Almost half of the Board of County Commissioners’ budget goes to the Constitutional Offices, but the board currently has no authority to perform internal audits of those offices.

Advocates say approval of this amendment would increase transparency between the Board of County Commissioners and the Constitutional Offices and potentially save Brevard County millions of dollars each year.The Sheriff and Property Appraiser have written letters to the Charter Review Commission opposing the idea. Reasons cited range from the concern over “abuse” of the position to increased costs to the taxpayer. Only one of the proposals would actually increase the size and cost of government, however.

Tax Collector Lisa Cullen isn’t opposed to the concept, but she is opposed to the authority being vested with the office of the Tax Collector, which was one of the options discussed.*

Brevard Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis has spoken before the Charter Review Commission in favor of the position, citing the success of Orange County’s model.

The Supervisor of Elections, Lori Scott, has remained officially neutral on the item because of her position on the Election Canvassing Board.*

Citizens are encouraged to attend the CRC meeting Thursday night at 6pm to speak for or against the amendment. The meeting will be in the Florida Room on the 3rd Floor of the Viera Government Center at 6pm Thursday.

*Editor’s Note: I initially reported the Tax Collector wrote a letter opposing the Comptroller position; to be exact, her letter stated  she didn’t think it would be appropriate for *her* office to perform the duties of the Comptroller, and I have since been informed Mrs. Cullen is in favor of the overall concept.

*Editor’s Note II: In my original story I inadvertently lumped Supervisor of Elections Lori Scott in with the others as opposing the amendment, which was not accurate. The Supervisor has taken no position on the issue because of her position on the Election Canvassing Board. I sincerely regret the error and have apologized to Ms. Scott for the mistake.

Supporter after supporter took the podium to share why they support Sharon Day as the new Chair of the Republican Party of Florida. The recurring theme expressed by committee members was principles over politics, with members pointing to Day’s refusal last year to sign the Rule 11 letter put forth by Jim Greer that would have allowed the RNC to endorse Governor Charlie Crist over rival Marco Rubio for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez as the hallmark of a principled leader. Other supporters pointed to her years of service and experience as a grassroots volunteer.

Only Chairman Steele spoke in support of Senator Thrasher, saying he would support Sharon Day if the party weren’t in such dire straits, but that extraordinary times call for extraordinary fund-raising abilities, something he believes Day lacks. In spite of the support expressed for Day, Steele said he will cast his vote for Thrasher because he gave his word he would support Thrasher when the deal was made to oust Greer. Steele said he was in a very unpleasant position, and understood how people would be frustrated, but he was a man of his word and had to honor his commitment to support Thrasher. Steele personally endorsed Thrasher last month.

The vote taken by the BREC is significant because it highlights the disconnect between rank and file Republicans and party leadership, including some of the leadership at the county level.

BREC State Committeeman Mike Thomas has intimated he will be voting for Thrasher despite BREC members asking him to vote for Day. Unlike Steele, Thomas has made no mention of any prior commitment to vote for Thrasher, stating only that his vote is his own. Thomas was not present at Thursday’s meeting.

BREC State Committeewoman Carlie Rogers has been a staunch supporter of Sharon Day since the news of Greer’s resignation broke.

There are currently three candidates for RPOF Chair: Florida Senator John Thrasher, RPOF National Committeewoman Sharon Day, and Osceola County State Committeeman Mark Cross. The special election for RPOF Chair is next Saturday, February 20th, at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando. You can get details about and register for the event here.

Read more:
Orlando Sentinel – Tea Party Cand. To File Ethics Complaint vs …

“In the three decades since its Islamic revolution, Iran has dedicated itself to spreading its moral ideal–Islamic totalitarianism–by force of arms,” writes Elan Journo, fellow with the Ayn Rand Center and editor of the new book “Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.” “Tehran spends millions every year, not to pursue prosperity for its tyrannized citizens, but to finance terrorism and to build a nuclear arsenal to wield against enemies of Allah.

