Key to victory is that Republicans develop a 435 strategy, fielding candidates in every seat. The need to take the fight to Democrats should be obvious to anyone who’s ever watched as much as a little league game in which one team has a great offense while the other plays a fine defensive strategy. Team offense wins 10-1.
Fielding a candidate in each congressional district also allows us to gain some real stars who want to do amazing things for their district. Few if any have ever run with a more unique story than 2010’s Republican candidate for Florida’s 23rd district, renown human rights leader Bernard Sansaricq.
To begin with, Bernard Sansaricq knows the struggle for human rights first hand. This leader, who eventually rose to become the President of the Senate in Haiti, saw 13 members of his family killed by the Duvallier regime in 1964. In August 1987, Sansaricq was almost assassinated by the Haitian Army. His life was spared when friends managed to bring him to safety at Haiti's Argentine Embassy.
From his place of refuge, Sansaricq launched the beginnings of a stunning political career, one that saw him rise to become one of Haiti’s top leaders and President of the Haitian Senate. His platform was one of human rights and until former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide overturned his humanitarian and crime reduction initiatives, Sansaricq was able to accomplish much for his people, including the introduction of a living wage for many and improved US relations. Sansaricq was American educated and returned to the United States in 1994.
A passionate believer in economic achievement, American human rights and excellence, Sansaricq is now running for US Congress in Florida’s 23rd congressional district. His goal is to fight for better conditions for small business and to champion human rights. With regard to the latter, he believes that the United States should work with Haiti to end the horrific abuses of backbreaking child labor and lay the foundation for a stable economy. A passionate believer in human rights everywhere, Sansaricq will also step up pressure on the Castro regime to respect human rights, stand with Israel and India against terror and lead the cause for better economic conditions and fair treatment all across the globe.
Sansaricq is very experienced on the international stage and is finishing his second book on international affairs. During the first overthrow of Aristide, Sansaricq was in constant contact with the US Ambassador in Haiti and met with then Congressman and future UN Ambassador Bill Richardson, seeking to cement better relations between the United States and the island nation. Such improved relations would not only benefit Haiti. They would help curb threats against the United States throughout Central and Latin America. Sansaricq was also a regular guest on Nightline, Good Morning America and the Today Show as international attention turned to the island.
“I believe that America has been a force for good throughout the world,” concludes Sansaricq, “but we must also ensure that we provide for our people at home. People in District 23, be they native born, Haitian-American, Cuban-American, or other, all care about economic opportunity. We need to support small business, the bedrock of our job market and the lifeblood of many of our families. We need to give youth a reason to stay in school, by showing them the opportunities that education helps them to achieve. District 23 is among the most impoverished in the nation, and it’s about time somebody does something about it.”
Asked why he is running, Sansaricq replied, “first of all, I believe in the principles of personal responsibility and self motivation. I also believe that families provide our youth with the optimal conditions for success. I also believe that the Republican Party has been more willing to stand up to the brutality embodied by the Castro regime and more willing to pressure the Haitian government to take action against the horrific child labor abuses throughout its countryside.”
Sansaricq continued, “but what my campaign is about is ensuring economic excellence, strengthening the ability of families to achieve the American Dream and reforming the justice system so that we stop making career criminals out of previously non-violent offenders.”
It should be noted that Sansaricq’s campaign for criminal justice reform, an issue that we are working on as a team, is one that is crucial to the safety of society and to the nation as a whole, yet it is often overlooked because it isn’t a hot button issue. Real leadership means identifying problems before they become hot button topics, and doing something about them. That’s what is so attractive about this campaign.
Asked if he can beat long time incumbent Alcee Hastings, Sansaricq replied, “in a word, yes. 2010 is not a presidential election year. There are no other issues on the table for people in District 23 other than what is good for the district. They’ll have my platform, I am a fighter and I intend to bring real change, change that comes from experience at improving the conditions of those who need it most.”
For more information or to get involved please visit www.sansaricq4congress.org.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Crushed Lemur Monkey is an Insult to the Evolution Hoax
In the latest act of media hyped pseudo-science, aka liberal/conventional science, the discovery of the crushed and flattened fossil of a lemur monkey, that while alive had a shattered left wrist, is being touted as the needed “proof” of Darwinian theory.
