FDR Tribute

Union Veterans Tell It Like It Is

Ronnie Musgrove Shares Our Values

The Case for Florida Marriage Protection Amendment 2

Saint Leo University's student newspaper The Lion's Pride makes the case for support of Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment 2.

Vote "yes" on Amendment 2

October 24, 2008

BY JOSHUA M. SMITH

Lions’ Pride Online Editor

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That is what the word “marriage” means. It’s a shame, but, due to the Gay Rights lobby, Floridians now find it necessary to write that definition into law.

Amendment 2, which will appear on the November 4 ballots in Florida, states, “In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

This amendment is not anti-gay. It does not make gays second-class citizens. It merely upholds Florida’s right to define marriage for itself.

Without Amendment 2, Florida finds itself in a position to have to arbitrarily decide whether gay marriage agreements from other states such as Massachusetts and California should be honored by Florida gays who travel to those states and get married under those states’ laws.

Whether one feels that gays should be allowed to marry or not, this issue should not be decided for Florida by the legislature or courts of another state. State sovereignty must be upheld, because allowing one state to set policy and law for another state sets a dangerous precedent for the entire nation.

That is why all Floridians—gay or straight—should vote “yes” on Amendment 2.

A vote of “no” does nothing to advance the cause of gay rights and gay marriage. Under current law, gays are allowed to enter into any legal agreement they wish. Gay couples live together, raise children together, visit each other in the hospital, and receive domestic partner health benefits already without being “married.”

If gay couples already enjoy the same perceived benefits as married couples, what then is the point of working to allow gays to be married?

After following the issue for several years, I have found no satisfactory and reasonable answer to that question. Gays’ desire for the right to marry is often nothing more than a coercive attempt to force society to accept their behavior.

If gays want to live the way they live, why must a heterosexual agree with that lifestyle? Why must a heterosexual society condone and endorse that lifestyle through its laws?

The answer too often is “so gays can feel better about themselves,” which is unfortunate, since gays ought to be deciding the value of their lifestyle on their own terms rather than looking to society to justify it for them.

If gays want to be gay, fine. But, gays shouldn’t expect others to agree with their lifestyle. I like owning a gun, but I do not feel the need to require other people to like the idea of me owning a gun. So long as no one tries to pass a law telling me I do not have the right to own a gun, I am satisfied.

Likewise, gays ought to find satisfaction in the equality they enjoy in America. Gays can do everything heterosexuals can in terms of what really matters: partnership, parenthood, and equal treatment under the law. Anything they choose to agitate for beyond that equality equates to special treatment, which actuality works against their interests by setting them further apart from others.

Florida’s Amendment 2 is a defense of state sovereignty. It is not an attempt to curtail anyone’s rights. As such, every Floridian has a duty to vote “yes” on Amendment 2 in order to stop other states from being able to tell Florida what to do.

If California is allowed to tell Florida what to do on the gay marriage issue, just imagine what other states such as Texas might then be able to tell Florida what to do on issues such as oil drilling. We as Floridians must act now to stop such intrusion into our laws by other states. A vote of “yes” on Amendment 2 is an important first step to that end.

http://pride-online.net/wp/2008/10/24/vote-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-on-amendment-2-pic-more/

Why Obama has pulled ahead on the economic issues

Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research explains why Obama has a solid lead over McCain on pocketbook issues. Voters will simply not tolerate another four years of trickle down economics.

Weisbrot writes:

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House pulled ahead of his opponent, Senator John McCain, as soon as the current financial crisis hit the headlines. As one of McCain’s top strategists recently blurted out, "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

There’s a reason for this well-established trend that the Democrats tend to win among those who vote on economic issues. Although both parties are subject to undue influence from powerful corporate interests, the Republicans have been much more consistent in advocating government policies that redistribute income from working and middle-class Americans to the rich. They are also much less friendly to the most important government programs that insure people against economic catastrophe, such as Social Security and Medicare.

