Florida

Conservative Policy Watch

5.

Some Local Issues

Pinellas County Water Management

"...has forged what is the model  water management supply system in the nation, using a combination of ground water, surface water and seawater desalination - all connected in a way to mimic nature."  David More, Southwest Florida Water Management District Executive Director (SWFWMD).

As a journalist I covered the water wars between Florida, Alabama, and Georgia during a multi-year drought period back around 2000, a year which has been called by Southwest Florida Water Management District Executive Director David More as the "drought of the century." 

I also covered at the scene, several massive wildfires during that time in the Panhandle area of Northwest Florida that were a result of that same drought.

Since Central Florida is currently suffering under the severe conditions of a two-year drought, very much like the 2000 drought, and though perhaps water management is not as high-profile an issue as some other things in the news, it is certainly a vital issue. 

This website would like to commend the Pinellas County Board of Commissioners, recently praised by the Mr. More at a Pinellas County Commission Board meeting for the county's leadership in water management. 

As reported by Suzette Porter, the Webmaster for Tampa Bay Newspapers: According to More, Pinellas County has "shown great leadership in conservation of water resources."

Ms. Porter also reported that Mr. More "said that a lot of people don't realize that there's not a more modern water supply system in the country that the one in SWFWMD's northern region.

Note: Disclaimer. 
We simply appreciate good water management under drought conditions and understand, from our own journalism work, its value and have no problem with highlighting good work when we learn about it. The political stand of any particular person involved in Pinellas County water management, whether they disagree or agree with the stands taken by this website, is not this website's responsibility. 

Yes...

California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

Victory for the people on Prop 8 (May 27, 2009)...In a 6 to 1 decision the California Supreme Court ruled that the people's ballot referendum vote on Proposition 8 to outlaw same sex marriage is valid and will remain the law. 

That was obviously the right decision. 

This case goes to show that not even a court as the 9th Circuit, considered by normal standards to be an ultra liberal court, is willing to take judicial activism only so far. 

The bad news is that all the same-sex marriages performed during the time the court, in an outrageous display of judicial activism unlawfully overturning an earlier people's referendum, will continue to be valid. 

To give you an idea of how angry and delusional even the mainstream media is about this unsurprising decision, a reporter for the Associated Press via Yahoo News said that yesterday's ruling "redefined" the courts previous unlawful ruling to overturn the earlier people's ballot referendum.  We do not believe that a vengeful and unlawful reach of judicial activism stands up to a term like "redefine" in the first place.   

We also do not believe the California Supreme Court had any valid reasons to take up the case to begin with, except to provide the vicious gay activists with a publicity platform. 
And that also is not the court's job.

If the case had had real judicial merit then the vote would not have been so lopsided, especially when you consider that the 9th Circuit is already considered one of the most liberal and activist courts in the country. 
I think I read somewhere that the 9th Circuit has had more cases turned down at the U.S. Supreme Court level than any other circuit.  That's probably what the case was really about anyway, setting up a media sanctioned publicity stage from which to eventually rationalize taking the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In a related item: Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons displayed the kind of conservative leadership this website supports and is now highlighting in our 2012 section. 
Instead of pandering to the liberals and the so-called "moderate" wing of the Republican party, Gibbons vetoed a bill that would have designated both unmarried homo and heterosexual couples as "legal domestic partners" with all the benefits designed for only married couples. 

That piece of legislation is an example of why supporting "civil unions" as no different from marriage would lead to a format that would also equate homosexual unions with marriage, which is why this website via a warning, does not and has never supported "civil unions" within a legal context that would fail to distinguish it from marriage. 

Unlike activist judges or liberal Republican Governors, Governor Gibbons refused to disrespect the will of the people of Nevada who voted for a marriage protection amendment in 2002. In a refreshing reality check, Gibbons said: "Because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to
married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners."

From a LightBookproductions new page

Serious adventures in you gotta be kidding

The Secretary of Socialism at Work

We also found out from FRC that "reports are circulating" that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to defy federal law as written in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and force the American taxpayers (you and me) to fund "the travel, medical care, retirement, and moving costs for "partners of" unmarried homosexual and heterosexual diplomats."

