Porn The Vote

In 2010, the national census will be re-conducted.  One of the principal uses of the census is to determine the number of Representatives and Senators a state will be permitted to send to Washington.  At the state level, census numbers are used to create voting districts for state elections.  How a district is zoned can create an advantage to either the Republican or the Democratic party.  Each zone has a potentially enormous impact on the final results of an election.

Florida has approximately 100,000 state prisoners, a large number of Federal Prisoners, and an enormous number of disenfranchised citizens who have lost their right to vote due to a previous felony conviction.  When is comes to using population numbers to zone, or rezone voting districts for state elections, prisoners and disenfranchised voters should not be counted as part of the population.  To recognize them for a privilege they are denied manipulates an equally unfair advantage to politicians, usually favoring the Republican party.  Traditionally, most prisoners, (particularly the disproportionately high amount of incarcerated minorities) would vote for the Democratic Party in State and Federal elections.

If one examines the placement of state prison facilities in Florida, it is apparent that most are situated in backwoods rural counties.  Chipley Florida?  Perry Florida?  These areas look like they are straight out of the movie “Deliverance”.  The residents certainly act like it!  And it is these people who are given a frightening ability to influence elections at a state level, due to counting 1500-2000 extra incarcerated “residents” who are potentially able to skew poll results on a state wide level in a rezoned district.

Moreover, the overall majority in incarceree’s housed in facilities in North Florida, and the states panhandle, are from families that reside in Central and South Florida.  It is the Department of Corrections deliberate and sadistic malice to place prisoners as far from their homes and families as possible, in order to create the most substantial hardship for both prisoners and their loved ones.  This seemingly unrelated practice also impacts the census, which affects how voting districts are zoned across the state.

During the forthcoming census, politicians will be able to influence and tamper with the census by shifting around upwards to one hundred-thousand state prisoners to create the most beneficial populous numbers, creating opportunities to rezone voting districts with the intent to influence upcoming elections.

Two key questions of concern emerge here.  First, should politicians be permitted to manipulate how voting districts are zoned by weighting districts with prisoners, as well as disenfranchised citizens?

Second, does this practice constitute fraud, since it unfairly impacts the votes of lawfully entitled citizens?  Isn’t it essentially cheating these voters through skewing poll results to favor politicians?

Given Florida’s infamy for a history of voting and elections fraud, I would think that any hints of similar indecency would be the worst of news.  This situation deserves being investigated.

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

Let me state for the record that I think abortion is wrong. In my life experiences, I have come to the conclusion that God will separate any couple that aborts their unborn child. I have seen this happen many times. It is my own personal opinion and theory, but I feel strong enough about it to share with others.  In spite of this, I am pro-choice. I do not believe another human being has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. Abortion is a lousy method of birth control. Education is the answer. Investment in sex education and providing condoms and other methods of birth control by the state governments would greatly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies and births in  this country. We do not need to revert to the days of the coat hanger and rudimentary abortion methods that an impoverished and desperate pregnant woman would attempt in a society that oppresses and condemns. 

Persia Monir

Abortion may seem like an odd topic for Porn The Vote to address and pursue.  However, simply because society sees the Adult Industry as morally and ethically bankrupt, does not mean it is.  The central idea behind Porn The Vote is to determine and set our own bar, as an Industry, to reach for and challenge the assumptions that negatively portray the Adult Industry.  This can be done.  Porn the vote will do it.

It seems to me that when our society legalized abortion, it began to effectively commit suicide.  As well as, arguably, murder.  History demonstrates that empires decay and fall as a result of two factors.  The first is widespread corruption.  The second is immigration.

Since the legalization of abortion, a progressive depopulation has become apparent.  Very few nations today have birth rates that would be at replaceable level.  For example, birth rates in Spain and Italy are down to 1.1 children per couple.  To halt the trend of population decline as it currently exists, every young couple in Italy would have to have 4 children in order to break even with zero population growth.  This is not going to be possible.  Adding to this vacuum, increasing immigration to Italy is occurring, and the vast majority of these immigrants are Albanian North African and Middle Eastern Muslims.

In short, while Western Civilization commits suicide in part by legalized abortion, a quiet invasion into Italy of Muslims via immigration occurs.  The end result?  Eventually Italy will become an Islamic State.  It is estimated that by 2050, France will be an Islamic Nation.  Western Civilization as we know it will, if not cease to exist, be radically restructured and diminished.