These partisan differences are evident in the current presidential campaign. On Social Security, McCain has in the past supported President Bush’s partial privatization plan, which was rightly rejected as an attempt to undermine the nation’s most important anti-poverty program and social safety net. McCain has also undermined Social Security by wildly misrepresenting its financial condition, alleging that the program is “going broke.” (For the record, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will pay all promised benefits for the next 40 years without any changes whatsoever. It would need only minor changes, less than those adopted in each of the decades of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s to remain solvent for 75 years).

Obama rejects privatization of Social Security – as well as Medicare, where the Republicans have increased the role of private insurance companies by giving them wasteful taxpayer subsidies. On health care, one of the most interesting features of Obama’s proposal is the establishment of a public insurance program similar to Medicare, which employers and uninsured individuals could buy into. This would be subsidized and could be an important step towards universal health insurance.

McCain wants people to buy their own private health insurance. He is willing to give them a subsidy from the government, but the $5000 he offers is far less than the $12,500 it costs to insure a typical family. Even worse, he proposes to tax the health insurance benefits provided by employers, which are currently tax-free. This would be a hefty tax increase for tens of millions of working Americans. It also puts at risk the health insurance of many of the 160 million people who depend on employment-based insurance policies.

McCain has also been reluctant to support a fiscal stimulus that will be necessary to limit the size and duration of the current downturn. This could be a costly mistake. As consumers cut back on spending – which is already happening this quarter -- the recession will deepen unless the government is willing to make up for it. Obama has proposed a stimulus package that is too small, but will almost certainly support larger plans that will come from the Democratic Congress.

McCain has proposed yet another cut in the capital gains tax – from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. This would go overwhelmingly to rich people, and would have little or no effect on economic growth. He also wants to make permanent President Bush’s tax cuts for rich households. By contrast, Obama has proposed to cut taxes for everyone earning under $250,000 – about ninety-five percent of taxpayers – and pay for it with an increase on the five percent who make more than that.

With millions of Americans facing foreclosure notices on their homes, insufficient and collapsed retirement savings, rising unemployment, falling real wages, and what is likely the worst recession for at least three decades – it’s getting tougher to distract voters from the most important economic issues that affect their lives. Hence, the Republicans’ bad luck in the polls.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/why-obama-has-pulled-ahead-on-the-economic-issues/

Bob Conley supports core issues of Democratic Party Platform

COLUMBIA, SC October 24, 2008 − Democratic challenger Bob Conley, running for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat against incumbent Senator Lindsey Graham (R), is refuting the idea that he is out of step with the Democratic Party.

“I support the Democratic National Committee platform on the key issues that matter most to South Carolinians,” Conley said. “Naturally, I have my own ideas on how best to achieve these goals, but I agree on the fundamentals and the need for change,” said Conley.

Conley pointed to the following areas of concern that he shares with South Carolinians and the Democratic Party:

*Restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington.

*Ensuring that Americans have good jobs with good pay.

*Establishing energy independence and security, and promoting alternative sources.

*Ending the occupation of Iraq.

*Ensuring strong Fair Trade policies.

*Protecting civil liberties.

*Rebuilding our national infrastructure.

*Reasserting regulatory oversight of the financial sector.

*Restoring fairness to our tax code.

*Revitalizing and supporting our military.

*Restoring the readiness of Guard and Reserve.

*Supporting our injured and returning veterans better.

*Working for open, accountable and ethical government.

“Democrats cannot afford to be comfortable with Republican incumbent Lindsey Graham,” said Conley. “Graham is one of the key players in Congress who is taking South Carolina and the nation down the path of economic ruin and global military adventurism, while voting to expand federal power and wrap it in a blanket of secrecy that robs American citizens of their Constitutional rights and liberties,” Conley said.

“I call on all Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others in South Carolina to wholeheartedly support my campaign against Lindsey Graham. We cannot afford another six years of losing jobs in South Carolina to bad trade deals and fiscal incompetence, while ineptly policing the globe and allowing the nation’s infrastructure to rot,” Conley said. “South Carolinians are hurting from the policies Lindsey Graham voted for in the last six years, and he continues to defend those policies. It’s time for South Carolinians to strike a ballot-box blow to end Graham’s political career,” said Conley.