For the first time, all scientists interviewed freely admit that the theory of evolution had gaping holes in it. They just claim that all of the answers lie in the packaged, crushed fossil that spent the last 20 years hanging on someone’s wall. In other words, they admit that until yesterday, anyone who claimed that there was anything close to conclusive proof of evolutionary theory was wrong, despite having sold that line for decades. The extent of the absurdity of their new “proof” will be outlined below.
The media, which specializes in hyping the ordinary, went as far as to call this spectacle the possible eighth wonder of the world. These are the same crowd that revels in referring to every new president (regardless of party) as the next possible Lincoln or FDR, every foreign leader the next possible Churchill and every Vice President of the United States…. Well, I guess there are some things that even today’s media cannot hype.
Their latest over hyped fraud should be seen as shameful to both creationists and evolutionists alike - although for different reasons, as will be explained. But before we can delve into the substance of the issue, since we’re dealing with liberal “scientists” (as much as one can label as “scientists” members of a radical bunch that walks and thinks in lock step on all matters), I first need to foolproof the article as much as possible. Those who wish to advance to the meat of the issue would be advised to skip the next few paragraphs.
I’m writing this column for evolutionists who are not necessarily atheists. The difference between the two, aside from the obvious philosophical ones, is that it is possible to dialogue with many evolutionists. By contrast, most activist atheists, at least the kind you find on the internet, resort to spinning the words of their opponents or to other fun and games.
The difference was evident in the reaction to two articles that I wrote last year. The first was about logical proof of the existence of the Divine. I prefaced the column by writing that all arguments listed apply whether one believes in creationism or evolutionism and then proceeded to list the actual arguments. That preamble was ignored as hundreds on Richard Dawkins forum chose to twist one of my arguments (or part of one, to be precise), that the entire universe could not have come about “spontaneously,” meaning randomly and in and of itself (as atheists claim) and that the complexities needed to give life to a single organism necessitate conscious participation in creation.
The atheists spun “spontaneous” into “instantaneous” and then proceeded to attack words that I had not said, a favorite tactic of theirs when they’re on the losing side of an argument, with the folly of their illogical views close to be exposed. In the end, they even launched an all out campaign to have my column terminated or to have a liberal-approved “science editor” oversee my work (hardly the tactics they would use had my points been as imbecilic and invalid as they claimed). In so doing, they revealed the tactics they usually employ to ensure that their side is only one that is heard in the mainstream media.
At all times the atheists refused to discuss the premise of the actual article or the listed proofs of the Divine, instead concentrating their attacks on evolution (despite the fact there was nothing in the article about evolution, other than the premise that the arguments listed applied equally to those who believe in evolution as well as those who do not). When I pointed out the only thing they had proven was their own inability to read, they did not take too kindly to that. I followed up with a short article pointing out the folly of evolutionary theory, an article that was met with deafening silence.
At the same time, I also engaged in a debate with an atheist, supposedly about atheism. He too refused to discuss the actual matter of belief in a Divine being and instead centered his arguments on evolution. I obliged. What became clear in the process was that despite my lack of adherence to evolutionary theory and his steadfast and unwavering devotion to same, I was far more familiar with evolutionary theory he or his likeminded posters were. The staunch evolutionists were only able to quote group think and were ignorant of the intricacies and rationale behind the theory, rationale that falls apart upon proper dissection and analysis.
In short, the difference between plain evolutionists and atheist activists is that the former are generally more open to debate and discussion. To be sure, this is becoming less and less the case, due to perpetual losses in open debate against creationist scientists. But in general, it is usually the atheistic element within the evolutionist community that seeks to deny tenure to creationist professors, to censor their writings or to deny them employment in the first place. Non-atheistic evolutionists, by and large, are at least open to having a civil discussion on the matter.
The counters to evolutionary theory are many. The abundance of ape and human fossils and the scarcity of even possibly transitional forms is just one central argument. For a full overview of the farcical charts, groundless assumptions and other central problems with evolutionary theory, the reader is encouraged to first read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and to then go on to the plethora of books discussing all aspects of the issue.
Much information is available on the web as well and for now I’ll concentrate on the longstanding problem of the lack of transitional fossils, a problem with evolutionary theory that almost every evolutionist I’ve come across has turned blue in the face saying denying. But in doing so, they argue with Darwin, as the lack of transitional forms is a central problem that he recognized within his own theory (Darwin felt that the passage of time and the unearthing of new fossils would solve this problem. He acknowledged that the inability to do so would all but disprove his theory if other fossils were excavated on mass. Given the plethora of fossils now recovered, we have our answer).
