobbyists for and those who control the voting system. The report states, “During Secretary Detzner’s fact-finding efforts, supervisors of elections and others agreed the 2012 General Election was a fair election as a whole.”

True The Vote has a different view of the St. Lucie County voting system . “This dramatic recount [in St. Lucie County] was an extraordinary example of how our elections can suffer systematic failure,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “We run the risk seeing episodes like this becoming ordinary if citizens do not demand answers and hold election officials accountable. The American people own the voting system – we have the right to ask tough questions when we witness the failure of one of America’s core functions.

St. Lucie County is not mention in the Detzner report.

Patricia Mazzei in her Miami Herald column titled “Miami-Dade grand jury: Absentee voting fraud clouds confidence in tight election results” wrote, “To prove their point, grand jurors made an astounding revelation: A county software vendor discovered that a clandestine, untraceable computer program submitted more than 2,500 fraudulent, “phantom” requests for voters who had not applied for absentee ballots in the August primary.”

“With several narrow victories in races in the 2012 Primary and General Elections, the general sentiment that undetected fraud is occurring is a major problem for this Grand Jury and the citizens of this community,’’ the jurors wrote. “Can the public have confidence in the election results of those close races? We are not certain they can.” Read more here.

The Detzner report concludes that expanded early voting is the panacea. No where is voter fraud nor ways to prevent it addressed in any detail.

To read the full twelve page report click here.

Florida Pastor: Jesus wants you to sell your garments and buy an assault weapon

Reverend O’Neil Dozier

Reverend O’Neil Dozier is pastor at the World Christian Center in Pompano Beach, Florida. Reverend Dozier is the fourth of eleven children of sharecroppers Annie and the late Jessie Emmanuel Dozier who migrated to Pompano Beach from South Carolina in 1955. Reverend Dozier is a Vietnam veteran.

On Superbowl Sunday Reverend Dozier’s sermon was about gun rights. During the sermon Dozier quoted Luke 22:35 where “Jesus tells his disciples to sell their garments (cloaks) and buy a sword. One of my favorite scriptures and always my answer to those who forever quote where Jesus says, ‘Turn the other cheek’.”

Reverend Dozier told his black congregation that “Jesus was no sissy-boy”. He explained that the sword was the assault weapon of that day, and that if Jesus were alive today, he would “tell us to buy an assault weapon and protect ourselves and our families”.

He told all the men, then all the women to arm themselves against this tyrannical government and other criminals who want to hurt us. He railed on the congregation for forty-five minutes and ripped the federal government to shreds according to those in attendance.

One congregant said, “I’ve never said, ‘Preach it!’ and ‘Amen’ so many times in one service. He was fabulous! I’m betting there was not another pastor across the nation today bold enough to preach a strong sermon such as this.”

“If every pastor would preach The TRUTH the way Reverend Dozier does we would most likely be home-free and sovereign in our nation — After all, IT IS WRITTEN.. as to how to address ALL issues. One needs only to preach it,” one congregant said after the sermon.

Florida Bill Introduced to protect gun owners – but will it?

Florida legislators Ahern, Artiles, Baxley, Beshears, Brodeur, Caldwell, Corcoran, Diaz, M., Fasano, Ford, Gaetz, Hudson, Ingram, Patronis, Pigman, Pilon, Raburn, Raschein, Roberson, K., Smith, Spano, Trujillo, Van Zant and Wood have co-sponsored HM 545 titled: Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The bill “Urges Congress and the President to protect the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Some Floridians are not sure this Memorial is strong enough to protect law abiding gun owners in Florida from the federal government.

What bothers many is the Obama administration is trying to disarm law abiding Americans while at the same time arming foreigners in Syria and other places to over throw tyrannical regimes. Whenever the government of the United States wants to depose tyrannical regimes they arm the citizens in order to change government.

There are over 1 million Floridians with concealed carry permits. While gun owners appreciate the introduction of the House Memorial 545, some wonder if it is enough to keep the federal government from inter-veining and taking away the rights of Floridians.

One issue concerns the oath of office taken by elected officials in Florida and the conflict it presents to law enforcement officers. There is also an issue of is the current Florida oath constitutional? and shouldn’t the oath be changed to reflect the wording in the Constitution?

Below are excerpts from the US and Florida Constitutions and US Code referencing loyalty oaths:

1. US Constitution Article VI, Clause 3 – The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

2. United States Code, Title 4, Section 101 & 102 – Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” Such oath may be administered by any person who, by the law of the State, is authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person so administering such oath shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made in the same manner, as by the law of the State, he is directed to record or certify the oath of office.

3. Florida Constitution, Article II, Section 5 (b) – Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.”, and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.