The Secretary of State justifies that unequivocal violation of federal law (DOMA) by saying that "it is the right thing to do" and that those benefits "are increasingly the norm for world-class employers."  

The arrogance is unbelievable. It has the same style of hubris exemplified in Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi's pathological denial regarding the water boarding issue.

And when did the Secretary of State have the authority to violate federal law?  As Mr. Perkins pointed out, the Secretary is also in defiance of a House of Representative vote as recent as last week that deleted those perks from the State Department Authorization Bill. 

We can appreciate the Secretary's concern for State Department employees but we seriously doubt if they are underpaid, or suffer from a serious lack of benefits.  It is also possible that the Secretary should be reminded that technically, everyone officially working in the state department is paid by the American taxpayer. 

Like the renegade activist judges who keep trying to overturn the will of the people (see California) via rulings that are informed by personal opinions or feelings...Don't kid yourself, this is the Secretary's first move in a parallel political strategy from the State Department to try and justify a repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act. 

Note: To prove our point: Several weeks after we initially posted this item, the media reported what will be another attempt by President Obama to homosexualize the country with plans to extend benefits to gay and lesbian "partners" of all government employees. 
This represents the fourth angle from which the new ultra liberal administration is trying to force the homosexual lifestyle on the American people against their will. 1. Repeal the Congressionally researched ban on gays in the military.  2. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  (3) Extend benefits to homosexual "partners" of all government employees.  And (4) Pass the homosexual's designer label "Hate Crimes" law. 

Florida

Conservative Policy Watch

3.

The Stimulus Package

As the Florida legislature debates whether or not to accept the billions in stimulus funds from the federal government to extend unemployment benefits, it appears there are serious questions whether it would be responsible to accept these funds, considering the strings attached that would cost the state a lot more money and require more costly government controls down the line.  Not an easy decision under the current economic circumstances, yet conservatives in the Florida legislature are right on this issue.  Alaska Governor Sarah Palin recently displayed  some thoughtful and decisive  leadership on the same issue via the Anchorage Daily News.

As a rule, Governors usually manage their state budgets in a more responsible way than the federal government manages the national budget, so it stands to reason they should be allowed some discretionary authority in the process.

Ms Palin wrote:
"Some question my decision to accept job-ready stimulus funds, while leaving on the table for discussion other funds that grow government. Washington dollars are tempting, but we must consider whether they create sustainability, help develop our resources, reduce dependency on Washington, and all without mortgaging our kids’ futures.

Unfortunately, a disproportionate percentage of the federal package available to Alaska would increase government operations. It’s a stretch to certify that more spending on more bureaucracy actually grows an economy.

When stimulus money runs out in two years, who will pay for the expanded government programs, when Alaska currently has a budget shortfall of over a billion dollars?

My administration will not willingly and knowingly dig a hole for Alaskans to fill under this enormous, debt-ridden, Washington spending plan. That's why public discussion on budget increases must happen through open, transparent legislative hearings so everyone is aware of the cost.

I am deeply committed to quality public education, so I appreciate questions concerning my $20 million dollar request for certifiable funds. Regarding other available funds, I have sought public discussion on school district spending plans. Alaska’s children are my priority, as proven by my unprecedented increases to K-12 funding, including intensive needs programs, which we currently fund at historic levels.

I moved the education discussion to the legislative arena because the public, lawmakers, and our schools must consider what will happen in 24 months. The districts should present spending plans that don’t dig huge fiscal holes when temporary federal funds disappear. Will they wisely and prudently fund training for existing positions, or just create new positions, leaving Alaskans to foot the increased bills?

When one-time funding ends, will they lay-off all those new teachers? Are Alaskans willing to shoulder the expanding programs in the education bucket, including questionable priorities, like proposed increases to the National Endowment for the Arts?

Alaskans must have confidence the additional funds will produce actual results for our children and not simply increase bureaucracy. Remember, these dollars aren’t “replacement dollars,” they are “additional dollars,” and obviously increase budgets.

Some, enticed with as much Washington money as possible, assume this is free money. It is not. America is $11 trillion in debt. They also may fail to consider the level of federal intrusion.