So it’s refreshingly honest to hear evolutionists admit that the lack of transitional fossils was a gaping hole and a giant question mark on their theory. It’s just sad that they now base their “proof” on the flattened fossil of lemur monkey, with a broken wrist to boot.
The scientists who now admit that evolution was an unprovable theory until the discovery of someone’s collection monkey overlook certain basic facts.
To begin with, the extra toe is similar to the myriads of monkeys who are born with extra digits. Periostitis may be a factor as well (i.e. the bone may have been inflamed). In any case, the fossil is crushed. And those would be valid points if there was any validity to the claim that the lemur fossil even qualifies for consideration as a transitional form. The plethora of non-transitional fossils, with equal amounts of carbon depletion, and the corresponding need to look for any hints of transitional signs in the one in umpteen thousand where any deformity is present (many caused by the aging or decay of the fossil), makes the case that true transition never occurred – for had the gradual transition central to the theory of evolution occurred, transitional fossils would be found in greater numbers than non-transitional ones (given natural reproductive rates) or at least be found in some substantive number.
Another point becomes crystal clear upon analysis of the entire issue. The liberal agenda has proven to be the death nail of conventional science. Gone is any rhyme or reason and logical analysis is held in disdain. Modern day conventional scientists, at least those who are sanctioned by official organizations, are parrots of left wing sociologists, pharmaceutical funders and/or panderers for politically driven grants. Contrary to the norms of any body engaged in the pursuit of truth, they silence and defame critics, doing so in unison and without second thought. When called to the floor for their bad behavior, they ridicule and defame the accuser in turn.
Evolutionary theory has also become the bedrock of liberal psychology, with devastating consequences. Instead of seeking to improve the human psyche and develop proper character traits and lifeskills, pop psychology all too often concerns itself with justifying and even encouraging feel good behavior that has long term destructive consequences. Evolution is central to this madness, in which people are encouraged to live like animals in pursuit of instant, hollow and quick ending self gratification, instead of living as human beings and striving to make a difference in their lives, in their families and in the world around them.
Scientists have finally admitted that the lack of transitional fossils presents a huge problem to the theory of evolution. They finally recognize Darwin’s own words that the lack of these fossils would disprove his theory if more fossils were excavated and transitional ones were not found. The honest among them may even admit that Darwin himself would reject evolutionary theory today, based on the multitude of fossils now excavated. But to resort to basing the case for his entire theory on a single lemur monkey with a fractured left wrist and flattened to a pancake over time is nothing short of insanity. Creationists and evolutionists should join forces in denouncing it.
This case finally reveals the flimsy foundation upon which evolutionary theory is based. That’s a reason for the scientific community to finally approach this subject honestly. But it’s no reason to take a fossil that proves nothing to either side of the debate and to have the media to suggest that it may just be “the eighth wonder of the world.” Doing so is an insult to both sides of the debate, as well as to the intelligence of the reading public. The only possible “eighth wonder” in this case is the monumental idiocy of the journalists and of the scientists involved in perpetrating this flattened, shattered lemur hoax.
For the first time, all scientists interviewed freely admit that the theory of evolution had gaping holes in it. They just claim that all of the answers lie in the packaged, crushed fossil that spent the last 20 years hanging on someone’s wall. In other words, they admit that until yesterday, anyone who claimed that there was anything close to conclusive proof of evolutionary theory was wrong, despite having sold that line for decades. The extent of the absurdity of their new “proof” will be outlined below.
The media, which specializes in hyping the ordinary, went as far as to call this spectacle the possible eighth wonder of the world. These are the same crowd that revels in referring to every new president (regardless of party) as the next possible Lincoln or FDR, every foreign leader the next possible Churchill and every Vice President of the United States…. Well, I guess there are some things that even today’s media cannot hype.
Their latest over hyped fraud should be seen as shameful to both creationists and evolutionists alike - although for different reasons, as will be explained. But before we can delve into the substance of the issue, since we’re dealing with liberal “scientists” (as much as one can label as “scientists” members of a radical bunch that walks and thinks in lock step on all matters), I first need to foolproof the article as much as possible. Those who wish to advance to the meat of the issue would be advised to skip the next few paragraphs.
I’m writing this column for evolutionists who are not necessarily atheists. The difference between the two, aside from the obvious philosophical ones, is that it is possible to dialogue with many evolutionists. By contrast, most activist atheists, at least the kind you find on the internet, resort to spinning the words of their opponents or to other fun and games.