Obvious causes like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soaring costs for fuel and the ensuing escalation in the price of basic foodstuffs play a part in America’s current predicament.  However, I would argue that our depleted population play a large part in our economic woes, and this dynamic has been completely ignored by our media and politicians.

I am not a pro-choice advocate.  Frankly, I feel abortion is wrong.  So yes, I may be biased and lack abstract objectivity.  However, I do believe that life begins at conception.  When the Roe court handed down its decision in 1973, natal technology was rudimentary compared to current technologies available.  For example we now can view 3D ultrasounds and observe fetuses touching their faces, opening their eyes, even smiling.  I can only conclude that alertness and some degree of conscious exists in fetuses.  It is during these developmental stages of the fetus in which abortions are routinely conducted. 

While abortion advocates are claiming that the termination of a fetus does not constitute murder, a conflict arises with this assertion under criminal law which currently exists.  Specifically, criminal law holds that if a person murders a pregnant woman, and her unborn child also dies, the criminal will be charged with two counts of murder.

It seems to me that a critical contradiction now exists between voluntary abortion and the homicide of a pregnant woman.  The end result for the fetus is still the same, and I would maintain that both occurrences constitute murder.

If a pregnant woman is murdered while entering an abortion clinic and the fetus she was carrying dies as well, this death becomes homicide.  How can this be?

This blog is an attempt to frame the issue of abortion in fresh terms, and different perspective.  Pro-Life advocates, which I proudly am, generally base their arguments against abortion on an Evangelical Christian base.  Rather than use religion to support the position I’ve taken, I feel rational, logic based points will invite more inclusive debate on the issue.  I believe abortion has much further consequences than society recognizes.

I look forward to seeing and reading your responses to this blog, and I invite your proposals and ideas for practical alternatives for abortion.  What would you suggest to our state and nationaly elected Representatives that could be proposed and enacted as a program or law which would make a difference?  How can we, together, Porn The Vote?

Michael  Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

I covered this in my Gay Marriage blog. I find Mr. Wachter’s viewpoint extremely narrow and shallow. To refuse the rights of Gay people in this world is absurd! 

Persia Monir

Floridians voted decisively on November 4, 2008 to approve Amendment 2 whereby, the Florida State Constitution would be righfully commended to ban same sex marriage.  Astonishingly, while 61.9% of Floridians defended marriage from enroachment by homosexuals, a Quinnipiac University poll of 1,370 Floridians reported by U.S.A. Today on January23, 2009, showed 55% favored doing away with a state law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting.  Only 39% of those polled wanted to maintain this ban.  Related Quinnipiac poll results reported on January 23, 2009 by U.S.A Today included: 27% of Floridians said gays should be allowed to marry, 35% approved of gay civil unions, while 31% said that no recognition should be given to gay unions.

Approving of homosexuals adopting children seem to me to be incongruent with disapproving of homosexuals being permitted to marry.  Referring back to points I made in my previous Blog addressing gay marriage, I would reiterate that placing children with homosexual couples is a recipe for disaster through deviant example.  No rational person can assert that homosexual orientation is natural, or a normal result of the developmental process.  It is a given that nature abores a vaccuum.  A practical manifestation of this axiom is that homosexuals, because of the concious choices they make to engage in objectively disordered sexual acts, surrender by extension any right to procreate.  Or if, as homosexuals claim, their inherent deviance is genetic in origin, then their ability to procreate is natures assurance that fundamentaly damaged genetics will be eliminated from the genetic pool.

Moreover, Floridians have approved amending the State Constitution to assure marriage remains defined as a union between one man and one woman.  As such, homosexual couples do not enjoy any legal recognition of equivalant stature and thus, should not be permitted to adopt children.  Homosexuals cannot provide a balanced, nuclear family, which psychologists all but unanimously agree is necessary for the mental, emotional and developmental health and welfare of children.

In support of these conclusions I would point out evidence summarized by a team of social scientists headed by W. Bradfor Wilcox which issues their findings in Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions From the Social Sciences (2005).  Among these conclusions are:

*Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage

*Marriage and a normative commitment to marriage foster high quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents and children.

*Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase children’s risk of school failure.

*Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health on average than do children in other family forms.

*Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance abuse for both adults and teens.

*Married people, especially married men have longer life expectencies than do otherwise similar singles.

*Boys raised in single-parent families are more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.

*Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either perpetrators or victims of crime.

*A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at a greater risk for child abuse.

**Statistics found in (Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition:Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Services [New York:Institute for American Values 2005], pp 10-11).