For example, Alaska’s communities would have to adopt building energy codes that compliment the most recent International Codes. These standards should be locally determined, not federally mandated. And, if we take additional unemployment compensation funds, Alaska would have to extend eligibility guidelines.

This federal involvement locks us into government dependency for longer periods. Alaskans must read the fine print on these federal mandates, because certain allocations also require state-matching funds.

My job is to help Alaskans count the cost for the long term, not sell our birthright for short-term gain.

Reliance on Washington is not our only option. We could exercise fiscal responsibility and prudent planning, develop our resources, energize Alaskans, and revitalize our spirit.

We are up to the challenge. This is the best lesson we can teach our children."
 

Note: It is a good thing that Osama bin Laden hasn't moved to Pinellas County because he probably would get inexplicably less scrutiny from local law enforcement and liberal net-workers than some staff members of this website.

Back To Top

 Back to Index

Yes...

Amendment 2 & Prop 8

Since Prop 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida were similar in purpose, we will provide updates regarding both successful referendums respectively. 
Prop 8 is in the middle of a cynical legal challenge in California.  With both California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's unbelievable support, the fight to overturn the people's decision, "ProtectMarriage.com" and "Yes on 8" still managed to win several legal issues regarding the challenge. 
The idea is to take the issue all the way to the California Supreme Court, but the gay community does not have a strong legal case even with the support of California's Governor and Attorney General. 
California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a brief on behalf of the gay community which includes a twisted machination, a legal theory that the legal team for protectmarriage.com diplomatically calls "novel."  Jerry Brown said that although Prop 8 was a valid amendment to the state constitution, it should be invalidated because it allegedly violates the "inalienable" rights of same sex couples to liberty.  The Prop 8 legal team responded that the Attorney General's theory was "utterly without foundation in this court's case law." 

In papers submitted to the state Supreme Court, lawyers for the Protect Marriage coalition argued that Brown had "invented an entirely new theory" by asking the justices to trump the electorate, which approved Proposition 8 to amend the state Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Brown, however, argues that the amendment itself is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court established marriage as a fundamental right in its May decision striking down previous one man-one woman marriage statutes.
Starr and co-counsel Andrew Pugno maintained in their brief filed Monday that the attorney general is asking the court to assume powers not granted by the Constitution.
"We will not mince words. The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
"The judiciary is entirely a creature of the Constitution, not an independent, freestanding guardian of minority rights or natural law," they wrote.

In his year end message to church leaders, Pope Benedict XVI also did not mince words.  The Pope reiterated the Roman Catholic Church's stand against homosexuality and warned that "humanity could destroy itself."

That humanity in general is self-destructive is nothing new of course... just look around and read some news everyday.

This website has made some strong statements regarding the destructive nature of homosexuality within the psychological landscape of modern man, and we believe the Pope's statement frames the issue in a similar context and reinforces that view. 

The Pope said the Church "demands that the order of creation be respected"... the order of creation defined as "the nature of the human being as man and woman." 

The Pope also had an interesting comparison, he said: "The rain forest deserves, yes, our protection.  But mankind does not deserve it less as a creature."

Sources and Notes: The article on the Pope's statements came from the Associated Press via Yahoo News with contributions from CNN. ProtectMarriage.org is the only group before the Supreme Court that is defending Prop8 and the rights of the people given to us by the Constitution.  This website encourages anyone who visits this site and is able to afford it, to contribute to the Prop8 legal defense.  You can do so at this link: http://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=Prop8Legal
Not only will you be helping to establish a precedent in the legal battle to define and defend traditional marriage, in this case of California, you will be helping in the fight to stop renegade legal actions and renegade Judges from sidestepping the Constitution.

Yes...

Education Reform in Florida

As recently as January 8, 2009, a Heritage Foundation study found that Florida's education reforms aggressively implemented and safeguarded by former Governor Jeb Bush, against constant complaining from liberals in the media and the teacher's unions during the Governor's tenure, were some of the most successful reforms in the nation...especially the Governor's focus on improving reading in the early grades. 

This website is a strong proponent of education reform based on the idea that the more the federal government tries to control education policy both financially and ideologically, the worse the public education system becomes.  Statistics continue to prove this...
(See the LightBookproductions.com new monthly feature we are developing at Education Feature, where we promote the conservative revolution to re-establish, among other things, the principles of accountability, discipline, and choice in education.