The difference was evident in the reaction to two articles that I wrote last year. The first was about logical proof of the existence of the Divine. I prefaced the column by writing that all arguments listed apply whether one believes in creationism or evolutionism and then proceeded to list the actual arguments. That preamble was ignored as hundreds on Richard Dawkins forum chose to twist one of my arguments (or part of one, to be precise), that the entire universe could not have come about “spontaneously,” meaning randomly and in and of itself (as atheists claim) and that the complexities needed to give life to a single organism necessitate conscious participation in creation.
The atheists spun “spontaneous” into “instantaneous” and then proceeded to attack words that I had not said, a favorite tactic of theirs when they’re on the losing side of an argument, with the folly of their illogical views close to be exposed. In the end, they even launched an all out campaign to have my column terminated or to have a liberal-approved “science editor” oversee my work (hardly the tactics they would use had my points been as imbecilic and invalid as they claimed). In so doing, they revealed the tactics they usually employ to ensure that their side is only one that is heard in the mainstream media.
At all times the atheists refused to discuss the premise of the actual article or the listed proofs of the Divine, instead concentrating their attacks on evolution (despite the fact there was nothing in the article about evolution, other than the premise that the arguments listed applied equally to those who believe in evolution as well as those who do not). When I pointed out the only thing they had proven was their own inability to read, they did not take too kindly to that. I followed up with a short article pointing out the folly of evolutionary theory, an article that was met with deafening silence.
At the same time, I also engaged in a debate with an atheist, supposedly about atheism. He too refused to discuss the actual matter of belief in a Divine being and instead centered his arguments on evolution. I obliged. What became clear in the process was that despite my lack of adherence to evolutionary theory and his steadfast and unwavering devotion to same, I was far more familiar with evolutionary theory he or his likeminded posters were. The staunch evolutionists were only able to quote group think and were ignorant of the intricacies and rationale behind the theory, rationale that falls apart upon proper dissection and analysis.
In short, the difference between plain evolutionists and atheist activists is that the former are generally more open to debate and discussion. To be sure, this is becoming less and less the case, due to perpetual losses in open debate against creationist scientists. But in general, it is usually the atheistic element within the evolutionist community that seeks to deny tenure to creationist professors, to censor their writings or to deny them employment in the first place. Non-atheistic evolutionists, by and large, are at least open to having a civil discussion on the matter.
The counters to evolutionary theory are many. The abundance of ape and human fossils and the scarcity of even possibly transitional forms is just one central argument. For a full overview of the farcical charts, groundless assumptions and other central problems with evolutionary theory, the reader is encouraged to first read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and to then go on to the plethora of books discussing all aspects of the issue.
Much information is available on the web as well and for now I’ll concentrate on the longstanding problem of the lack of transitional fossils, a problem with evolutionary theory that almost every evolutionist I’ve come across has turned blue in the face saying denying. But in doing so, they argue with Darwin, as the lack of transitional forms is a central problem that he recognized within his own theory (Darwin felt that the passage of time and the unearthing of new fossils would solve this problem. He acknowledged that the inability to do so would all but disprove his theory if other fossils were excavated on mass. Given the plethora of fossils now recovered, we have our answer).
So it’s refreshingly honest to hear evolutionists admit that the lack of transitional fossils was a gaping hole and a giant question mark on their theory. It’s just sad that they now base their “proof” on the flattened fossil of lemur monkey, with a broken wrist to boot.
The scientists who now admit that evolution was an unprovable theory until the discovery of someone’s collection monkey overlook certain basic facts.
To begin with, the extra toe is similar to the myriads of monkeys who are born with extra digits. Periostitis may be a factor as well (i.e. the bone may have been inflamed). In any case, the fossil is crushed. And those would be valid points if there was any validity to the claim that the lemur fossil even qualifies for consideration as a transitional form. The plethora of non-transitional fossils, with equal amounts of carbon depletion, and the corresponding need to look for any hints of transitional signs in the one in umpteen thousand where any deformity is present (many caused by the aging or decay of the fossil), makes the case that true transition never occurred – for had the gradual transition central to the theory of evolution occurred, transitional fossils would be found in greater numbers than non-transitional ones (given natural reproductive rates) or at least be found in some substantive number.