With these conclusions in mind, and numerous other studies which have reached similar conclusions, placing children with homosexual couples who are prohibited by law from marrying (or placing children with other unmarried persons in general) is entirely counter productive to the child’s health and well being.

As such, Florida should not only maintain and continue to enforce law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children, but should expanse the current laws to ban adoption of children by any unmarried couples.  Arkansas voters voted in resounding favor, by 73.3%, for Initiative 1, on Nov. 4, 2008, which proposed precisely such a ban.  Moreover, and because such an enhancement or modification to Florida’s law would include all unmarried persons and/or couples, homosexuals could not attack the law as discriminatory as a result of sexual orientation.

(Anyone seeking further reading exploring the detrimental impact of homosexual parents on children, I would recommend the book; Out From Under:The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, by Dawn Stefanoxicz.  Annotation Press, 2007, 245 pgs., &14.95.  To order: annotationbooks.com or (877) 421-7323.)

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

I believe in freedom of human beings and freedom of expression. I am a firm believer that people are born gay. I grew up with several gay children that had heterosexual siblings. I do not believe that a child raised in a homosexual environment will become homosexual. I have had several gay friends in my life. I never kept them away from my son for fear that their sexual orientation would taint his own. He was taught by me to accept people for who they are and to not judge them. 

I believe in Gay unions. As I have stated before, I believe that “marriage” ought to be between a man and a woman. As far as same sex unions raising children, the sex part is not my concern. More importantly, ones education, values and ability to raise children to be employable and marriageable is what I find critical to society and a solid foundation thereof. 

Persia Monir

It seems to me that “Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron.  I do not feel that homosexuals should be discriminated against or “bashed”.  However I do not feel it is in societies best interest to enshrine what is deviant behavior by biological standards with the pretense of marriage.  Homosexuals have chosen to orientate their inclinations in diametric opposition to Social Order as well as Natural Order. 

By legalizing gay marriage, Massachusetts, California, New York and other states to follow are essentially imposing, through unilateral action, the idea that gay marriage is precisely equivolent to the marriages of heterosexual couples.  It seems to me that by suggesting this, marriage as an Instituion becomes a mockery.

Mockery and ridicule of social order has long been a hallmark of the gay subculture.  On one hand gays deliberately choose to reject established gender roles.  On the other they attempt to co-opt these same roles and create a false genderous tinction.  A feminine/masculine dynamic (or vice versa) cannot exist between two men or two women.  They are what they are and no amount of role playing will change this fact.

Expanding on this example: Gender roles amongst men and women are one of societies fundamental linchpins.  Especially, and I would argue most importantly, in childhood development.  Children absorb and become impressed with what they observe in their primary caregivers, and by their social environment in general.  Consequently when a child observes a gay couple, or worse, a gay couple with a child, and questions his or her parents about it, parents must somehow respond.  The response will almost certainly have profound impact on how the child will begin to define homosexuality as well as his or her own gender role.  Sexuality becomes ambiguous for children with long term and potentially catastrophic results.

Put plainly; if children are conditioned to accept homosexuality as natural, as a valid alternative lifestyle, society will have essentially instilled children with the invitation to adopt homosexuality as their orientation and lifestyle.  Children adopted by homosexuals who are “married” will be constantly exposed to the gay subculture and will perhaps be likely to consider homosexuality as being of greater value and normality than heterosexuality.  Gay couples will almost certainly condition, deliberately or by example, their children to favor homosexuality.  The long term results here are simply disasterous.

Proponents of gay marriage, or homosexuality in general, will argue that a large percentage of Americans feel homosexuality is valid.  A New York Times Op-Ed by Charles M. Blow appeared on July 26, 2008 citing Gallup Polls on public opinions of gay marriage between May 2001 and May 2008 demonstrate an 8% increase (from 40% to 48%) of people that feel gay relationships are morally acceptable.  Nearly half.  I am reminded of something that Mark Twain said.  Twain noted that the three greatest lies are: first, the lie, second, the damn lie, and third, the statistic.  For many people a poll question regarding the morality of gay relationships is abstract and impersonal.  The issue does not really touch their lives, so it’s all good.  What I wonder is how people would respond if the question indicated personal impact.  For example, would you be pleased if your son or daughter were in a gay relationship?  Would this be morally acceptable?  Somehow I suspect the results would be radically different if such a question was polled.

