Tag Archive for: Barack Obama

Global Climate Status Report sent to Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner

/in , , , , /by

The Orlando, Florida based Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announced the public release of the Executive Summary for its Global Climate Status Report for 2013. This scientific data based document provides political leaders, business executives, educators and the general public with a concise overview of the actual climate trends now present and an analysis of the Earth’s climate future based on these trends.

In the Executive Summary, the SSRC report authors show convincing evidence that the Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures are on a long term temperature cool down as a result of the just started reduction in the Sun’s energy output. Called a “solar hibernation,” this rare and powerful natural cycle of the Sun has been shown to bring long and potentially dangerous cold climate eras to the planet.

Using data form numerous researchers and science organizations, in addition to the SSRC’s own research, the Executive Summary spells out with detailed charts of climate trends, what is actually happening with the climate.

According to SSRC President, Mr. John L. Casey, “This report was planned for some time. Clearly though, its release at this time is intended to put some reality into the ongoing Congressional debates about to begin on the administration’s proposed new carbon taxes and other regulations supposedly designed to stop man-made global warming.”

“The government’s release of its own draft climate assessment report continues to show our government is on the wrong track for addressing climate change and is still shackled to the disproved greenhouse gas theory of climate change. As is well known, however, past predictions about the climate using that theory have been all wrong, global warming ended years ago, and now a new cold climate has arrived. The general public and our leaders need the truth about climate change at their disposal before making long term decisions about climate change for government policy and managing their day-to-day lives. This next climate change to a potentially dangerous cold climate needs to be well understood by all so they can best prepare for what is coming,” notes Casey.

“I am sending letters and copies of the report to Senate President Harry Reid and Speaker of the House John Boehner as well as other leaders at the federal and state level,” states Casey.

The Executive Summary is now posted for public download from the SSRC web site. The full Global Climate Status Report, will be available for a fee when published on March 4, 2013.

UN maps show, “more guns, less crime” is true internationally as well as domestically

/in , , , /by

Awr Hawkins discovered some maps created by the United Nations in 2007. The world maps depict levels of gun ownership and homicides. As Hawkins points out, “”[T]hese maps show, ‘more guns, less crime’ is true internationally as well as domestically.”

Hawkins states, “Since 1998, John Lott’s seminal work More Guns, Less Crime has been used to show that areas with the highest gun ownership in America experience the least crime on a per capita basis.” The United Nations appears to confirm Lott’s finding on a global scale. As has been stated time and again, the efforts to restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms is all about control, not guns.

Crime and guns are inextricably linked. If you want to reduce crime, buy a gun.

Here are the maps presented by Hawkins:

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

/in , , , , /by

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?

Media double standard fails women and democracy

/in , , , /by

By , President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity

This past election cycle, the mainstream media promoted the idea that the GOP engages in a “war on women.” Prominent women in the Democratic Party were able to take to the airways –often unchallenged – and spin the Republican positions on social issues as old-fashioned, sexist attitudes reminiscence of the 1950s. With the 2012 election a distant memory – the danger is real: sexploitation has reared its ugly head. The alleged culprit is a Democratic senator, and the legacy press couldn’t be more silent.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is embroiled in scandal. But if you read the New York Times or watch “NBC Nightly News,” you would never know it. Reports began surfacing last November from new media outlets – led by the Daily Caller – the New Jersey senator was allegedly engaging in sex with prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, courtesy of the transportation and resort hospitality of a major campaign donor. The original Daily Caller investigation included an interview with two women from the Dominican Republic who told DC “they met Menendez around Easter at Casa de Campo, an expensive 7,000-acre resort in the Dominican Republic. They claimed Menendez agreed to pay them $500 for sex acts, but in the end they each received only $100.”

Given the fact that these young ladies are engaged in an activity regarded as the ultimate degradation of women – and a sitting U.S. senator has been accused of taking advantage of their circumstances – it’s safe to say the old guard press would have been all over this story if the perpetrator were a Republican – leaving no stone un-turned to find the “Dirty Laundry” – as Sen. Menendez gets whitewashed in the spin cycle.  Enter the new media outlets – turning the tide, agitating the establishment and hanging them out to dry.

