October 27th- Meeting - Door open 6PM
William Federer ISLAMIC CONQUEST-PAST & PRESENT- Political Islam's 1400 year War with the West
Open Meeting - Savannah Recreation Center
Voted #1 Guest Speaker
We got 3 rooms - come early for seating and parking
Is there a Republican War on Women? NO!! UNITE !!
Voices From The Square
Men/Women On the Bench Series
Join us on Thursday to voice your opinion on the questions and comments of the day.
Oct 30th .. Back next week.. Busy at Phone banking this week
GENERAL ELECTION INFORMATION
Early Voting: October 21 – November 1, 2014 (9am - 5pm)
Early Voting Sites
Allamanda Rec Ctr
1515 St. Charles Place
The Villages, FL 32162
Laurel Manor Rec Ctr
1985 Laurel Manor Dr.
The Villages, FL 32162
Village Annex Office
8033 E. C-466, #401
The Villages, Fl 32163
BALLOT TITLE: Water and Land Conservation - Amendment 1
O’Keefe Strikes Again: Filmmaker Exposes how Voter Fraud is Both Easy and Condoned in Colorado
Oct 30th Volunteers Needed ... 10am - 8pm ..HELP !
Just join us anytime you are available during the day
Scott Re-election Office,
972 Old Mill Run in Lake Sumter Landing, The Villages, FL - Thanks....
Could non-citizens decide the November election?
By Jesse Richman and David Earnest October 24 at 3:06 PM
(AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)
Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.
In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.
Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study(CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens 20082010Self reported and/or verified38 (11.3%)13 (3.5%)Self reported and verified5 (1.5%)N.A.Adjusted estimate21 (6.4%)8 (2.2%)Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.
There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.
Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.
Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.
Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.
Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.
WHY I AM FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUT AGAINST AMENDMENT 2, ORLANDO LAWYER JOHN MORGAN’S DECEPTIVE CAMPAIGN TO LEGALIZE POT SMOKING ACROSS FLORIDA
October 21, 2014 by John Stemberger
This past year has been a real learning curve on the whole topic of medical marijuana. Thanks to a good friend of mine, who is a respected physician, I learned there really are some valid and legitimate medical uses for marijuana. Prior to this, I thought most of the medical marijuana talk was just an excuse to smoke dope by leftist potheads. But it is clear to me now that there are some very debilitating and painful conditions which only seem to respond to the active ingredient in cannabis.
In fact, earlier this year the Republican dominated legislature and also recognized this fact and passed a special bill to specifically legalize a special strain of marijuana called “Charlotte’s Web.” The drug isolates the helpful medical essence of marijuana and allows it to be taken in a non-euphoric, non-smoked form to treat various seizures in children and other serious conditions. The bill was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott and became effective June 2014.
Knowing this, you may also want to know why I am so adamantly against Amendment 2 and am encouraging everyone I know to “Vote No on 2″, the so-called medical marijuana amendment on November 4th. Here are at least ten reasons why this is one of the worst ideas in Florida’s history, and why it’s not what is seems on the surface.
1. The Amendment will allow minors to smoke pot without parental knowledge or consent. There are no restrictions on Amendment 2 for age, and those street corner dispensers will be able to give pot to minors without their parent’s consent or even notice. As a father of four children under the age of 13, this alone, frankly enrages me as a parent.
2. There are no restrictions on where in your neighborhood these “pot shops” can be placed. Based on where they have set up pot shops like “pill-mills” in California and Colorado, and based on the language of this Amendment, you can expect “dispensaries” to pop up across the street from junior high schools, near churches, restaurants and other small businesses.
3. The only requirement for a so-called “caregiver” marijuana dispenser is that he or she be 21 years old. Also “caregivers” are not required to have background checks, they could be convicted felons, and have no requirements for medical training. We used to call these people drug dealers and put them in jail. The opponents of Amendment 2 are appropriately calling it the “Drug Dealer Protection Act.”
4. Pot will be “dispensed” for any “other conditions” under Amendment 2. While the ballot summary (the only part you will see when you vote) says that the drug is supposed to be given for “debilitating medical conditions,” the full text of what becomes law in the Florida Constitution (which you will not see on the ballot) says marijuana can be sold for any “other conditions.” So fatigue, insomnia, nausea or back aches will qualify you to smoke dope. This is the functional equivalent of legalizing pot for recreational use.