“Would diplomatic negotiations encourage Iran to mitigate its ideology? No, they would only intensify its hostility. Negotiations buy Iran time. Above all, diplomacy grants Iran moral legitimacy as a civilized regime: its hostile goals–‘death to America’–and its murder of our citizens are made to seem reasonable differences of opinion. Such appeasement confirms the perverse notion that Allah’s warriors, materially weaker but morally self-righteous, can succeed in bringing down the mighty infidel West.

“To protect American lives, we must learn the life-or-death importance of passing objective moral judgment. We must recognize the character of Iran and act accordingly.”

]]> http://spacecoastpolitics.com/2009/10/21/the-hopelessness-of-negotiating-with-iran/feed/ 0 http://spacecoastpolitics.com/2009/10/20/what-went-wrong-in-afghanistan/ http://spacecoastpolitics.com/2009/10/20/what-went-wrong-in-afghanistan/#comments Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:38:24 +0000 Barbara Morehead http://spacecoastpolitics.com/2009/10/20/what-went-wrong-in-afghanistan/

What Went Wrong in Afghanistan?

WASHINGTON, October 20, 2009–In a recent blog for publisher Rowman and Littlefield, Elan Journo, a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center, wrote about the failed war in Afghanistan and his new book: “Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.”

“After eight years of U.S. military intervention, the fighters of the Islamist movement are not only unbowed, but on the march,” writes Journo. “The Islamists (often misidentified by one of their favored tactics: terrorism) seek to impose the totalitarian rule of Allah’s law worldwide–an ideal that entails smiting down infidels and subjugating others under sharia. And they’re making headway.”

Why, Mr. Journo asks, have we failed to defeat this enemy?

“Our post-9/11 policy–in Afghanistan and across the board–was subverted by a factor that few have thought to examine: the basic moral ideas that animate our foreign policy. In essence, the kind of war that our leaders believed was morally proper to wage entailed placing ‘compassion’ ahead of the proper task of self-defense.

“A point we make in ‘Winning the Unwinnable War’ is that the way out of the Afghanistan morass requires Americans to recognize how certain (allegedly) moral ideas have informed, and crippled, our policy–and to challenge those ideas.”

# # #

“Hate Crime” Laws Criminalize Ideas

WASHINGTON, October 19, 2009–The House recently voted to expand federal “hate crimes” to include those committed because of the victim’s sexual orientation.

“Despite the denials of ‘hate crime’ law supporters, this criminalizes certain ideas,” writes Don Watkins, an analyst with the Ayn Rand Center. “If the government can punish a criminal more harshly based on the ‘message of intolerance and discrimination’ he sends through his crime, then the inevitable conclusion is that sending a ‘message of intolerance and discrimination’ is a crime.

“It is irrelevant whether the ideas currently deemed ‘hateful’ are repugnant, which in the case of racism or anti-gay vitriol they certainly are. Every attack on free speech starts by targeting ideas people find repugnant; that’s how censorship gains purchase. But once the principle is established that the government can punish people for holding unpopular ideas, then any dissenter is at risk.

“The men who wrote the First Amendment sought to safeguard intellectual freedom by barring the state from taking cognizance of men’s ideas. The government, they said, has no role in deciding what ideas are true or false, right or wrong, hateful or loving. Its job is to proscribe actions that violate individual rights, so that each of us can make those determinations for ourselves.”

# # #

Don Watkins is

Gut the SEC, Stop the Next Madoff

WASHINGTON, October 19, 2009–Two of the victims of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme are suing the Securities and Exchange Commission for “negligence.”

“While it’s not clear whether their case will go anywhere, it’s undeniable that the SEC failed miserably in the Madoff case,” writes Alex Epstein, a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center.

Greenspan Shows His Anti-Capitalist Colors . . . Again

WASHINGTON, October 16, 2009–Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is in the news again, calling on the government to use its coercive powers to break up banks that are “too big to fail.”

War Policy vs. Our Troops

WASHINGTON, October 13, 2009–“Under current policy in Afghanistan, our forces are required to endear themselves to the local population by providing so-called humanitarian aid,” writes Elan Journo, a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center.

Just Say “No” to Another “Stimulus”

WASHINGTON, October 9, 2009–On the heels of a failed $700 billion “stimulus” package, Congress is mulling over yet another round of “stimulus” spending.