The evidence against Menendez began mounting last week as it was revealed that another woman had come forward. The non-partisan government watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) received an email from another young girl from the Dominican Republic, claiming she had slept with the New Jersey Democrat. All the more troubling is that her alleged sexual encounters began when she was only sixteen years old.

Where is the outrage from women’s rights groups? Where are the demands for answers from the 16 female Democrats serving alongside Menendez in the Senate? Why do the mainstream media remain silent over the accusations?

In America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So when serious allegations surface, especially when they come from more than one source, the press has an obligation to investigate the matter. In a Sunday, January 27th interview on ABC’s “This Week,” not one question was asked of Menendez about the prostitutes’ allegations, despite the fact that two days earlier it had become public that the FBI was investigating the senator’s alleged misconduct. The sources are credible enough for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but apparently not for the old guard press.

Menendez’s reputed fondness for hookers is only part of the story not being covered. Last week the senator’s contributor involved in this scandal had his office raided by the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. Florida ophthalmologist   Salomon Melgen has been flying Menendez down to the Dominican Republic, providing the luxury accommodations and supposedly supplying the ladies of the night. The raid on Melgen’s office apparently jarred the memory of the New Jersey senator who ponied up nearly $59,000 to reimburse the Florida doctor for travel expenses incurred in 2009.

If the emails, FBI investigation and government raids aren’t enough red flags for the press, an investigation by the new media publication The Washington Free Beacon uncovered last November that Dr. Melgen owes over $11 million to the IRS. Melgen’s support for Menendez began during the 1990s when he was a congressman. Since Dr. Melgen’s troubles with the IRS began – his contributions to the New Jersey Democrat have dramatically increased.

Coincidence? Or a prominent political donor seeking favors? Unless the question is asked, we won’t know the answer.

Since the FBI investigation became public, a few local newspapers in New Jersey, New York and Miami have taken an interest. But a “Google search” of the scandal links only to new media outlets. The three broadcasts networks have wiped the scandal under the rug and the New York Times has apparently decided the story doesn’t fit their motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

Safe to say that if Sen. Menendez had an “R” next to his name this story would lead network broadcasts and frequent the front-page of the “paper of record.” But when you are a Democrat the legacy media and women’s rights group tend to bury their head in the sand – justice and journalism doesn’t fit their agenda.

Jason Stverak is the President of Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.

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

/in , , , /by

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.

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

/in , , , , , /by

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

West Point Study: The Founding Fathers are the “Violent Far-Right”

/in , , , /by

Dr. Arie Perliger from the Combating Terrorism Center located at West Point, NY issued a report titled, Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right. The report states, “There are three major ideological movements within the American violent far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

What are the roots of the American anti-Federalist movement?

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. A book titled “The Anti-Federalist Papers“ is a detailed explanation of American Anti-Federalist thought.

Anti-Federalist No. 1 titled “General Introduction: A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The ‘Aristocratick Combination’.” was printed in the The Boston Gazette and Country Journal on November 26, 1787 and warned, “Their [Federalist] menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description.”

Noted anti-Federalists included: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, James Monroe, Mercy Otis Warren, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, Arthur Fenner, James Winthrop and Luther Martin.

Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Perliger states:

‘”Anti-federalist and anti-government sentiments were present in American society before the 1990s in diverse movements and ideological associations promoting anti-taxation, gun rights, survivalist practices, and libertarian ideas.”

The Executive Summary notes, “It is important to note that this study concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify. While the ability to hold and appropriately articulate diverse political views is an American strength, extremists committing acts of violence in the name of those causes undermine the freedoms that they purport to espouse.”

How does Perliger portray the modern day anti-Federalists?