Another point becomes crystal clear upon analysis of the entire issue. The liberal agenda has proven to be the death nail of conventional science. Gone is any rhyme or reason and logical analysis is held in disdain. Modern day conventional scientists, at least those who are sanctioned by official organizations, are parrots of left wing sociologists, pharmaceutical funders and/or panderers for politically driven grants. Contrary to the norms of any body engaged in the pursuit of truth, they silence and defame critics, doing so in unison and without second thought. When called to the floor for their bad behavior, they ridicule and defame the accuser in turn.
Evolutionary theory has also become the bedrock of liberal psychology, with devastating consequences. Instead of seeking to improve the human psyche and develop proper character traits and lifeskills, pop psychology all too often concerns itself with justifying and even encouraging feel good behavior that has long term destructive consequences. Evolution is central to this madness, in which people are encouraged to live like animals in pursuit of instant, hollow and quick ending self gratification, instead of living as human beings and striving to make a difference in their lives, in their families and in the world around them.
Scientists have finally admitted that the lack of transitional fossils presents a huge problem to the theory of evolution. They finally recognize Darwin’s own words that the lack of these fossils would disprove his theory if more fossils were excavated and transitional ones were not found. The honest among them may even admit that Darwin himself would reject evolutionary theory today, based on the multitude of fossils now excavated. But to resort to basing the case for his entire theory on a single lemur monkey with a fractured left wrist and flattened to a pancake over time is nothing short of insanity. Creationists and evolutionists should join forces in denouncing it.
This case finally reveals the flimsy foundation upon which evolutionary theory is based. That’s a reason for the scientific community to finally approach this subject honestly. But it’s no reason to take a fossil that proves nothing to either side of the debate and to have the media to suggest that it may just be “the eighth wonder of the world.” Doing so is an insult to both sides of the debate, as well as to the intelligence of the reading public. The only possible “eighth wonder” in this case is the monumental idiocy of the journalists and of the scientists involved in perpetrating this flattened, shattered lemur hoax.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Why Marco Rubio is the Next Ronald Reagan
Listening to Marco Rubio, one can almost hear what the Gipper would say: “One day a young, well versed, bright son of immigrants, who is every bit as passionate about the words and ideals of our Founding Fathers as Americans were in their time (probably interjecting with one of his typical self-effacing quips: “I know, I was there”) will be president. Let’s just make sure he’s a Republican.” In Marco Rubio, the Gipper would be proud.
In Marco Rubio, Ronald Reagan would also find an heir to his legacy in more ways than one. But before I explain how Rubio is like the Gipper, let me preface with why the two are alike.
Republicans today are consumed with finding a next Reagan, yet in their search, most seem to miss one crucial point. Ronald Reagan never aspired to be Ronald Reagan. He was a man of sincere and passionate beliefs who was ready to take the fight to where he needed to.
Ronald Reagan saw real problems, proposed real and common sense solutions and then fought for them with a focused passion that can only come from a determination to do what is right.
Reagan’s message was essential. His ideas were needed. The race was never about him. It was about setting America on a proper path, starting with the needed task of taking the nation off of a path that had thus far led to destruction, or at least toward decay.
Marco Rubio is intelligent and sincere. His policies reflect his thoughts and sound ideas. You can tell the difference between a man who merely talks the talk and a leader who espouses and communicates his sincere beliefs. The former is more often than not left twisting in the wind when his ideas are challenged. The latter, if articulate, can use such challenges to explain the soundness of his or her views.
Marco Rubio understands that one of our biggest problems as a nation are low rates of household savings and society’s desire to consume. So Rubio favors a fair tax that encourages savings and makes those who spend frivolously contribute to the nation as they do so. Moreover, Rubio makes no bones about how the current tax system rewards those who can afford the best accountants and attorneys, and who thereby find the best loopholes. He also makes no bones about how that system needs to change.
On family values, Rubio walks the walk. He’s the embodiment of a family man first and foremost. Needless to say, he understands the important role that national security plays in protecting both family and country.
Like the Gipper, Marco Rubio gives the impression that he understands a most crucial point in governing; that what works for the family is also what works for government. This philosophy is central to good government and to sound economic policy – but that’s for another article, as it deserves proper explanation. The main point is that Rubio understands public policy in a way that can only come from a sincere endeavor to arrive at conclusions that are truly in the public interest. In this way, Marco Rubio is the heir to the real legacy of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Rubio’s interest lies not in winning a popularity contest, rather in winning the battle of ideas. And because of this, Rubio, like Reagan, will do wonders for the nation for years to come.
