Orlando Political Press Circa September 2010
For several years this website was a platform for Jason Hoyt and Tom Tillison. These local tea party activists goal was to inform Central Florida voters, arming them with accurate information (rather than the consistent left leaning bias of other news outlets) that would allow them to make their own decisions on what is happening in the world.
Content is from the site's 2010 archived pages offering a glimpse of what this conservative news site offered its readership.
The Orlando Political Press is the brainchild of Jason Hoyt and Tom Tillison, local tea party activists. After many conversations, and much frustration, about the consistent left leaning bias in the ‘other’ choice for information in Central Florida, the need became apparent for a news source that not only included the conservative point of view, but a news source that was willing to cover the stories that were not being reported by the media.
Our objective is to inform Central Florida voters, arming them with accurate information that will allow them to make their own decisions on what is happening in the world around us. There is much emphasis on the politics of the left and right in America, yet, the media, and it’s role in society, largely escapes scrutiny. For too long, the media in this country has lost it’s focus on reporting the news and has evolved into an entity who’s purpose is to drive ideology. This is a disservice not only to the citizens of this great country, but to the very principles that America was founded on.
We, as a country, seem to have completely forgotten to expect a watchdog press. A press that efficiently keeps an eye on the government and lets us know when something is wrong and back us up with encouragement not condemnation when we fight back against the misguided and power hungry people at the top of government.
Ours is a lofty goal - to become the prime news source for conservatives in Central Florida. We are grassroots, we have no funding and no corporate structure to support our efforts, yet, we will endeavor on, with the assistance of thousands of citizen journalists who are encouraged to contribute. We are in very troubling times in America, a time where the very makeup of what America stands for is up for debate, and we feel that the citizens of this country deserve accurate and honest information to engage in this important discussion.
Opinion / Blog
September 15, 2010
By Allen Wilson
While David Cameron’s Conservative party won the most seats in Great Britain’s general election they failed to gain enough to form a government. Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrat’s failed to achieve the impact at the polls they had been hoping for but in the end achieved something even grander, a voice in the government through forming a coalition with the Conservatives.
What happens on this little lump of coal off the coast of Europe has a parallel with recent events in America.
A quick recap of the primaries leading up to the mid term election shows that although they didn’t win everything, the tea party movement gained both respectability for turning out the vote and animosity for the gains they made. Perhaps two of the most significant examples are Angle in Nevada and O’Donnell in Delaware, but there are other examples in the congressional district races. The reaction of the GOP was predictable and a disappointing omen of things to come.
By failing to embrace the voice of the people, the GOP has tipped its hand with an undeniable and unmistakable “tell”. Like a child that did not get their own way, the establishment Republican Party has said by its actions, “Only we know what is right for the Right and these other people don’t deserve our attention or our ear.” What they fail to see with their myopic vision is that this is the very attitude that cost them the nomination in the first place. This doesn’t bode well for a new Republican majority.
Like Britain’s Liberal Democrats (a centrist party) the tea party movement represents a differing point of view from professional politicians. Though their message may not be the same as the LibDems, their influence on government certainly will be. Not all the tea party leaning candidates will be elected in November, but some will. Moreover, it is possible that those that do take office will not join with the pseudo tea party caucus formed by the establishment, but will find each other and form their own coalition. With the balance in the House and Senate likely to be roughly even, this coalition will wield a bigger stick than either party will likely admit.
If the shelf life of these tea party candidates does not expire before their term does, if they can hold on to the principles that put them in office, and if they can learn to wield their power in the way we hope they will be able to, then the mighty ship of state will slowly begin its lumbering turn.
A less iffy question but still one that bears our attention is what will happen within the tea party movement itself? It seems like a groundhog scenario to me. If they see some progress one of two things may happen. They may feel empowered and see that their efforts are rewarded and thus drive on towards 2012. Or, they may accept that progress as a mission accomplished and fall back into apathy.
Similarly, if no progress is made there are two possible outcomes. They may become discouraged and feel that the problem is so great than no amount of effort will suffice. Or, they will dig in their heels and fight on without losing sight of their goal. There is the third possibility. The one that Angle referred to as a warning not a prediction, that there are other remedies.