Perliger states, “Violence derived from the modern anti-federalist movement appeared in full force only in the early to mid-1990s and is interested in undermining the influence, legitimacy and effective sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

What evidence  of violence perpetrated by the anti-Federalist movement does Perliger document?

Perliger reports (pages 136-137):

 “Our dataset documented 87 cases of violent attacks that were initiated by militias or other anti-federal associations between 1990 and 2011. As expected, almost half of the attacks were perpetrated during the movement’s popular period, the second half of the 1990s (48.2%). Since then we have witnessed limited violent activities by the militias, except for a sharp rise during 2010 of 13 attacks. Nonetheless, in 2011 the number returns to the level observed in previous years (between 1–4 attacks per year; 2 attacks in 2011). Thus, while there may be a rise in the number of active militia groups, except for 2010 we still do not see this systematically manifested in the level of violence. As for the geographical dispersion of the attacks, California again is highly prominent (18.4%) alongside Texas (10.3%). The rest of the attacks are distributed more or less equally among 28 other states. The areas that are excluded are parts of the northeast: no attacks were reported in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, and there was only one attack each in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; the northern Midwest: there were no attacks in Illinois, Iowa, North and South Dakota; and some Southern states: Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Missouri. Thus, it is difficult to find a geographic rationale for the violence.”

How many casualties have been caused by the anti-Federalist movement?

Perliger reports, “[T]he average number of fatalities and injuries is 14.04 injured and 3.97 fatalities; when omitting the attack in Oklahoma [by Timothy McVeigh], the average goes down considerably [to] 0.77 [injured] and 0.55 [fatalities] respectively.” (page 138)

Do eighty-seven cases of violent attacks over a 21 year period constitute a violent movement or isolated criminal acts? Perliger does not address this question.

Perliger concludes, “[I]t should be noted that historically some of the anti-federalist groups have absorbed racist and Christian Identity sentiments; nonetheless, the glue binding their membership and driving their activism has been and remains hostility, fear and the need to challenge or restrict the sovereignty of the federal government.”

Do those who identify as Christians belong in the same category as skinheads and Neo-Nazis? Perliger believes so when he states, “Among these are militias, Christian Identity groups, Skinheads and neo-Nazis.”

This study is flawed when it only defines anti-Federalist groups as “violent far-right”. Are Federalist groups not violent?

Any group that seeks to impose its will on all of the people either by edict or violence is by definition “Federalism”. Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and towards the national government.

Is this what the people fear most – the expansion of federalism? Is this fear real and worthy of concern?

Watch this video of interviews done in New York City asking “Do you fear tyranny in America?” Note at the end the responses of young Americans. Are they recruits for the “violent far-right”?

Are We Witnessing The Global Failure of the Ethical Life?

/in , , , , , /by

C. S. Lewis once remarked, “No one knows how bad he is until he has truly tried to be good.”

According to William Lane Craig, author of Reasonable Faith, “The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard made the same point. Kierkegaard thought of life as lived on three levels:

  1. The most basic level is the aesthetic stage, in which life is lived selfishly for the pleasure it affords. Life so lived ultimately issues in boredom and ennui.
  2. The next higher plane is the ethical stage, in which one lives according to strict moral standards. But this life results ultimately in despair because one cannot live up to the standard of the moral good.
  3. Only on the highest plane, the religious stage, is authentic existence truly to be found. Kierkegaard rightly saw that it is the failure of the ethical life that propels one to the religious plane.”

Does government without God lead to despair? Are people becoming desperate?

There are signs that individuals are acting out across America and around the world. The headlines are filled with efforts by politicians trying to impose strict ethical standards on people who live their lives based upon selfish pleasures. Is government hindering, and in some cases blocking, citizens from moving beyond the aesthetic and ethical stages to the religious plane?

After debating the existence of God with Louise Anthony, Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Craig wrote, “Anthony confessed that one of the drawbacks of the atheism she had come to embrace is that under atheism there is no redemption. Think of that! One’s sin and guilt are truly indelible. Nothing can undo what has been done and restore your innocence. But the Christian message is a message of redemption.”