4. US Constitution Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Pat Wayman from the Venice, FL 912 Group notes, “The Florida Constitution COMPLETELY VIOLATES the intent of the loyalty oath which the US Constitution requires and the US Law prescribes. It has the public officers swear to support the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES as well as the Constitution.”

“The Government is the ‘network’ of public policy makers who flout the law and constitutions at will. The Government IS THE ENEMY of the Constitution because it is the very entity the Constitution seeks to CONTROL so government employees will not stray outside their box and make absurd, inane, and illegal rulings like the idiotically treasonous Leon County Judge Kevin Carroll did. Carroll has single-handedly created a judicial oligarchy by saying he does not care what the law says because HE supports the GOVERNMENT (not the constitutions),” notes Wayman.

Do you see the dilemma here?

A Florida public officer cannot rationally and realistically support both the federal government and the US Constitution. A public officer may wander afield from the ideals of good government, and so the Constitution restrains him, chains him down. This explains why the US Constitution and US law require an oath to support the US Constitution, and nothing else, not the government.

Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time

The reform of public education has been an elusive goal. All seem to agree that public school reform is much needed. International rankings and national tests show American public school students falling behind their peers. Many scholars have studied public schools and their failures, governments have written thousands of studies addressing this issue. So what must happen to truly change public schools for the better?

A natural disaster like hurricane Katrina!

Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of TIME, president of the Aspen Institute and chairman of the board of Teach for America, in his 2007 column “The Greatest Education Lab” wrote:

“Paul Vallas, the man who took over the troubled school systems of Chicago and then Philadelphia and upended them, stood before a crowd of New Orleans parents in a French Quarter courtyard earlier this summer and offered a promise. ‘This will be the greatest opportunity for educational entrepreneurs, charter schools, competition and parental choice in America,” he said. Call it the silver lining: Hurricane Katrina washed away what was one of the nation’s worst school systems and opened the path for energetic reformers who want to make New Orleans a laboratory of new ideas for urban schools‘.” [My emphasis]

What did New Orleans do to reform its broken public education system? It chartered every school in the district. Hurricane Karina emancipated the parents and students from the old public school structure and allowed them to achieve control of what was once a government monopoly.

C. Bradley Thompson in his article “The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time” wrote:

“I begin with my conclusion: The ‘public’ school system is the most immoral and corrupt institution in the United States of America today, and it should be abolished. It should be abolished for the same reason that chattel slavery was ended in the 19th century: Although different in purpose and in magnitude of harm to its victims, public education, like slavery, is a form of involuntary servitude. The primary difference is that public schools force children to serve the interests of the state rather than those of an individual master.” [My emphasis]

A radical conclusion notes Thompson. But is it?

Thompson wrote, “Twenty-first century Abolitionists are confronted, however, by a paradoxical fact: Most Americans recognize that something is deeply wrong with the country’s elementary and secondary schools, yet they support them like no other institution. Mention the possibility of abolishing the public schools, and most people look at you as though you are crazy. And, of course, no politician would ever dare cut spending to our schools and to the ‘kids’.”

Thompson states unequivocally, “The solution is not further reforms. The solution is abolition.” Read more here.

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed 150 years ago. Perhaps it is time for an Education Emancipation Proclamation?

Florida Sheriffs Association Says ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control

Former Sheriff Richard Mack of CSPOA states, “Sheriffs have risen up all over our great nation to stand up against the unconstitutional gun control measures being taken.” Among those signing the pledge is the Florida Sheriffs Association (to read the pledge click here).

“Sheriffs and associations who have made public statements committing to protect their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights from Obama’s gun control efforts will be added. Some of these sheriffs are members of the CSPOA, but inclusion in this list does not necessarily mean they are a member,” states Mack

The following is a list of sheriffs and state sheriff’s associations who have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against President Obama’s gun control measures.

List of State Sheriff’s Associations:

1. Utah Sheriffs Association
2. Florida Sheriffs Association
3. Georgia Sheriffs Association
4. Colorado Sheriffs Association
5. New Mexico Sheriffs Association

Among those 256 County Sheriffs who have signed the pledge as of February 2, 2013 are the following from Florida:

Sheriff Bill Snyder, Martin County

Sheriff Frank McKeithen, Bay County

Sheriff Mike Scott, Lee County

Sheriff Rick Beseler, Clay County

Sheriff Michael Adkinson, Walton County

Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk County

Watch this CSPOA video:

Catholic Bishops file amicus brief in support of Defense of Marriage Act

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 29, 2013 filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, both of which confirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

DOMA was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage for federal and inter-state recognition purposes. Proposition 8 is a state constitutional amendment approved by the citizens of California in 2008. Both laws are challenged because they define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

Urging the Court to uphold DOMA the USCCB brief in United States v. Windsor says that “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” The brief also states that “as defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would.