And yet, there is another way that Marco Rubio is like Ronald Reagan, and because of this, our involvement is needed in his campaign. Like Reagan, Rubio is being challenged by the weaker wing of the party, one that is devoid of ideas and interested in maintaining the status quo. Up until 1980, this wing fought Reagan at every turn, not because they failed to recognize the unique qualities that the Gipper possessed, but because they were worried about rocking the boat. And that same overcautious wing that paralyzes the party’s ability to progress and draw new blood is as hesitant of the dynamic Marco Rubio as they were of Ronald Reagan less than 30 years ago.
But yesterday’s mistakes are today’s utter folly. In 1980, we did not have the advantage of hindsight. In 1980, we Republicans also did not have a strong Democratic opponent who made it necessary for Republicans to seize the initiative and momentum. In 1980, we were not bleeding for a young candidate to reach out to youth, Ronald Reagan did just fine. And in 1980, we had yet to recognize the need for minority outreach. All of the above necessitates a Rubio candidacy.
I don’t want to overplay this point. While the media pundits who gave us Rudy and Hillary as sure bets until two months before the primaries are now touting Charlie Crist, Crist’s home town paper needed to report that in Crist’s own home county, more than half of those who attend party meetings signed up to help Rubio. The paper was also forced to report that mention of Charlie Crist has actually drawn boos from average Republican crowds throughout the state.
(I don’t want to harp on this either. Charlie Crist is a widely liked person among independents. Honestly, I don’t see how a Senate run as a candidate of “bipartisan appeal” against an up and coming Republican star helps Crist’s national ambitions. If he were to lay the groundwork for two years for a run against popular Democrat Bill Nelson - an easier feat than it seems – Crist could spend the next two years traveling the state and campaigning full time while Nelson is forced to rubber stamp the Obama agenda – Crist would he heralded as a giant slayer. Running for the seat open in 2010, even if he were to win, would prevent Crist from advancing beyond the Senate. He’d be the consensus general election candidate and bruised among Republicans for his run against an enthused up and coming conservative. And if he is the nominee in 2010, look for Democrats to build an Obama-like story around their nominee, Kendrick Meek, one that Rubio can easily counter and that Charlie Crist cannot.)
Marco Rubio, if made our nominee, will be an instant national figure and the cornerstone of youth and Hispanic outreach. Of Cuban-American descent, Rubio will be able to make strong inroads in the demographic that is most fluid and most up for grabs. He’ll do so without compromising or wavering on any conservative principles. Most of all, Rubio is simply the best candidate to arrive on the political stage in a long time. I hope to speak of President Rubio some day, but for now we need to get him elected to the US Senate.
An appeal to readers and to all likeminded people who wish to have a strong and vibrant common sense and values oriented party: Get involved in this campaign. Sign up at www.MarcoRubio.com. It is a fight that is truly worth fighting.
In Marco Rubio, Ronald Reagan would also find an heir to his legacy in more ways than one. But before I explain how Rubio is like the Gipper, let me preface with why the two are alike.
Republicans today are consumed with finding a next Reagan, yet in their search, most seem to miss one crucial point. Ronald Reagan never aspired to be Ronald Reagan. He was a man of sincere and passionate beliefs who was ready to take the fight to where he needed to.
Ronald Reagan saw real problems, proposed real and common sense solutions and then fought for them with a focused passion that can only come from a determination to do what is right.
Reagan’s message was essential. His ideas were needed. The race was never about him. It was about setting America on a proper path, starting with the needed task of taking the nation off of a path that had thus far led to destruction, or at least toward decay.
Marco Rubio is intelligent and sincere. His policies reflect his thoughts and sound ideas. You can tell the difference between a man who merely talks the talk and a leader who espouses and communicates his sincere beliefs. The former is more often than not left twisting in the wind when his ideas are challenged. The latter, if articulate, can use such challenges to explain the soundness of his or her views.
Marco Rubio understands that one of our biggest problems as a nation are low rates of household savings and society’s desire to consume. So Rubio favors a fair tax that encourages savings and makes those who spend frivolously contribute to the nation as they do so. Moreover, Rubio makes no bones about how the current tax system rewards those who can afford the best accountants and attorneys, and who thereby find the best loopholes. He also makes no bones about how that system needs to change.