The first several features are from a selection of versatile conservative sources and writers, that focus on the improved success of low-income students when provided vouchers.  Inspection of this one particular issue, especially as it pertains to the Washington DC voucher program, reveals the cynical and deceitful nature of the liberal Democrats socialistic handcuff approach to education in America. 

We still believe that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that vouchers are "unconstitutional" is flawed and pathetically limited, being informed by socio-political considerations.  One would think that a generic sounding "uniform system of education" would be a reference to that which provides the best combination of policies that in turn results in quantifiable improvement in student performance, as opposed to strictly a reference to a financial framework.

I don't think the court said it that way, but the ruling implies they believe that's the only thing "uniform" means.  

So if public schools fail, and they are failing, then according to the liberal socio-political view, you have (in Florida anyway) constitutional protection that supports the view that it must be a lack of taxpayer funded resources.

So therefore, improving education is constitutionally linked to the argument that the public schools only need more public funding (which includes of course, taxpayer funded per pupil costs) to improve education. 
One does not have to be Einstein to see that It would only be a matter of time before the implementation of policy via that mind-set would become insufficient. 

It is this website's view that the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) was more interested in shooting down a powerful Governor who was reforming education in a manner that outpaced and out maneuvered sluggish and confusion-oriented education reform within the gargantuan federal bureaucracy, than they were in seeing no reason why vouchers could not be incorporated into a state's "uniform system of education." 

We also believe that the FSC was more interested in providing a judicial ruling that would protect the extreme liberal public education establishment from having to deal with the challenge of improvement.  Vouchers would be one thing that could prove that more funding is not necessarily the answer to the public education system's persistent failure. 
For example, the issue of the successful voucher program in Washington DC that is being showcased by conservatives and this website (see our Education Feature Pages). And for a good reason, because students can obtain a better education for about half the cost.  As reported on Fox News recently, the per student costs in the Washington DC public school system is about $14,000, while students on the voucher program, which the liberal Congress has refused to fund beyond 2010, costs only about $7,500 per student. 

Back To Top

  Back to Index

Florida

Conservative Policy Watch

1.

Yes...

Hispanics in Florida
for McCain

A recent poll from the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9, indicates that Hispanics in Florida favor John McCain over Barack Obama by 10 points.  Source: Hispanic Republican Club of Pinellas County and Americas Marketing.
Scroll down to the Marriage Amendment to read a sampling of Obama's ultra liberal social agenda that goes against the conservative Hispanic community, as well as the conservative Black community. 

A Note on job growth: Obama was in Florida this week courting the Hispanic vote, campaigning on "job growth."

The reality is: The Heritage Foundation's Data Analysis Center projected that jobs growth under the McCain tax plan would create 1.2 million more jobs than the Obama plan over the next decade.

Click here to see the State by State job growth projections under the McCain and Obama tax plans. Research 1

In fact, in every state John McCain's tax plan is projected to create substantially more jobs than the Obama plan.

In Florida alone, McCain's tax plan would create two-and-a-half times more jobs than Obama's tax plan over the next decade.

In Pennsylvania, another important state, McCain's tax plan would create 49.9 thousand more jobs.

The issue of Joe the Plumber is a serious one.  What does the "message" say to entrepreneurs with their own business when they face a substantial tax increase on the top 5%?  It's simple, Obama's tax plan says to the businessman...Don't try to create wealth, provide more jobs by expanding your business and increasing your profits, because you will be punished with a higher tax. 

Note: Before we could even get this page posted, a Bloomberg report was posted on the web Tuesday morning reporting from Miami that some Republican Hispanics have decided to change their votes to the Democratic Party.  It wasn't much.  Being a journalist one would recognize it was just a reporter with a little story idea using a deceptive headline.  She interviewed someone who knew a Hispanic person who said he knew a few Hispanics in Miami who were considering changing over from Republican to Democrat. 