Are there some in our government who believe that those who cling to their religion as somehow less worthy?

Craig writes, “Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste.”

Craig quotes American Philosopher Richard Taylor, author of Ethics, Faith, and Reason , who wrote, “The idea of . . . moral obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense?“

Taylor goes on to say:

“The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well.“

Read more.

This is the basis of the great debate taking place in America, Europe, the Middle East and across the globe. Are we seeing the failure of the ethical life? What is the next stage: the aesthetic or religious? Do we evolve or devolve?

FairTax Proponents Seeking Support from Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan (CD-16)

/in , , , , /by

In an email to supporters Mark Gupton, Managing Director for Florida FairTax Educational Assn., Inc., states, “In conjunction with the National FairTax Strategic Planning Committee, Americans for Fair Taxation and the FairTax Strategic Advisory Team, FFTEA will support their action by devoting a considerable amount of time, effort and resources towards a District Targeting Plan for Florida Congressional District 16.”

Rep. Vern Buchanan represents FL CD-16.

Rep. Buchanan is the only Florida member of Congress to serve on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy, international trade, health care and Social Security. Florida FairTax wants Rep. Buchanan to become a co-sponsor of HR 25 – Fair Tax Act of 2009.

It is generally believed that a tax reform plan will advance out of the House Ways & Means Committee during 2013.

“Tax related issues will be in two stages: 1. Dealing with the so called fiscal cliff and debt limit problems sometime in early 2013. 2. Followed by moving a tax reform plan from the W & M Committee to the entire House of Representatives for an eventual floor vote. We have received indications through various channels that FairTax will be on the agenda as one of the choices for the W & M Committee to hear. Chairman Camp is committed, more so than any previous Chairman, to having FairTax receive a vote. This is a major step forward and one for which we have the best chance of advancing FairTax,” notes Gupton.

Florida delegation members co-sponsoring HR 25 are:  Jeff Miller (R – 01), Ander Crenshaw (R – 04), John L. Mica (R – 07), Bill Posey (R – 08), Richard Nugent (R-11), Gus M. Bilirakis (R – 12) and Dennis Ross (R – 15). Florida makes up 13% of the co-sponsors.

Mr. Jim Hoey has agreed to accept a leadership role in FL-16 by becoming the Florida FairTax Congressional District Director. In addition, Florida FairTax has established a home page just for FL CD-16 which may be viewed by clicking here.

Grassroots movement to arm teachers gains momentum

/in , , , , /by

Long before Wayne LaPierre held his press conference the internet was alive with practical solutions on how to prevent another Newtown, CT like attack on schools. Most comments coalesced around arming school based administrators and teachers. One idea is to provide concealed carry training to school based administrators and on a voluntary basis to teachers. The school district would cover the costs of the training, license and purchase of an approved weapon.

Virginia is considering legislation requiring teachers be armed.

Several photographs and photo-shopped signs were circulated graphically demonstrating the popularity of this solution. Two stand out and were the most often received by WDW. Below is a widely distributed photo allegedly depicting an Israeli teacher and her class of elementary school students:

armed teacher in israel

This photo-shopped sign with the caption “Which sign is most likely to deter a school shooting?” is widely circulating on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites:

 GunFreeZoneSign

Comments on these images may be best represented by a common sense approach to the issue. The argument goes something like this – if there is something valuable that society wants to protect and defend then society must have armed guards in place. Examples of protected areas include: government offices at every level, sensitive installations such as military bases or nuclear power plants, airports, banks, prisons and national parks.

Many are asking why we are not similarly protecting our most precious natural resources – our children?

USA Today reports, “About 70% of public schools don’t have [a] police officer and almost 60% don’t have any security staff. Those with police tend to be big and urban schools, according to a USA TODAY data analysis.” Clearly at some point schools decide to have an armed guard present. The only restriction is cost weighted against the potential threat.

Political opponents focus on taking away guns, not on protecting the children as is done for most politicians. History and statistics work against opponents to arming those most responsible for the protection of our children – school based administrators and teachers.