On family values, Rubio walks the walk. He’s the embodiment of a family man first and foremost. Needless to say, he understands the important role that national security plays in protecting both family and country.
Like the Gipper, Marco Rubio gives the impression that he understands a most crucial point in governing; that what works for the family is also what works for government. This philosophy is central to good government and to sound economic policy – but that’s for another article, as it deserves proper explanation. The main point is that Rubio understands public policy in a way that can only come from a sincere endeavor to arrive at conclusions that are truly in the public interest. In this way, Marco Rubio is the heir to the real legacy of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Rubio’s interest lies not in winning a popularity contest, rather in winning the battle of ideas. And because of this, Rubio, like Reagan, will do wonders for the nation for years to come.
And yet, there is another way that Marco Rubio is like Ronald Reagan, and because of this, our involvement is needed in his campaign. Like Reagan, Rubio is being challenged by the weaker wing of the party, one that is devoid of ideas and interested in maintaining the status quo. Up until 1980, this wing fought Reagan at every turn, not because they failed to recognize the unique qualities that the Gipper possessed, but because they were worried about rocking the boat. And that same overcautious wing that paralyzes the party’s ability to progress and draw new blood is as hesitant of the dynamic Marco Rubio as they were of Ronald Reagan less than 30 years ago.
But yesterday’s mistakes are today’s utter folly. In 1980, we did not have the advantage of hindsight. In 1980, we Republicans also did not have a strong Democratic opponent who made it necessary for Republicans to seize the initiative and momentum. In 1980, we were not bleeding for a young candidate to reach out to youth, Ronald Reagan did just fine. And in 1980, we had yet to recognize the need for minority outreach. All of the above necessitates a Rubio candidacy.
I don’t want to overplay this point. While the media pundits who gave us Rudy and Hillary as sure bets until two months before the primaries are now touting Charlie Crist, Crist’s home town paper needed to report that in Crist’s own home county, more than half of those who attend party meetings signed up to help Rubio. The paper was also forced to report that mention of Charlie Crist has actually drawn boos from average Republican crowds throughout the state.
(I don’t want to harp on this either. Charlie Crist is a widely liked person among independents. Honestly, I don’t see how a Senate run as a candidate of “bipartisan appeal” against an up and coming Republican star helps Crist’s national ambitions. If he were to lay the groundwork for two years for a run against popular Democrat Bill Nelson - an easier feat than it seems – Crist could spend the next two years traveling the state and campaigning full time while Nelson is forced to rubber stamp the Obama agenda – Crist would he heralded as a giant slayer. Running for the seat open in 2010, even if he were to win, would prevent Crist from advancing beyond the Senate. He’d be the consensus general election candidate and bruised among Republicans for his run against an enthused up and coming conservative. And if he is the nominee in 2010, look for Democrats to build an Obama-like story around their nominee, Kendrick Meek, one that Rubio can easily counter and that Charlie Crist cannot.)
Marco Rubio, if made our nominee, will be an instant national figure and the cornerstone of youth and Hispanic outreach. Of Cuban-American descent, Rubio will be able to make strong inroads in the demographic that is most fluid and most up for grabs. He’ll do so without compromising or wavering on any conservative principles. Most of all, Rubio is simply the best candidate to arrive on the political stage in a long time. I hope to speak of President Rubio some day, but for now we need to get him elected to the US Senate.
An appeal to readers and to all likeminded people who wish to have a strong and vibrant common sense and values oriented party: Get involved in this campaign. Sign up at www.MarcoRubio.com. It is a fight that is truly worth fighting.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Te Andre Gomion Announces Mayoral Run, Seeks to Change City
North Lauderdale, FL – It’s not every day that we see young people taking a stand to better the quality of life in their city. When they do, it’s often their first foray into the political arena and their platform often lacks specifics. This rare mix of youth and experience is what makes Te Andre Gomion’s run for Mayor of North Lauderdale truly unique.
Most importantly, Te Andre Gomion knows why he’s running. Gomion is clear about his position that it will take someone like him to reach out to young people and curb the growing crime rate that has plagued the city. “Right now there is no dialogue between police officers and our youth. There needs to be a coming together. As someone who was their age only a few years ago, I can and will reach out to them and make this happen,” said Gomion on the issue.
