 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Our records indicate that you have requested an absentee ballot for the August 24th Primary election - thank you for voting by mail! The August 24th Primary Election will be hotly contested and incredibly important for Florida's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Below you can find a short list of candidates Equality Florida Action PAC strongly recommends for the primary. We are very selective in who we recommend, and everyone on this list is a champion for our community. Please take a moment to review the list below and then be sure to fill out and mail your ballot today!
Remember: If you choose to vote at an early vote or election day polling site you MUST present precinct workers with your absentee ballot. We recommend you use your voice NOW and fill out and mail your absentee ballot today! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Equality Florida Action PAC August Primary Recommendations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paid political advertisement, paid for by Equality Florida Action PAC, P.O. Box 13184 Saint Petersburg, Fl 33733. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Marion County School Board Candidate, Nancy Thrower, Endorsed by Gay Activist Group
School Board elections are non-partisan races that become very difficult to identify where the candidates stand on moral issues. If you go to Nancy Thrower's WEB site you can not tell where she stands on issues. In fact she has had pictures taken with very conservative Christian politicians, as well as attending numerous Tea Party events. However, after researching who is contributing to her campaign, it is alarming to find organizations endorsing her and contributing to her campaign. One of these organizations is Equality Florida, which is a gay activist organization with a mission, to infiltrate the school systems with a pro-Homosexual agenda. In addition, this organization is fighting to overturn Florida's Gay adoption laws as well as fighting to overthrow Florida's Marriage amendment. The following link is a flyer from Equality Florida PAC that has been recently sent to absentee and early voters. http://eqfl.org/pac/
Monday, July 26, 2010
Pam Bondi for Attorney General...really?
The year 2010 has become one of the most critical election years in the history of our nation. The very existence of this democratic Republic and the US Constitution is at stake. Candidates from every reach of the spectrum have been diligently campaign for every vote. In return, we as responsible citizens must diligently research our choices and make wise decisions based on our value system. I noticed in the past few weeks a small number of "social conservative voters" have thrown their support behind Pam Bondi for Attorney General. Lets look a Pam Bondi through the lens of a social conservative.
In a review of Pam Bondi campaign website I could not find her views on items such as her position on abortion, marriage, adoption, or what was the basis for her decision making process. If these are views a candidate is passionate about, should they not be present somewhere in their literature or website? I was able to find in a press release on her website that she supports the temporary ban on oil drilling. Onward to the web-searches... here is what we found:
- Endorsement by Susan B. Anthony List- A pro-life women's organization that support pro-life women running for office. If two pro-life candidates are running for the same office and one is a woman, they will normally endorse the woman candidate.
- Would not answer whether she supported the "gay adoption ban" in the state of Florida, whereas, both of her opponents clearly supported this ban. (Suncoast Tiger Bay Club event Tampa FL).
- Did not vote in 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 02 & 08 elections. Not voting in the 2002 and 2008 elections are very troubling.
- In her personal life, she has been married twice and is now living with her 60 year old boyfriend. Yes, morality matters.
- Changed parties from Democrat to Republican in 2000. When asked why, she stated that she could not recall why she became a republican when she did. Could it be her democratic boss committed suicide and the State Attorney's office was on it's way to becoming controlled by a Republican?
Pam Bondi appears to be anything but conservative when it comes to social issues. You only have one vote...make it count.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
"VOTE THEM ALL OUT" Was Their Battle Cry
As I sat intently at a local tea party event, I was thrilled with the excitement and passion the group had for changing our government. However, one of the rhetorical comments I heard time and time again was "Vote them all out", along with a roar of applause.
I then thought back a few years ago about Venezuela, a beautiful mineral rich country to which I have traveled on business a few times. I saw the rise of a socialist president, President Chavez, that was voted into office. Indeed, a democratic socialist that won the popularity of the people through extreme campaign promises. I then watched in horror as this want-to-be dictator methodically "for the people" began the nationalization/takeover of the private sector of the country. As the discomfort began to brew, and as the economy continued to tank in Venezuela; and as the people became more and more disillusioned, a campaign would ensue... "Vote them ALL out" was their battle cry. During this period of time, many conservative politicians were defeated as a result of this philosophy being used. Now Venezuela has turned into a socialist state on the brink of communism.
Now, in our own country, some politicians are using this philosophy as their campaign strategy, such as Don Browning for Congress District 6 Florida. Early in his campaign he was only using the "we need a change" platform. Now he is attempting to associate his opponent, Cliff Stearns, with Nancy Pelosi! Wow! How is Cliff Stearns like Nancy Pelosi? The fact is, they are nothing alike!
When Don Browning was asked if he would cut defense spending, he answered, "...Lincoln was losing the war so he sent Grant in...he was a heavy drinker ..so he (Grant) sent in extra whiskey..and solved the problem and won the war..." Don, I don't think sending in extra whiskey is going to help you win your election bid.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Candidate Trumped by Teen?