About Bob Conley

Running for U.S. Senate from South Carolina, Bob Conley is a Commercial Pilot and a Flight Instructor as well as a licensed Professional Engineer with degrees in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. To learn more about Bob and his positions on the important issues facing South Carolinians, please visit www.BobConleyforSenate.com

John McCain: Economic Disaster

Employee Free Choice Act

Number of U.S. workers with employer-provided health coverage down for the 7th year

The health insurance most Americans receive, employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), has dwindled each year since 2000, according to a report released today by the Economic Policy Institute [www.epi.org]. The Erosion of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance, by EPI economist Elise Gould, focuses on the decline of ESI coverage - the coverage most Americans receive, as well as the type of coverage that has seen the steepest decline.

About 62.9 % of Americans under the age of 65 were covered by ESI in 2007, over 3 million fewer than in 2000. Having a job does not guarantee ESI coverage. Since 2000, the number of uninsured workers has grown by 4.1 million workers. About 45 million people under 65 are without health insurance coverage.

As unemployment rises across the nation, larger declines in ESI are expected. “The health care problem has reached a critical level,” said Gould. “Bold new solutions need to be considered to address the growing crisis.”

ESI coverage varies between states. For instance, Hawaii, which requires employers to provide health insurance to employees who work 20 hours or more per week, has a high rate of employer-sponsored coverage. Currently, the states with the highest employer-provided coverage rates for those under 65 are New Hampshire (75.4%), Hawaii (72.5%), and Connecticut (72.3%). The lowest coverage rates were found in New Mexico (50.7%), Texas (53.5%), and Mississippi (53.7%). (See Snapshot.) http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20081009

The decline in ESI coverage of children has left over 3.4 million fewer children covered in 2007 than in 2000. Coverage by publicly provided health insurance like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Coverage Program (SCHIP) has increased to cover the slack.

“It is only the strength of government programs, particularly those aimed at children, that has insulated many from losses in coverage,” said Gould. “The trends indicate a significant shift from private to public coverage, especially among children.”

The erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance: Declines continue for the seventh year running.

http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/223/bp223.pdf

Epoch Times: Potentially Contaminated Products from China flowing into U.S.

The Epoch Times http://en.epochtimes.com reports:

Countries around the world are working to ban the import of melamine-contaminated products from China. But in the U.S., melamine-products and ingredients continue to flow through ports of entry, almost unchecked.

There have been widespread worldwide reports in recent weeks of milk products from China contaminated with melamine. The industrial chemical was also at the core of a series of pet food recalls in 2007. At least four infants in China have died from ingesting melamine-tainted baby formula

"We're very leery of the Chinese food safety system," says Tony Corbo, Legislative Representative for Food and Water Watch. "At best it's weak, at worst it's corrupt. It just reeks with corruption." Food and Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works on food and water safety issues.

Last month, the FDA issued an advisory that there is "no known threat of contamination in infant formula manufactured by companies that have met the requirements to sell such products in the United States." The same advisory warned that infant formula manufactured in China could pose a risk.

Some are not convinced that imports from China are safe for public consumption, though.

"The recent scandal involving contaminated milk products from China clearly demonstrates that significant work remains for China to reform its food safety system," said Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) in a statement on Oct. 3.

"While the FDA has said that no contaminated baby formula has been legally imported into the U.S. from China, it is certainly possible that other dairy products including powdered milk and milk protein products have entered the United States, as they have in Europe." DeLauro is Chairwoman of the Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee.

Congresswoman DeLauro and Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) sent a letter to the FDA seeking information about the status of ongoing investigations into the safety of products from China. Their letter points to the catastrophic results of delays in reports of contaminated products inside China — 54,000 sickened, 13,000 hospitalized, and at least four dead infants.

"According to the World Health Organization, delays in reporting, including a deliberate failure to report, contributed to the magnitude of the incident," states the letter, which was addressed to Andrew C. von Eschenbach, Commissioner of the FDA.