PLEASE TAKE OUR ONLINE SURVEY ON THE QUESTION OF ARMING SCHOOL STAFF:

RELATED COLUMNS:

New Jersey Town Plans to Place Armed Guards in Schools

White House Petition to Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for attacking 2nd Amendment goes over 25,000

School that President Obama’s daughters attend has 11 armed guards

UPDATE: Black Friday For Israel (Video and Photos Added)

/in , /by

It is Black Friday, November 23, 2012. While many are going shopping a group of Floridians will be gathering at 3:00 p.m. EST in Sarasota for the Solidarity Demonstration for Israel.

Among them will be Pastor Paul Scheele. Pastor Paul, Senior Pastor at Congregational United Church of Christ, has been serving congregations for over 30 years, the last 10 years in Bradenton. Florida. He was born in Sheboygan, Wisconsin and left there in 1960 to enroll in the U.S. Navel Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. While at the Navel Academy, Pastor Paul felt a powerful call to Christian Ministry and transferred to Lakeland College, a church related school in Wisconsin.

Pastor Scheele gave WDW an exclusive interview explaining why he supports Israel:

The Solidarity sponsor is the Sarasota/Manatee Jewish Federation (JFED). According to the JFED website, “Israel, like any other country in the world, has the right to self-defense in light of rocket attacks aimed at harming and killing innocent civilians in their homes, schools and hospitals.”

“For most of us, red is the color of roses, but for almost 13 years, Color Red is the code for danger for more than one million Israelis living near the Gaza Strip. It means you have 15 seconds to find a secure location before missiles hit”, notes the JFED Israel Advocacy website.

Howard Tevlowitz, Executive Director of the JFED, stated in a recent email, “As most of us sleep soundly in our beds in Sarasota, Bradenton, Longboat Key, Venice, Northport and Siesta Key – millions of Israelis are now regularly passing the hours of darkness in fear.”

Tevlowitz wrote, “If Hamas has the best interests of the Palestinian people at heart, why do they engage in terrorism that is only counterproductive to peace? The answer is simple. Hamas targets Israel because it refuses to accept Israel’s existence as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people.”

UPDATE: The crowd at the Solidarity event was estimated at 500 people. Below are photos taken at the event. There were no counter protesters and the event was held peacefully and without incident. Attendees were of all faith, secular, all races and from all political parties.

View from stage.

View from back at the rally facing the stage

Supporters with signs

The JFED provided the below graphic to emphasize how vulnerable Israel is to rocket attack:

Click on map for larger view

Tevlowitz concludes by stating, “No government should, or would, tolerate a situation where nearly a fifth of its people – over one million – live under a constant threat of fire, including Israel. Just like any other country, Israel has the inalienable right — indeed the obligation — to defend its citizens from attack. Yet, inexplicably, some still question it.”

Exclusive interviews with SE Florida residents courtesy of METV and the JFED:

Gaza Déjà Vu

/in /by

While everyone welcomes a cease fire between Hamas in Gaza and the Israelis, no one should expect it to last very long or that relations between the two will change. In point of fact, the Israelis struck a bargain with terrorists, not a nation-state.

Reflecting on the cease fire, David Singer, a lawyer, noted that “The document is not an Agreement, but merely an Understanding” and that “the parties to the Understanding are not specifically identified, nor has the document been signed by any parties that are supposed to be bound by the Understanding.” At best, the “Palestinian factions” who have the greatest interest in attacking Israel are not a party to the cease fire, nor is al Qaeda or Iran for whom Hamas is a proxy in Gaza as Hezbollah is one in Lebanon.

Israel has merely bought some time in which to determine what it will do next. Time is running out, not just in Gaza, but with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, deemed by observers to be mere months from being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile and send it hurtling toward Israel to kill millions of its citizens and essentially destroying it as a viable nation.