The fact is that the legalization of gay marriage will have myriad impacts on society and will affect almost every citizen.  Some of the impact will be very subtle.  For example, the Saturday, August 2, 2008 New York Times carried an article in their Metro Section by Tina Kelley entitled, “New York Gay Couples Head to Massachusetts with Marriage In Mind”.  In it she notes that the New York City Comptroller’s Office estimated in June 2007 that the local economy would stand to make $142 million in the first 3 years if gay marriage were legalized.  New York State would make up to $8 million in taxes, the city an additional $7 million.  It is estimated that Massachusetts will add $111 million to its economy over the next three years, that could possibly create 330 new jobs and increase state and local revenues by at least $5.1 million.  All of this sounds great, particularly for Massachusetts.  Gov. Deval Patrick has also signed into law in Massachusetts, a measure which will now allow all married couples to receive medicaid benefits, despite the fact that federal law does not recognize same sex marriages.  Gov.  Patrick’s solution?  Medicaid money for gay couples will be paid from state funds.

Massachusetts, New York and California are unilaterally attempting to impose gay marriage as a national norm.  Massachusetts has repealed its 1913 law that made it illegal to marry couples whose marriage would not be legally recognized in the couples home state.  So a gay couple from Florida, for example can now be legally married in Massachusetts, return to Florida, and immediately begin the process to sue the State of Florida for refusing to recognize their same sex marriage.  I am almost certain this is the gay lobby’s current strategy for imposing gay marriage in states that do not recognize such unions.  The cost to state tax payers for litigating such issues will be enormous as such suit would without doubt eventually wind up in front of the United States Supreme Court.

These are only some of the issues raised by attempts to legalize same sex unions.  This is the first of an ongoing series of blogs which I intend to write about this issue, and in response to respondent’s opinions of my blog.  I look forward to reading your responses and hearing your opinions.  I am also curious as to what readers feel are workable solutions to the issue of gay marriage.  Identifying problems requires formulating a practical solution.  What do you feel and what do you suggest?

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

As usual Mr. Wachter has foiled me with his attention to details. You win Mr. Wachter! Your blog is excellent.

I however still agree with the court of public opinion and think O.J. Simpson was guilty of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman either directly or by association. My opinion is not based on the facts as you have clearly stated. 

What about his children? Wouldn’t a father and husband of his murdered wife be with them and not fleeing down the highway threatening to take his own life? Not the type of man I want as a neighbor in my community.

Persia Monir

In response to Persia’s blog, ( a response to my original blog regarding O.J. Simpson ) Persia has a number of her facts wrong.  To base conclusions of guilt or innocence upon mere intuition rejects a rational assessment of the facts.  It is subjective, capricious, and absent of consonance concerning the legal predicate of determining guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, as required by law.

First to clarify the facts. O.J. was with his friend Al Cowlings when he was pursued by the police.  The vehicle was a white Ford Bronco, not a Ford Explorer.  Al Cowlings was the driver, not O.J.  The pursuit ended at (if I recall correctly) O.J.’s Mother’s residence, where he surrendered to police after a brief stand-off.  

Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered long before this event.  Thus, O.J. was not fleeing at the moment he learned of the murder of Nicole, as Persia asserts. Rather, he was fleeing because he was aware that he was charged with the murders, and knew he was about to be taken into custody on the warrants issued for his arrest for two counts of first degree homicide.

Considering the L.A.P.D.’s stellar reputation for its treatment of minorities (think Rodney King, for example), along with my firm belief that O.J. was innocent, then this flight mode can be attributed with reasonable cause to a panicked reaction on O.J.’s behalf.  

Moreover, public opinion was already being poisoned against O.J. by the national media, which was all but suggesting that O.J. be lynched.  Not exactly cause for him to feel he would receive a fair and impartial trial.

I would also point out that once someone insults and imputes guilt on another, any actions that the “guilty party” engages in are automatically perceived as sinister, malevolent, and indicative of guilt.  (Thus Persia’s interpretation of O.J.’s actions)  She is assuming and conjecting based entirely on her own intuition.  This is not sound jurisprudence, to say the least.  It is, in point of fact, the very mentality that turns our nation’s courts into three ring circuses at the expense of fair and impartial justice.

Contrary to Persia’s assertions, I recall watching O.J.’s reactions to Judge Ito and the prosecution’s introduction of photos and details of the condition of Nicole Brown-Simpson’s body.  O.J. became visibly upset, and highly agitated. His response was deeply emotional, which is contrary to the point of diametric opposition to what Persia suggests.  The implication that O.J. responded as a remorseless sociopath is entirely without merit or factual basis.

The fact remains, as I pointed out in my initial blog, that the state never had a solid case against O.J., and the jury’s verdict of Not Guilty affirms this fact.

Michael Anthony Wachter