It added that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”

USCCB argued that previous Supreme Court decisions “describing marriage as a fundamental right plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”

The USCCB also cautioned that a decision invalidating DOMA “would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.”

In a separate brief filed in Hollingsworth v Perry urging the Court to uphold Proposition 8, the USCCB states that there are many reasons why the state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships. Government support for marriage, so understood, is “recognizing the unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate” and “the unique value to children of being raised by their mother and father together.”

The USCCB brief states that “[T]he People of California could reasonably conclude that a home with a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising children, an ideal that Proposition 8 encourages and promotes. Given both the unique capacity for reproduction and unique value of homes with a mother and father, it is reasonable for a State to treat the union of one man and one woman as having a public value that is absent from other intimate interpersonal relationships.”

The USCCB brief adds that “While this Court has held that laws forbidding private, consensual, homosexual conduct between adults lack a rational basis, it does not follow that the government has a constitutional duty to encourage or endorse such conduct. Thus, governments may legitimately decide to further the interests of opposite-sex unions only. Similarly, minimum standards of rationality under the Constitution do not require adopting the lower court’s incoherent definition of ‘marriage’ as merely a ‘committed lifelong relationship,’ which is wildly over-inclusive, empties the term of its meaning, and leads to absurd results.”

“Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, is not an historical relic, but a vital and foundational institution of civil society today,” the USCCB brief states. “The government interests in continuing to encourage and support it are not merely legitimate, but compelling. No other institution joins together persons with the natural ability to have children, to assure that those children are properly cared for. No other institution ensures that children will at least have the opportunity of being raised by their mother and father together. Societal ills that flow from the dissolution of marriage and family would not be addressed—indeed, they would only be aggravated—were the government to fail to reinforce the union of one man and one woman with the unique encouragement and support it deserves.”

The USCCB brief also notes that “Proposition 8 is not rendered invalid because some of its supporters were informed by religious or moral considerations. Many, if not most, of the significant social and political movements in our Nation’s history were based on precisely such considerations.Moreover, the argument to redefine marriage to include the union of persons of the same sex is similarly based on a combination of religious and moral considerations (albeit ones that are, in our view, flawed).As is well established in this Court’s precedent, the coincidence of law and morality, or law and religious teaching, does not detract from the rationality of a law.”

USCCB notes that a judicial decision invalidating Proposition 8’s definition of marriage would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.

“[R]edefining marriage—particularly as a matter of constitutional law, rather than legislative process—not only threatens principles of federalism and separation of powers, but would have a widespread adverse impact on other constitutional rights, such as the freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association.Affirmance of the judgment below would create an engine of conflict in this area, embroiling this Court and lower courts in a series of otherwise avoidable disputes—pitting constitutional right squarely against constitutional right—for years to come.

The President, the Senate and Media are in Denial

What we are experiencing is an unprecedented phenomenon in America. Almost 89 million people have left the labor force.

The Bureau of  Labor Statistics released jobs numbers for January Friday showing that non-farm payroll employment increased by 157,000 and the unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent. Lost in these headline numbers was another rise in the number of people not in the labor force. This number now stands at a staggering 89 million, up from 80.5 million when President Obama took office. This means that there are currently 8.5 million more Americans not in the labor force than just four years ago.

Forget all the other numbers. This continued explosion of people not in the labor force should be tremendously concerning as it represents an obstacle for the government to ever balance the budget without drastically raising taxes on those still working.

Instead of prioritizing a solution to  our economic problem,  the President and Senate dwell on political issues  such as ‘immigration’, and ‘Gun Control’ which may be important but doesn’t represent an existential threat to America.

America’s unsustainable spending and deficit is continuing unaddressed and unabated by the President, the Senate and the media. The lack of discourse is surreal. The President is in a state of denial when he says “We have no spending problem”. If this was true how does he explain almost $17 trillion dollars in debt which is estimated to exceed $20 trillion dollars in the next four years? The House and Senate just approved a continuance of the ‘Debt Ceiling’ until mid may 2013. In that short time our debt will increase by almost another half trillion dollars.

Instead of finding a solution to bring American’s back into the work force, the President’s solution is to expand welfare and dependency. No one is asking who will pay for all of this with less workers in America each year.

Kids Need Both Mom and Dad, Says Gay Man

The benefits of intact biological families were emphasized on a “Building a Marriage Culture” panel at the National Review Institute’s 2013 Summit, “The Future of Conservatism.” One of the panelists, Doug Mainwaring, spoke of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father.

“For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together, but it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom,” Mainwaring, co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, said.

Mainwaring is now living with his ex-wife so they can co-parent their two teenaged sons.

“I don’t want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing,” Mainwaring explained. “Somebody needs to stand up for the rights and needs of children in an age when the selfishness of adults seems to be trumping those rights.”

Read the rest at The Christian Post