I tend to believe that if just one tea party candidate makes it in November it will be a victory. I also believe that the days of public apathy are gone. Any hope that either party has of the tea party losing its determination and relaxing its vigilance is an empty hope. Movements, unlike political parties, are the result of a common system of beliefs. Parties can be terminated by cutting off their head. Movements are more like crab grass. You never get all the stems and you never get all the roots and it just keeps growing back. Maybe that’s why they call it “grass roots”.
Obamacare vs. The Rule Of Law
September 14, 2010
The Heritage Foundation
Health Insurers Plan Hikes. That was the headline of a Wall Street Journal story last Tuesday which reported: “Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.”
And The Wall Street Journal was not alone. The Los Angeles Times and Dallas Morning News also reported rate hikes in their states, some as high as 16%. And this comes on top of news that Obamacare is forcing health care companies to stop offering coverage for kids and forcing colleges to stop offering coverage for students.
Obamacare is deeply unpopular with the American people because, as the massive regulatory regime goes into effect, the American people are noticing that none of the administration’s promises are being honored. The cost of health care is going up, not down. Health care spending is going up, not down. Millions of Americans are not able to keep their insurance.
To combat this reality, the Obama administration struck back last Friday. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to America’s Health Insurance Plans warning them that “there will be zero tolerance” for “falsely blaming premium increases” on Obamacare.
Specifically, Sebelius threatened to punish non-subservient firms by excluding them from the government regulated and mandated health insurance exchanges. Since these exchanges will be the primary way most Americans receive health insurance (especially if more private firms decide to end their current coverage) such a decision by Sebelius would be a death sentence for any insurer that does not comply.
Never before in the history of our republican form of government has an administration threatened to extinguish individual firms for merely communicating with their customers. But such are the dictatorial powers Obamacare grants to Secretary Sebelius.
There are over 1,000 instances in the more than 2,700 page bill where Congress granted Secretary Sebelius new powers to regulate the health care industry. For example, her power to “determine” what does or does not count as a medical expense alone will decide the fate of many health insurance firms.
Is this the type of government our Founders intended our federal government to become? No. Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Political Science Ronald Pestritto explains:
The Founders understood that there are two fundamental ways in which government can exercise its authority. The first is a system of arbitrary rule, where the government decides how to act on an ad hoc basis, leaving decisions up to the whim of whatever official or officials happen to be in charge; the second way is to implement a system grounded in the rule of law, where legal rules are made in advance and published, binding both government and citizens and allowing the latter to know exactly what they have to do or not to do in order to avoid the coercive authority of the former.
Secretary Sebelius’ Hugo Chavezesque threats against the health insurance industry demonstrate why the fight to repeal Obamacare is also the fight for the soul of our country. Obamacare and the progressive movement represent a fundamental threat to our founding principles. For the left, “progress” means fundamentally transforming America through bureaucratic dictates that will engineer a “better” society by assuring equal outcomes.
Through Obamacare, progressives would redistribute wealth through a distant, patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the economy, politics and society. The question Americans face is: Are we a country ruled by law or by bureaucrat?
An aside: What a difference 8 years make. The GOP controlling the White House, Senate and the House, promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. The pitch was: Replacing Obamacare will force insurance companies to compete for their customers with lower costs and higher-quality service. Although Congress was not successful in ending Obamacare, the administration then announced in late 2017 that it would immediately stop supporting the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers for reducing the deductibles and co-pays of lower-income Obamacare enrollees. However insurers must continue providing these cost-sharing discounts, even though they won't be paid for them. That's because the subsidies are required by the Affordable Care Act. I was talking with the best office Baltimore movers, at least I think they are, about the impact these decisions were having on them. One of the movers said his silver-level plan provider was levying a surcharge and his brother in law in Oregon said state regulators ordered insurers offering policies on the exchange to boost their silver plans premiums by 7.1% for 2018. As I worked side by side with the Hampden Moving & Storage employees while they packed up my artwork, I responded by saying that I had read online that the two main insurance industry lobbying groups, America's Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, issued an unusual joint statement with a dire warning: Trump's move will hurt Americans. Personally, I haven't been affected. But, I suggested that unsubsidized consumers, like these movers, might find a better deal if they shopped for a bronze or gold plan offered by an insurer that loaded the rate increases into the silver policies. The guys said they might look into that, but were hoping that Trump and the GOP would come up with a better solution for their health insurance woes. I wouldn't hold my breath, I said. Update: My moved went smoothly and I am now happily living in my new home. I am still waiting for the GOP and Trump to solve the health care crisis that seems to be getting worse than better.