If there is any good news out of the recent conflict, it is that its “iron Dome” defense system against rockets worked remarkably well. The bad news is that its enemies have learned that it can be overwhelmed if enough rockets are fired at the same time. Moreover, Iranian rockets have the capacity to hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum had some reflections on the Hamas-Israel hostilities, noting that “The old Arab-Israeli wars were military clashes; the recent ones are political clashes. The wars of 1948-49, 1967, and 1973 were life-and-death struggles for the Jewish state. But the wars of 2006, 2008-09, and now 2012 are media events in which Israeli victory on the military battlefield is foreordained and the struggle is to win public opinion.”

In the U.S. evangelical Christians are the largest group of supporters for Israel. Among those with far less sympathy for Israel are a significant percentage of Democrats and the first term of the Obama administration made it clear that the President is no friend to Israel. At one point he called for a return to the 1967 borders and opposed housing construction in Jerusalem. Dispatching Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to engineer a cease fire ensured that the U.S. would not be drawn into the conflict.

Many have expressed surprise that Egypt would take a significant role as a mediator, but few missed the fact that the U.S. was in a position to withhold $1.5 billion in foreign aid to Egypt whose economy is in serious trouble. Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s president has been traveling far and wide in the Middle East to secure aid, including from the Saudis, a leader of the Sunni majority of Islam, and always the hidden hand influencing events in the region, as well as the nation most fearful of the Shiite nation Iran.

Morsi has been walking the thin edge of a sword and a November 21 New York Times article spelled It out:

”Both sides in the conflict appear to be testing Egypt’s new leader. Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, is wondering how much support it may draw from its ideological cousins now that they control the Egyptian state, while Israel’s hawkish leadership seem to probe the depth of Mr. Morsi’s stated commitment to the peace treaty as well.”

“For Mr. Morsi, the test is forcing him to reconcile conflicting elements of his own persona: as the Islamist firebrand who has denounced the Israelis as ‘vampires’ for killing Palestinian civilians and lauded Hamas for resisting an illegal occupation, but also as the newly elected president promising stability, economic revival and friendly relations with Israel’s Western allies.”

Despite the Times reference to “an illegal occupation”, the fact is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in a “land for peace” effort that has clearly failed. Israel does not illegally occupy land that is rooted in the millennia of its existance.

Dr. Pipes reflected on the timing of Hamas’s ramping up of rocket attacks on Israel that had been going on for months. He conjectured that the last attacks were to “test the waters in the aftermath of Barack Obama’s reelection”, to “rouse public opinion against Israel and make it pay a price internationally”, “refute accusations by Palestinian Islamic Jihad that it has abandoned resistance”, and remind the Palestinian Authority, as it seeks statehood at the United Nations, who controls Gaza.”

The effort of Fatah, based in the West Bank after having been driven out of Gaza, to secure statehood went nowhere in the U.N. Indeed, the so-called Palestinians have never had anything but rhetorical support and have been dependent on a U.N. refugee agency for actual support. They constitute the oldest unresolved refugee population in the world.

In August 2010, The New York Times reported on a survey by Al Arabiya television network in which “a staggering 71 percent of the Arabic respondents have no interest in Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.”

It noted that “For example, it was common knowledge that the May 1948 pan-Arab invasion of the nascent state of Israel was more a scramble for Palestinian territory than a fight for Palestinian national rights” and that “from 1948 to 1967, when Egypt and Jordan ruled the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the Arab states failed to put these populations on the road to statehood.”

So, yes, while it’s a good thing that the rockets are not flying, the “Iron Dome” proved successful, and the Israeli Air Force was able to kill some of the militant leadership and degrade its arsenal and ability to proceed to some degree, the current cease fire is a largely meaningless “understanding.”
What remains to be understood is the unremitting hostility to Israel that exists throughout the Middle East and globally where anti-Semitism has existed for centuries. The Israelis have merely bought some time until the next attacks.