Gomion also wants to beautify the city and help small business flourish. “Simply put, if we take pride in our streets, if we fix our roads, preserve our parks and make North Lauderdale a home, kids will feel at home in the community. If we continue to let our city decay, we cannot hope to inspire youth. Our city needs a revamp both inside and out. The way one’s neighborhood looks really does affect how one feels about life and whether or not youth are inspired to succeed.”
Gomion also seeks to build small business within the city. He cites the work of neighboring Lauderdale Lakes and their Economic Development office in training local business owners to succeed, especially their program that awards the most hard working with free business consultation. “The program has done wonders for local, family owned businesses there and I’d like to see the same kind of program introduced to North Lauderdale. It’s crucial for the success of family business and will provide the city with the revenue we need to reform,” said Gomion.
Gomion may be on the young side, but he is experienced. At twenty years old, Gomion serves as ROTC Liaison to the Commander and has taken a leading role in the SHAPE Program and in Young Diplomats of Broward County.
Public service and a keen knack for civic affairs comes easily to Gomion, who has been active in local politics since he was only thirteen. He has also managed several political campaigns in his district and has done previous work at the Broward Supervisor of Elections office starting in 2006, the same year that he entered ROTC. He has a close relationship with Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes, who he considers to be a personal mentor. Additionally, Gomion is the recipient of numerous awards, both from the ROTC as well as scholastically and even holds an In Pursuit of Excellence Award from the Supervisor of Elections Office.
Gomion’s run has attracted several endorsements. Broward businessman and former Professor Charles O’Brady said, “I’ve known Te Andre for a long time. He’s dedicated, ethical and will get the job done well. It’s hard to think of someone who will be a greater credit to his city.” The political strategy firm IRPW, which usually deals with federal candidates, was asked and has agreed to offer its strategic services to the campaign. The company’s president, Yomin Postelnik, said “here’s one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable young Americans seeking to make a real difference in his community. Gomion can bring needed reform to his city while also reaching out to youth in an effective and very meaningful way. We need more people like him in civic office. I know Te Andre. He can and will accomplish more than anyone else in that office.”
Most importantly, Te Andre Gomion knows why he’s running. Gomion is clear about his position that it will take someone like him to reach out to young people and curb the growing crime rate that has plagued the city. “Right now there is no dialogue between police officers and our youth. There needs to be a coming together. As someone who was their age only a few years ago, I can and will reach out to them and make this happen,” said Gomion on the issue.
Gomion also wants to beautify the city and help small business flourish. “Simply put, if we take pride in our streets, if we fix our roads, preserve our parks and make North Lauderdale a home, kids will feel at home in the community. If we continue to let our city decay, we cannot hope to inspire youth. Our city needs a revamp both inside and out. The way one’s neighborhood looks really does affect how one feels about life and whether or not youth are inspired to succeed.”
Gomion also seeks to build small business within the city. He cites the work of neighboring Lauderdale Lakes and their Economic Development office in training local business owners to succeed, especially their program that awards the most hard working with free business consultation. “The program has done wonders for local, family owned businesses there and I’d like to see the same kind of program introduced to North Lauderdale. It’s crucial for the success of family business and will provide the city with the revenue we need to reform,” said Gomion.
Gomion may be on the young side, but he is experienced. At twenty years old, Gomion serves as ROTC Liaison to the Commander and has taken a leading role in the SHAPE Program and in Young Diplomats of Broward County.
Public service and a keen knack for civic affairs comes easily to Gomion, who has been active in local politics since he was only thirteen. He has also managed several political campaigns in his district and has done previous work at the Broward Supervisor of Elections office starting in 2006, the same year that he entered ROTC. He has a close relationship with Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes, who he considers to be a personal mentor. Additionally, Gomion is the recipient of numerous awards, both from the ROTC as well as scholastically and even holds an In Pursuit of Excellence Award from the Supervisor of Elections Office.
Gomion’s run has attracted several endorsements. Broward businessman and former Professor Charles O’Brady said, “I’ve known Te Andre for a long time. He’s dedicated, ethical and will get the job done well. It’s hard to think of someone who will be a greater credit to his city.” The political strategy firm IRPW, which usually deals with federal candidates, was asked and has agreed to offer its strategic services to the campaign. The company’s president, Yomin Postelnik, said “here’s one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable young Americans seeking to make a real difference in his community. Gomion can bring needed reform to his city while also reaching out to youth in an effective and very meaningful way. We need more people like him in civic office. I know Te Andre. He can and will accomplish more than anyone else in that office.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