September 11, 2010
What The Eye Won’t See
By Allen Wilson
This weekend marks the 9th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on American Soil in U.S. history. It marks the first anniversary of a march on Washington to reclaim the government, by the people, for the people. We’ll hear much on the news about both this weekend but what is maybe more important is what we will not hear, and what we will not see.
Those news outlets that wish to divert attention from a political rebellion against the government will simply focus on the 9/11 attacks and give only a passing glimpse of the other events marking these days. What will be missed are rallies and marches across the country to show support of a movement that simply will not go away.
Yes, there is a large rally in Washington D.C. this weekend, but there are also rallies in Onawa, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska, and right here in Orlando, Florida. Rallies and Marches are being held from the southern border to the northern tier states. We won’t see many or actually any of these displays.
The eye won’t see the movement of the people but the heart will feel it. That statement actually has a double meaning for me. A few weeks ago I suffered a heart attack – a bolt from the blue. Today as I listened to my cardiologist explain the recovery regimen I could not help but draw a parallel between my heart and my political conscience. For years I had taken them both for granted and in that bolt from the blue realized that I had erred and would be paying the price for the rest of my life.
Many of us realize that our political health has been sorely neglected but we are ready, willing, and able to make changes. We know it will not always be easy and that it may require some sacrifices. We may have to settle for compromises in the beginning but we will continue to strive towards our goal. What of the next generation? Will they be content to sit on the couch or on the bar stool or play tennis or Wii? How can we explain to them the importance of caring for their political health while they are young?
I think Marco Rubio has been doing a good job of setting an example in his latest commercials. His parents knew what it was to lose their country and it made an impact on him. I had that conversation a few weeks ago with several young people. As I listened to them explain that it wasn’t worth their time to worry about politics. My only comment was a confession of sorts on how I had failed myself, failed them too. I had not paid attention and now they would have to pay the price. The fault was mine; I did the crime they would have to do the time. And I apologized.
Surprisingly, it had an impact. Rather than lecturing them on their mistakes I had owned up to mine. I had painted a picture of their lives and their toil that was due to my neglect. They began to ask what I would have done differently.
What we will not see this weekend are other adults taking responsibility for the mistakes they have made in building the future. We won’t see apologies from the Washington elite or the talking heads on the national news channels. But, if we look beyond them to the streets and county parks and covering the National Mall we will see millions of apologies from those that will. Our message to those that don’t see the challenges that lie ahead is not what those people that march are doing. The true message is what they failed to do which has now called them to this purpose.
September 9, 2010
Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of Amnesty?
By Congressman Steve King
If someone asks what the initials “USDA” stand for, most folks Iowans will automatically respond “United States Department of Agriculture.” After all, Iowa has long prospered on the strength of its agricultural roots, and the United States Department of Agriculture has played a large role in the affairs of our state. Given recent events in Washington, however, it would be understandable if someone were to reply that “USDA” stood for “United States Department of Amnesty.”
This is because the Obama administration has enlisted the Agriculture Department to help further its high-pressure, high-profile sales pitch for illegal immigrant amnesty. How else to explain the grossly erroneous claims Secretary Vilsack recently made to the Politico about the effect of illegal labor on food prices? This is what Secretary Vilsack told the paper, speaking of illegal immigrants:
“But, if you didn’t have these folks, you would be spending a lot more- three, four or five times more, for food, or we would have to import food and have all the food security risks. Neither is what Americans want. What they want is what we have. Which is why we need comprehensive immigration reform.” (Emphasis added).
His claim about food prices being “three, four, or five times more” without illegal immigrant labor is markedly false, and Secretary Vilsack should know better. In fact, I would encourage him to check with the Department he heads before he repeats this sales pitch to the public. Otherwise, he just might get accused of dishonest sales practices.