The wild card remains Israel’s need to attack Iran’s nuclear and military facilities. Only by inflicting major damage will Israel have any chance of survival. Long a nuclear nation, Israel must stop Iran from becoming one.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

RELATED COLUMN: OBAMA HELPED HAND VICTORY TO HAMAS AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Benghazi: A combination of “24”, “The Expendables” and “Sex in the City”

/in , , /by

The media frenzy has now reached a fever pitch sparked by initial reports on Benghazi from bloggers (a.k.a. the alternate media). As more and more details become known there is the air of a Hollywood script combining the hits “24”, “The Expendables” and “Sex in the City”. Elements of each could be made into a new feature movie titled “The 24 Hours of Expendable Sex in the City of Tampa”. Truth is in fact stranger, and more sell-able, than fiction.

One story that has not gotten media attention is the ever growing number of changes made to senior military leaders since September 11, 2012.

One reporter who has taken this on is Ben Swann, prime-time anchor at WXIX Fox 19 in Cincinnati and writer, host and producer of Reality Check. Ben posted an investigative report video titled “Petraeus, Allen, Gaouette, Ham: The Benghazi Story The Media Isn’t Telling You” on his Facebook page. Swann reports on how three general officers and one admiral have been either fired or are under investigation since the Benghazi incident (sort of like the Oxbow Incident?).

Watch Ben Swann’s investigative report:

The Benghazi incident has all the elements of “24” in that the national command authority knew there were security issues in Libya well before the attack on 9/11/2012 yet its actions or inaction led to the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador Stevens who were “The Expendables”. Finally, we learn about “Sex in the City” of Tampa, Florida involving two women and two general officers.

Does it get any better than this?

Photos provided by Frances and Peter Rice taken of the Tampa home of Jill Kelly surrounded by the media:

Jill Kelly home with 4 TV sattelite trucks

Jill Kelley home alley with press

RELATED COLUMNS:

The Wall Street Journal- Hillary and Libya: The policy failure goes beyond the murder of her deputies in Benghazi

Bam’s Benghazi blues – David Petraeus’ Benghazi story—Peter Brookes – NYPOST.com

Petraeus leaves questions

David Petraeus testifies on Benghazi—Editorial – NYPOST.com

Give us truth on Benghazi – The Arizona Republic

SILENT CONQUEST: The End of Freedom of Expression in the West

/in , , /by

New York: On September 25, 2012, President Obama astonished many Americans by declaring, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This is a sentiment espoused by radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Worse yet, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed the lengths to which the Obama administration is prepared to go to enforce this view when she told the family of a former SEAL killed last month in Benghazi that the producer of a video she falsely claimed precipitated that attack would be “arrested and prosecuted.” He was subsequently taken into custody and remains in jail.

Now, the powerful documentary SILENT CONQUEST explains why these affronts to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are part of an ominous pattern of Team Obama’s submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah and its prohibition of any expression that “offends” Islam or its god, prophet or followers.

View the trailer:

The film features interviews with U.S. and foreign legislators, journalists, national security and other experts and Muslim, former Muslim and non-Muslim activists including:

  • Best-selling author Mark Steyn
  • Rep. Allen West, Member of Congress
  • Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament
  • Baroness Caroline Cox, Member of the British House of Lords
  • ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel
  • Scholar and author Daniel Pipes
  • American Islamic Leadership Council founder Zuhdi Jasser
  • Former Muslim and author Nonie Darwish
  • Former Defense Department official Frank Gaffney
  • Lord Malcolm Pearson, Member of the British House of Lords
  • Naser Kader, Member of the Danish Parliament
  • Author and financial terrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld
  • Author Pastor Mark Durie, as well as others.

SILENT CONQUEST offers a frightening insight into the extent to which Europe, Canada and the United Nations have already succumbed to the restrictions of shariah blasphemy laws. Its stark warning about the Obama administration’s substantial efforts to accommodate them here, as well, is a wake-up call for every American.

The documentary was produced by Sanctum Enterprises, LLC.

For a limited time, SILENT CONQUEST can be viewed for free online at silentconquest.com.

Florida Election Night 2012 – What you should look for

/in , , /by

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.