Corbo says that the FDA has a limited capacity to check imports from over 200 countries, of which China is only one. The risk is that contaminated products are flowing in, undetected, which is the same reason that other countries are stopping the flow of milk products altogether.

"They're finding contaminated milk powder in a bunch of other countries," says Corbo. "It's endless as far as how many things could be contaminated."

U.S. Blue Cat Flavor Drinks, White Rabbit Creamy Candies and Mr. Brown instant coffee and milk tea products were found to contain melamine. Recalls of the products are underway, and according to the FDA no known cases of illness have occurred in the U.S.

Media reports have named at least 41 countries that have imposed restrictions on Chinese products containing dairy items.

At least 25 of these 41 countries have imposed blanket bans on Chinese milk products or its derivatives including: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, France, Gabon, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Maldives, Mali, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Suriname, Tanzania, Togo, and the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

At least 16 countries have imposed specific bans on Chinese dairy products which have tested positive for melamine. They include: Australia, Argentina, Burma, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Peru, Qatar, United Kingdom, United States, and Yemen.

The FDA is the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply. It is responsible for monitoring and inspecting all fish and seafood, grain, produce, and food ingredient imports, amounting to about 80 percent of the nation's imported food. Meat, poultry and eggs are monitored and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/united-states/chinese-tainted-products-in-us1-5332.html

Florida Democratic leaders endorse Amendment 2

MIAMI- -Chairman of the Democratic League of Miami Dade County Dr. Eladio Jose Armesto and Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle were joined by Democrats from across the state to announce their support of Amendment 2 (The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment) at Miami Dade County Hall today.

“I’m proud to stand here today with my fellow Democratic colleagues to let the voters in our state know that there are Democrats from around the state who believe that marriage is, has always been and should remain the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife,” Dr. Armesto said.

On the eve of the Fort Lauderdale city commission taking up the marriage amendment issue for debate and decision, Jim Naugle, who has been the Mayor of Ft. Lauderdale since 1991, is one of many dozens of Florida’s elected officials who support Amendment 2. Ft. Lauderdale’s City Commission has not voted to oppose or support the Amendment to date but the issue will be taken up tonight.

“The greatest thing about being a Floridian is the diversity of our state and the personal beliefs that allow our Democratic process to evolve,” Mayor Naugle said. “While I firmly believe that marriage is solely defined as a matrimonial joining of one man and one woman, some of my colleagues may not share the beliefs of the vast majority of Floridians. However it is my hope that all of our commissioners properly research Amendment 2 before making any hasty decision on whether or not to support or not support the Amendment.”

Democrats around the state are stepping forward to support the common sense goal of Amendment 2, protect the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. An internal review of a sample from the more than a half million petitions collected statewide indicated that more than 33 percent of the petition requests came from registered Democrats. The value of family and the importance of marriage is a bipartisan principle that transcends time and politics.

“Hundreds of thousands of Black American Democrats support this issue. This is a moral issue and a human issue.” said African American Democratic supporter of Say Yes to 2 Brenda Lewis-Williams of Bay County in North Florida.

The most recent poll done by the St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 found that 44 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of black poll respondents said they would vote for Amendment 2. The poll which was taken on Sept. 19 was also underwritten by the Miami Herald.

“Our internal polling indicates that Democrats strongly support keeping marriage defined between a man and a woman,” said John Stemberger, State Chairman of the Yes2Marriage.org campaign. “This is an issue that many Democratic families understand and we believe they will support Amendment 2.”

Yes2Marriage.org is the official campaign of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, Amendment 2 which will appear on the general election ballot on Nov. 4.Yes2Marriage.org (formerly Florida4Marriage.org) is a coalition of thousands of families, churches, seniors, organizations, community leaders and elected officials who have come together from around the state to protect the definition of marriage in Florida between one man and one woman.

For more information on Voting Yes on Amendment 2 visit the Democrats for Marriage page at www.Yes2Marriage.org