For clarification, here is what Secretary Vilsack’s own Department of Agriculture has to say on the subject of illegal immigrant labor and food prices. Data compiled by the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that labor costs only represent six-percent of the price consumers pay for fresh fruits and vegetables, the market in which illegal immigrant labor is most prevalent.
If illegal alien labor accounts for only 6% of the total cost of fresh food, how could the absence of their labor possibly lead to food price spikes of 300%, 400%, or 500% as Secretary Vilsack claims? It couldn’t. Secretary Vilsack simply isn’t playing straight with you as he tries to sell you on “comprehensive immigration reform.”
But suppose we were to give Secretary Vilsack and the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, and assume that illegal alien labor costs did play a more significant role in setting food prices. The Center for Immigration Studies concluded in a 2007 report that even if farm wages were to rise by 40%, consumer spending on fresh fruit and vegetables would only be increased by a total of $8 per American per year. This is hardly the doomsday scenario conjured up by Secretary Vilsack’s misleading, pro-amnesty claims. In fact, many Americans would willingly pay an extra $8/year to enforce the immigration laws, knowing that doing so would result in savings many times greater in other areas of government.
Although Secretary Vilsack pretends to be speaking to “what Americans want”, he is really just delivering a sales pitch on behalf of an immigration policy that continues to be overwhelmingly rejected by Americans. If he were truly interested in discussing “what Americans want”, Secretary Vilsack would begin by discussing the need to increase border security, the need to fund the completion of a border fence, and the need to increase enforcement of the immigration laws that are already on the books.
The fact that he prefers to spin yarns about the price of produce tells you everything you need to know about what the Obama administration’s priorities truly are. Americans should insist that the USDA get out of the business of amnesty and return to the business of agriculture.
Obama’s Desperate Times and Desperate Measures
September 9, 2010
Faced with predictions of staggering losses for his party in November’s midterm elections, President Barack Obama today appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and said, “If the election is a referendum on ‘are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is,’ then we’re not going to do well, because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to do better than it’s been doing.” The prospect of that referendum is casting a long shadow over Washington as the President and candidates alike wrestle with America’s frustration over a still-stagnant economy, despite $814 billion in stimulus spending.
So what’s President Obama’s solution? Kick into campaign mode and turn to even more destined-to-fail stimulus gimmicks, loaded with increased government spending and higher taxes.
Yesterday, President Obama chose Cleveland, Ohio, (a state with 10.4% unemployment) to deliver a blistering, campaign-style speech lambasting Republicans and laying out the details of his latest effort to jumpstart the economy. His plan includes $50 billion in spending on infrastructure that, he said, “would start putting Americans to work right away.” Despite Obama’s confidence, The Washington Post reports that the President’s plan got a cool reception from lawmakers, economists and business groups alike. One high-profile dissenter was politically vulnerable Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who said yesterday, “I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package.”
There’s good reason to steer clear of the Son of Stimulus. This week, a White House aide threw cold water on the President’s confident job-creating promise, telling The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank that the administration doesn’t have an estimate for how many jobs the new stimulus would create and that the best-case scenario for the timing of those new jobs would be “over the course of 2011.”
And then there’s recent history.
The Heritage Foundation’s Ronald Utt, Ph.D., notes that the first Obama stimulus, which included $48.1 billion for infrastructure, “did little to spur the recovery and nothing to create new jobs,” leaving us only with massive deficits. Those transportation dollars, in particular, were disbursed in a plodding, bureaucratic way, and much of it hasn’t even been spent. Given the historical failure of transportation spending to create jobs, why shell out even more dollars? Follow the money, Utt says:
The President’s new spending plan should be seen as an effort to shore up support within a key constituency: organized labor. First revealed at a Wisconsin labor union picnic on Labor Day, the $50 billion in infrastructure spending represents tens of billions of dollars in high, federally mandated, Davis-Bacon wages for unionized construction workers.
More government spending to placate Big Labor is not the solution to America’s economic woes, but something else can be done. Heritage’s J.D. Foster, Ph.D., says that before the November elections, Congress should act to rein in spending and prevent tax hikes, starting with extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers (a move that President Obama has resisted). Doing so, Foster advises, will “give the economy a needed boost in 2011.”