And speaking of Social Issues.  Education has become a social issue because liberals continue to use the education system as a social indoctrination laboratory. 
As Margaret Hemenway, who has a first grade daughter subjected to some of the homosexual indoctrination tactics, pointed out: "Since homosexual activists cannot reproduce their own children, recruitment to their cause (especially at a young age, before parents have raised such sensitive and controversial topics with their children) is essential to the political agenda of promoting homosexuality and "gay" marriage."

William Ayers comes into play again.  Click on this link to read about another area of radical policy involving William Ayers, the so-called "education professor" as Obama likes to refer to him.

We suggest that any parent with an elementary school age child read Ms. Hemenway's essay "Ayer's Agenda: First Grade Guinea Pigs."  That's the William Ayers, former domestic terrorist, whose relationship with Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has become, as it should, an issue in the Presidential campaign. 

And during this last week of the campaign, Barack Obama started running TV spots in the Tampa Bay media market promoting some of his nebulously worded "plans" for education.  In his TV spot, Barack Obama mentions the important role of parents in a child's education. 

We would not necessarily question whether he means that or not,  but what should be questioned is whether or not Obama also supports the indoctrination policies of the radical left, one of his primary voting blocs.  The point being, that if he does, or if he has only rhetorical equivocations for an answer, then you know he is purposely leaving an opening for the spreading of that which would cancel out his support for more parental involvement in a student's education.  There is nothing "centrist" about that.  That's just strategic radicalism hidden beneath moderate rhetoric.

The mainstream media would never dare to interview Obama (their Messiah) in the aggressive and blunt manner in which Tom Brokaw interviewed John McCain this past Sunday (October 26) on NBC's Meet the Press. 

McCain took the heat and the subtle, insulting tone of the interviewer like a pro.  That double-standard applies even more to McCain's Vice Presidential running mate Governor Sarah Palin.  The mainstream media has mindlessly attacked Sarah Palin with the ghoulish sophistication persistence of those creatures in the film "Night of the Living Dead."  

Yes...

Off-shore Drilling

Yes...

Amendment 2
The Marriage Amendment

Good news from Fox 13 in Pinellas County.  Local Fox News reported last week (October 13) on a poll indicating that the Florida Marriage Amendment has a majority 55% statewide support.  There are also marriage amendment battles going on in California (Prop 8) and Arizona this election cycle. 
This website supports the work being done by the politically powerful Family Research Council in Washington on behalf of traditional marriage throughout the country. 

From our "Get Real" department...When the renegade judges on the California Supreme Court in May of this year cynically overruled a 61% majority vote by the people of California to ban same-sex marriage, the court also sanctioned a change in the language of the California marriage license from "Bride" and "Groom" to a generic "Party A" and "Party B." 
The California Department of Health, recently under pressure from normal women who apparently thought the language change was not only insulting and discriminatory, but also off the charts in terms of psychological health, filed a petition and succeeded in having the original language returned to the document.  

Reminder:  Senator Barack Obama, the ultra-liberal Democratic candidate for President, is spending what must be hundreds of millions in radio and TV advertising throughout the Tampa Bay area.  As a political media market the area is believed to have a lot of Independents and Undecideds during a presidential election. If those potential voters are not numbed and maybe even turned off by the sheer redundancy of those advertisements by now, they well could be by election day.

Independents and Undecided in Florida definitely tend to be more conservative than liberal.  So make no mistake: With the exception of a centrist sounding tax plan that has a hidden welfare income distribution element, behind the Clinton-style rhetoric Obama is a super liberal.   

Obama is against allowing states the right to even vote for a Marriage Amendment.  Voting against a state marriage amendment via a referendum on a ballot is a right everyone deserves to exercise, yet it is another thing altogether to believe the state should not be allowed to hold the referendum vote.

This website in general strongly supports the idea of Federalism, which provides the States with practical power to govern themselves.  So there is no confusion, we support a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.  Individual states began creating referendums to protect their own Constitutions against renegade judges.  California currently being a good example.

Obama, with the support of his equally liberal Congressional associate, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in Washington, also wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. 
DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by a rock solid majority in both the House and Senate.  The House voted 342 to 67 in favor of DOMA, and the Senate voted 85 to 14 in favor.  The combined House and Senate approval for DOMA was over 80%.  This website approves that message. 
We believe the Founding Fathers would also approve that message. 