In a recent question and answer time by a local Marion County Florida Candidate running for County Commission, a teen asked the question "What are the core values on which you base your decisions" The Republican candidate replied "my work ethic". Hmmm, do criminals work hard? Is one's work ethic relative? My work ethic may not be your work ethic. President Obama appears to have a great work ethic. He has given more speeches than most presidents and has created a vast amount of policy as president. There must be a basis one governs by. Our founding fathers, as a nation based their decision making process on the Holy Scriptures. Yes, the Bible. The first Continental Congress spent over three hours in prayer and studied 4 Chapters of God's Word.
Another question was asked by a 14 year old teen at the same meeting to the same candidate, "What is your definition of justice?" His answer, "Well, I think everybody should have justice," (laugh) "next question."
Every single elected office is important. It is critical that we as voters carefully evaluate our candidates...and yes, our decisions should be made on character first and foremost...then experience.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Jihadists in Florida? by Sandi Trusso
Please click on above link to watch video of roughly 200-300 Palestinian Islamic Jihadists protesting against Israel in a Ft.Lauderdale rally, Dec 30, 2008. There were roughly 50 Pro-Israel people on the other side of the street. (This video, along with my thoughts, are being sent to Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity as well)
These Palestinian Jihadists were calling the 50 Pro-Israel people "cowards"... The 50 Pro-Israel people were standing quietly and peacefully facing the 200 to 300 Palestinians. The Jihadists were directing other comments to the 50 Pro-Israel people (again, who were standing quietly and peacefully on the other side of the street, such as: "Nuke, nuke Israel", "There is no Israel", "Go to hell ", "Looser", "Your mothers were whores", "Go back to the oven, You need a big oven... that's what you need" ... This was the most disgusting and frightening display I've seen, and all because after a number of recent years of being under attack by Palestinians, Israel finally fights back to try to stop the murder of so many Jews, once and for all! --- At one point one of the Palestinian leaders stated that they "need to educate people as to the beauty of Islam". Well, honey, I think this video is quite educational!... and I saw no beauty here, it is absolutely frightening! (By the way, we had a Palestinian protest (of about 40 people) right here in little Ocala, FL, Marian County on the same day, Dec. 30, 2008... I wonder how many other cities experienced these disgusting protests?)
The first time I ever noticed what was happening with the Israel/Arab situation, was in 1970, when the Palestinians planned and carried out the murder of the young, innocent, Israeli athletes at the Olympics ! There was no Islamic protest against this outrageous massacre! But when Israel retalliated, these barbaric people pointed accusatory fingers at Israel... "look what Israel did to us"! No one seems to notice that there is a difference between an act of war (defending one's country), where civilians are inadvertantly killed, and a deliberate orchestration of murdering innocent civilians (as with the Israeli athletes, and the "suicide bombers" going into Bar Mitzvah's, or at bus stops, and other Islamic jihad attacks over and over and over again... DELIBERATELY targeting Israeli civilians)! These Palestinians have already clearly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth (simply because they are Jews), and their actions have backed up the statements. They obviously feel that Israel has no right to defend herself!
Quite frankly, at this point, I don't even care if every single one of these vicious, violent Palestinians is deported! I don't want to hear about their right to "freedom of speech", especially when the Judeo-Christian community isn't allowed to publicly mention God, Jesus, or the Trinity without negative judicial ramifications. So why are Muslims the only people in the US who seem to have the right to freedom of speech, when the rest of us have to constantly fight over and over for our Constitutional right to Freedom of speech, and Freedom of Religion! It is becoming increasingly obvious to me and many others, that these Islamic Jihadists are taking over our country (what with schools funded by tax dollars which break at certain times of the day for Muslims to go to a prayer room to pray (the same prayer time is not extended to Christians or Jews), and with airports installing foot baths for Muslims, and with our spineless Congress doing nothing, while Christians and Jews aren't even allowed to publicly say the name of God, or publicly celebrate religious holidays without the ACLU taking us to court trying to stop any prayer, hymns or symbols of religious faith dealing with the "prayer hearing God" of our founding fathers, etc. etc., )! The Best is that while these anti-Jew/anti-Christian people are screaming about any religious celebrations (like Christmas, where many businesses count on making enough money to carry them through the rest of the year,... they're trying to eliminate any mention of Christmas, any symbol of the true meaning of Christmas, and yet they're whining about the bad economy!... the secular faction is not enough to continue the Christmas enthusiasm, because even many of those who ignore the true meaning, count on being able to return to it, when they're ready!
It seems as if by the time Americans recognize what is going on, we will be completely under Islamic rule!
Sandi Trusso
Ocala, FL
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Fifty Versions of What is Right -by Heather Osborne
In an interview with FOX News, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated, "For those of us for whom [abortion] is a moral question, you can't have 50 different versions of what's right." Well, it sounds simple; but some Americans disagree with the statement made by Governor Huckabee. Some believe that the decision to illegalize abortion should be a law made by each individual state. Because the actual word "abortion" is not found in the Constitution of the United States, some say that making abortion illegal on the Federal level would be unconstitutional. These people also argue their belief that an Amendment to the Constitution concerning the illegality of abortion would be unlikely to pass in both the House and the Senate. Others say that because Roe versus Wade overturned the states' laws concerning abortion, Roe versus Wade should be reversed by giving that power back to the states to decide about abortion laws. Though many of these reasons may sound appealing and logical, some key facts and ideas have been overlooked by those who have come to the conclusion that abortion should be a state issue. After examining the facts, one must conclude that abortion was made a Federal government issue, that abortion is unconstitutional, and that the right to life should be defined only once.