5. Amendment 2 expressly allows for “medibles” which are marijuana-laced candies, cookies, baked goods, soda pop and other foods attractive to children. To really appreciate how bad this Amendment would be, look no further than to the states where this dangerous game has played out in California and Colorado. Just Google search images of the word “medibles” and you will find the hundreds of candies, cookies and baked goods laced with marijuana. And who did you think these “edible treats” will be marketed to? You guessed it–our children and grandchildren.
6. Amendment 2 gives complete civil and criminal immunity to all caregivers, growers, distributors and doctors selling pot. Under the Amendment’s language, everyone in the process of growing, handling and distributing pot would be given complete civil and criminal legal immunity and allowed to operate free of liability. So if a caregiver hurts someone, there are no lawsuits or arrests that will come from the harm. It almost seems unbelievable but it’s true. How would you, as a small business owner, like to have complete immunity from law suits? But we are going to give unbridled constitutional immunity to everyone involved with dispensing pot?
7. The Amendment is strategically being used to try and help turn out voters on the far left for Charlie Crist. Democrat gubernatorial candidate, Charlie Crist, is also a lawyer with John Morgan’s large personal injury firm based in Orlando. So, naturally having a law partner become Governor (again) could do quite a bit to help his law firm. In much the same way as many extreme conservatives don’t vote because they are fed up or don’t like the choices, the same thing happens with voters on the far left. Those voters who chose Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore are exactly the kind of voters that the “medical marijuana” Amendment will drive to the polls, who may not have otherwise come out-and who are more likely to vote for Democrat Charlie Crist. Morgan knows this and knows that in a tight race, like the one we have for Governor, having pot on the ballot could just make the difference in voter turn-out on the margins swaying a win for Charlie Crist.
8. John Morgan will most likely financially profit from this Amendment. Why do you think John Morgan is pouring tons of money and untold amounts of time into this campaign? To create an “army of angels” to do acts of compassion? Guess again. This video of John Morgan “unhinged” is really all you need to see to understand who and what is really behind this Amendment. WARNING: this video is highly vulgar, raw and not suited for children to view.
9. We are within clear striking distance of defeating this Amendment. A lot of people who don’t agree with this Amendment think it will probably pass because of some early polling showing a high percentage favorable to the idea of medical marijuana and so they are not taking serious actions to defeat it. When the campaign started, the issue was polling at 88% in favor of passage. Since then support for Amendment 2 has dropped a whopping 40% as people learn more about the dangers, loopholes and real motives behind those who are driving this Amendment. One of the latest polls from the Bob Graham Center shows those in favor of it are now at only 48% of the 60% needed to pass a Florida Amendment. We only need 41% of voters to vote NO to defeat this very bad amendment. The undecided votes could go either way and the deceptive ads are about to flood the airways and so this is going to be a very close vote. But we can defeat this if we all work hard to get the word out!
10. Virtually every major daily newspaper in Florida has come out against Amendment 2 in addition to the Florida Medical Association, and seven former Florida Supreme Court Justices. Some of the most liberal newspapers in the state like the Tampa Bay Times have taken official positions against this dangerous Amendment and are encouraging a NO VOTE because they know this is really not a medical marijuana amendment but an attempt to allow the full blown legalization of marijuana for recreational use. The Orlando Sentinel has said “politics is coloring the debate,” and to vote No. The Tampa Tribune says it’s a “Trojan Horse.” The Jacksonville Times Union said it’s a “Stalking Horse for recreational use.” The Lakeland Ledger and the Bradenton Herald also recommended a “No Vote on 2.”
The bottom line is that everything about Amendment 2 is deceptive. And, if we are able to tell enough of our friends and family about this in the days we have left before the election, we can defeat this effort and save our state, our communities and our children a lot of heartache and problems that would not be easily reversed for years to come. Please – do not let Florida go to pot! For further information go to www.VoteNo2.org.
John Stemberger is an Orlando Attorney, president of Florida Family Action, and one of the leading pro-family advocates in Florida.
Learn how you can invest in Commercial Real Estate Properties and receive returns that are generally reserved only for large institutional investors.
For more information contact:
Tom Yockey, President
401k, 403b, LIFE INSURANCE, MEDICARE, ANNUITIES.
Brian Ragle, President
The Trilogy Group
Office: (352) 624-8814
Cell: (352) 812-4756
730 Hwy 441 N.
The Villages, FL 32159
store (352) 430-0223
direct (352) 406-1769
Subscribe to The Villages Tea Party Email List - Click Here