Families and businesses are anticipating a huge tax hike come January 1, 2011, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. The tax hike is bad enough, but given the state of the economy, what this tax hike says about Washington’s priorities is draining America’s confidence in its government. There is no argument for raising taxes on a weak economy, and Americans know it.
Those tax hikes are part of President Obama’s election year class-warfare strategy, designed to strike a populist tone at the expense of helping the economy. The President has said he can hit those making more than $250,000 with a tax hike because they represent only a small percentage of the population and “are already millionaires.” The truth is, the Obama tax hikes will directly harm the most successful sector in America: small businesses, which employ 25% of the American work force. And that will hurt job growth.
On top of President Obama’s impending 2011 tax increases, there’s word that the White House may raise tax rates on America’s manufacturers to pay for the new infrastructure spending. That’s another bad move for a country coming out of a recession. Another of his proposals is to make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent. While that’s great for the long-run, keeping current policy doesn’t do much for stimulus. And then there’s the President’s proposal to allow businesses to deduct their investment costs immediately, which will likely only have a modest impact, unless it’s extended for many years and coupled with a lower corporate income tax rate.
Better solutions? Foster suggests holding back the unspent stimulus dollars and freezing total spending at 2010 levels. (Even the President’s first director at the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has seen the light and called for extending the tax cuts for two years.)
On “Good Morning America,” the President noted, “My challenge, and the challenge of every Democratic candidate who’s out there is just making sure the people understand there’s a choice here.” The President and Congress indeed have a choice between now and the election: more spending and higher taxes, or reining in government and giving taxpayers a break. It shouldn’t be such a challenge to make the right choice, cut spending and extend the tax cuts for the good of the country.
Sandy Adams; September 11th Anniversary
September 11, 2010
September 11th Anniversary
Orlando, FL - Nine years ago the September 11th terrorist attacks were orchestrated against the United States. In this act we lost civilians, military, law enforcement, fire and EMS first responders. Although the terrorists hijacked planes they did not hijack the ideals for which the United States stands. While terrorist organizations continue to attempt harm to Americans the United States remains an iconic image of freedom, democracy and the American Dream.
The American Dream can not survive without economic stability. Recently our highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that the greatest threat facing our nation is our crushing national debt. That is a sobering statement from the man responsible for confronting international terrorism and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We must halt Washington’s reckless spending. We must foster the natural economic growth that will fulfill our promises and pay our debt. Our national security requires it and our children and grandchildren demand it.
“September 11th marks a tragedy in our history that we must never forget. With each year the shock dissipates yet the image remains vivid. It is essential that we create and maintain policies that protect our citizens and borders. I would like to close with a heartfelt prayer for the fallen, and thoughts to our personnel still on the front lines,” stated Sandy Adams.
Citizens Unite to Vote Against Higher Sales Tax in Seminole County
September 9, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: Grant Malloy
Chairman, Six for Seminole
Citizens Unite to Vote Against Higher Sales Tax in Seminole County
Seminole County- Citizens in Seminole County this week have formed a new grassroots organization named “Six For Seminole” to urge voters this November to vote against the new county sales tax.
Former Seminole County Commissioner Grant Maloy and Chairman of Six for Seminole said, “Higher taxes hurt our economy and kill jobs. We have paid a billion dollars in higher sales taxes over the last 20 years. By voting against this new tax, we as consumers will enjoy a lower sales tax rate of 6%, allowing us to keep more of our money in these tough economic times.”
To get involved, visit the Six for Seminole web site at www.six4seminole.com. You can also follow our social networking feeds on the website by clicking Follow Us on the right hand side of the page. To educate voters on this new tax, a speakers bureau has been set up. If you would like a Speaker to visit your club, HOA or organization, simply contact us through the web site.
College Officials Shut Down Student Conservative Group After Seeing Anti-Obama Literature
September 7, 2010
All Six Primary Contenders Endorse Daniel Webster
September 2, 2010
Ties Between Alan Grayson And The Florida T.E.A. (political) Party Demand Closer Scrutiny
September 1, 2010