Though abortion has not always been a Federal issue, the Supreme Court's decision about abortion in Roe versus Wade made abortion a Federal issue. It was the Federal government's decision to make abortion legal, and it must therefore be the Federal government's decision to make abortion illegal. The Federal government must not waive the responsibility it has imposed upon itself, but rather right those it has wronged concerning abortion.
The Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion contradicted the rights given to individuals recognized by the Federal government in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these [rights] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." Abortion infringes upon these rights recognized by the Federal government which were given to all human beings by God. According to the Declaration of Independence, when the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion the government's purpose to "secure these rights" was defeated.
Another reason life should be protected by the Federal government is that abortion clearly violates the Constitution of the United States, a Federal document. The Preamble to the Constitution says that one purpose of the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." "Posterity" refers to America's children or offspring. Abortion prevents "the Blessings of Liberty" from being bestowed on our "Posterity," thereby making abortion unconstitutional.
Certain civil rights, guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, would also heavily indicate that abortion is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, [or] liberty..." Science advocates the idea that individual life begins at conception making the fetus a "person." When the Federal government decided to legalize abortion, they gave their consent for the deprivation of many people's lives and liberties.
Finally, Section 1 of Article 4 in the Constitution says that each state is to recognize and respect the acts and judicial rulings of other states. Therefore, if the decision to illegalize abortion was left up to each individual state, not all states may choose to have the same law regarding abortion. Some states may decide to illegalize abortion; and others may not. Due to the nature of the issue, having varied state laws concerning abortion creates practically incompatible systems, which must be reconciled due to Section 1, Article 4 in the Constitution. To leave the decision to illegalize abortion up to individual states would simply create more problems than solutions.
After one examines the facts, the conclusion that each individual human life should be protected by the Federal government is irrevocable. It is clear that because abortion was made legal by the Federal government, it must be made illegal by the Federal government, as it has made abortion it's self-imposed responsibility. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - all of which are Federal documents - guarantee the right to life to individuals with no exceptions. In conclusion, it would be simply unreasonable to expect fifty states to all come to the exact same conclusion about the right to life. In order to inhibit confusion and abide by the Constitution, it would be much more simple and definite to make a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining and advocating a baby's right to life. The right to life is too precious of a freedom to be lost, too valuable of a gift to be taken, and too simple of a phenomenon to be interpreted fifty times!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Florida Judge Legislates Homosexual Adoption: By Sandy Trusso
We were told by the homosexual community that we didn't need a marriage amendment, because we already had a Florida law prohibiting same sex marriage... Well we also have a Florida law prohibiting the adoption of children by homosexuals (and I would like to know who took it upon themselves to allow homosexuals to become foster parents?)! Their argument to allow gays to adopt children, simply because there is a shortage of heterosexuals willing to adopt them, is disgusting (First of all I find this hard to believe, that the only people who want to adopt, for foster the children, out of the goodness of their hearts, are homosexuals)! Their conclusion is like saying that there aren't enough normal people to watch the hen house, so we must assign this responsibility to the fox!
For roughly 35 years that I know of, until recently, even the male homosexual community admitted publicly that (sexually) they seek out, and recruit, young boys. They even referred to the young boys as the "chickens" and to themselves as the "chicken hawks". However, since the public has become aware of this admission, and the homosexual community realizes that this admission is not politically expedient for their cause (to legitimize this "abomination" by law), they pretend that this isn't true!
The amazing thing is that when the "Priest scandal" became public, it was one of the most horrible things I could've imagined, but as horrible as it was at least the children weren't held legally captive... they could still go home. For a child to be legally adopted by a homosexual, and forced on a daily basis to live in this home, with no escape, is an outrage! In other words, "Let's be more concerned with satisfying the abnormal sexual urges of the homosexual, than we are about the trauma to the child who can't escape!"
Subject: Miami judge to rule on Fla. gay adoption ban
Miami judge to rule on Fla. gay adoption ban
Published: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:01 a.m.
A Miami judge is expected to rule on a challenge to a Florida law banning adoption of children by gay people.
A decision was due Tuesday on the request by 47-year-old Martin Gill to adopt two young boys he has been raising as foster children. The state of Florida has fought in court against Gill's petition to adopt the boys.
Florida has one of the strictest bans on gay adoptions in the country. A judge in Key West ruled in September that the ban was unconstitutional, but that ruling has had limited legal impact.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sided with Gill in the case. The ACLU says there is a shortage of parents for adoptions in Florida, where at a given time there are about 1,000 children waiting to be adopted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)