And who, other than a tragically arrogant and radical individual (yet nevertheless intelligent and politically sharp) would consider same-sex marriage, or the issue of sexual preference, important enough to disallow states to make their own decisions regarding legal recognition of same-sex marriage from another state if the people of that state did not prefer to do that. 
Like the redistribution of income centerpiece of his tax plan, it is a form of heavy handed Socialism disguised with political rhetoric. (See a 10-year projected employment and jobs comparison of John McCain and Barack Obama's tax plans on the Blogs page.)

Obama also plans to homosexualize the military.  Again, with the help of Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, Obama has said he will repeal the 1993 Military Eligibility law (also misrepresented as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell").  Extensive, bi-partisan congressional research concluded with a solid majority vote that homosexuality is not compatible with military service.  Nothing has happened that would change or invalidate the congressional research that informed to original majority vote.

We are not sure why, yet, social issues have not played an important role in the 2008 campaign so far.  During the last third of the campaign Obama has tried with shifting positions to portray himself as a centrist on several areas not necessarily related to social issues.  We see the scattered polls indicating an Obama lead, and we understand the popularity and momentum of the Obama phenomenon, and the mainstream media's virtual worshiping of Obama, but we believe it is still possible for Independents and Undecideds to have second thoughts and see Obama's centrism as questionable at best, and therefore, policy-wise he is still an imbalanced candidate because the social agenda is so radically liberal. 

As the Economist points out in the current issue: "In Chicago he got on well with everybody from the local teachers' unions to the Dailey political machine.  In the Senate he has voted with his party 97% of the time.  He toes the most liberal line on late-term and partial-birth abortion.  Even a highly experienced Democratic president with a record of bucking his party would find it hard to tame a large Democratic majority in Congress.  A neophyte with a record of going along to get along could find it impossible." 

For example:  As we suspected, Obama had to reach out to the extreme Moveon.org agenda where he is more comfortable anyway, to defeat Hillary Clinton for the nomination. And now former President Bill Clinton is advising Obama on how to rhetorically move back to the center just enough they would presume, to get elected. 

If he is elected, we do not believe Obama is prepared (experienced enough) to govern from the "center" he has suddenly tried to change directions toward. 
In other words, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will see a President Obama, Democrat or not, on both domestic and foreign policy, as an easy prey. 

Not to mention the discombobulated way Obama's own running mate has presented the issue of Obama's inexperience with National Security.  Just the fact that someone with so little experience would be voted into office, on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, considering America's highly volatile, delicate and potentially dangerous geo-political position, sends a message that we are not only divided, but that we are also unwise.

Yes...

School Vouchers and the 65% solution

One reason this website strongly supports voucher programs is because, as former Governor Jeb Bush said, there is no reason voucher programs cannot be implemented within, or be part of a "uniform" system of education, as the Florida Constitution calls for. 
One would continue to ask what the real motive is behind the Florida Supreme Court's decision to keep voucher programs out of the Florida school system. 
Both long term and recent research from the Heritage Foundation shows that when families are allowed to choose their children's schools, academic achievement rises. "The high quality studies on school voucher programs generally reach positive conclusions about vouchers...Of the ten separate analyzes of data from the "gold standard" experimental studies of voucher programs, nine conclude that some or all of the participants benefited academically from using a voucher to attend private school."  
So one would ask?  What is really more important, for the law as the requirement to be interpreted or implemented in a way to provide the best scenario for student achievement?
Or is it more important for the law to protect the funding monopolies of a liberal education establishment more interested in keeping social engineering and ineffective education policies chained to ideological views?  This blindness to reform, no matter what logic they use for an excuse, is a primary reason American kids continue to be shuffled further away from academic achievement. 
Reminder: From as recent as Sunday (9-14-08):  In Parade magazine Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the brilliant conservative justices on the high court for twenty years, was asked this question:
"Is there a role for politics in our judicial system?"
Scalia replied: "None whatever.  The absolute worst violation of the judge's oath is to decide a case based on a partisan political or philosophical basis, rather than what the law requires."

Yes...

WDUV Radio

Paige Carrera's Dependable Traffic Reports...The most beautiful voice on the Tampa Bay radio spectrum.

Back To Top

 Back to Index