Must Read Archives - Page 425 of 435

Integrity Index: Florida Fails Watchdog Test

July 17, 2013/in Government Transparency, Must Read/by Dr. Rich Swier

Florida is among the majority of states that are failing miserably when it comes to enacting laws that enable regular citizens to fight corruption by attending public meetings, reviewing government documents and raising questions without fear of retribution, according to a national study released by the Better Government Association, a Chicago-based non-partisan watchdog organization.

The Integrity Index, a comprehensive report issued by the Better Government Association (BGA) and sponsored by Alper Services LLC, analyzes laws from all 50 states in four key categories: Open Meetings, Freedom of Information, Whistleblower Protection and Conflict of Interest.

Florida ranks 38th on the Integrity Index and in the bottom ten in both whistleblower protection and open meetings laws.

“The Integrity Index measures the level of commitment each state has made—or, more often, hasn’t made—to the enactment of laws that helps citizens access their government and its documents, and hold elected officials accountable, which is the framework of integrity and the first step in combating political corruption,” said Andy Shaw, President and CEO of the BGA. “Our findings show that current laws in most states are woefully inadequate, locking citizens out or forcing them to jump through unnecessary hoops as they attempt to exercise their fundamental democratic right to keep an eye on government.”

Overall Findings

In measuring ethics laws and government conduct in all 50 states, the Integrity Index determined the overall national average is an unacceptable 55 percent, with all states receiving scores categorized as mediocre or poor and not a single state cracking 70 percent. The low marks suggest the states are vastly underperforming at enacting tough transparency, accessibility and accountability laws, and much more needs to be done to inspire public trust and confidence.

The report notes that several of the states receiving high marks—particularly Rhode Island, New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana—aren’t commonly viewed as paragons of good government. Those states likely rank higher today because years of corruption and embarrassing scandals led to the adoption of stricter safeguards and more comprehensive sunshine laws. The BGA report also cautions not to assume that just because tougher laws are on the books, public officials are following them or states are enforcing them.

By contrast, many of the states with the weakest overall laws have not experienced widespread abuse and have steered clear of high-visibility scandals, so they may have not been prompted to enact stricter ethics measures and wide-sweeping reforms.

Final Integrity Index Rankings
Top 10 States			Bottom 10 States
State	Rank	Total Score	State	Rank	Total Score
Rhode Island	1	69.77%	Montana	50	28.06%
New Jersey	2	69.18%	Wyoming	49	36.46%
Illinois	3	68.49%	Michigan	48	39.07%
Nebraska	4	68.14%	South Dakota	47	39.82%
California	5	67.29%	Idaho	46	43.46%
Louisiana	6	64.86%	Alabama	45	43.93%
Texas	7	64.71%	Tennessee	44	47.05%
Washington	8	62.73%	Vermont	43	47.39%
Kentucky	9	62.20%	South Carolina	42	47.96%
Arkansas	10	60.99%	Delaware	41	49.13%

For more information about the Integrity Index and to find out where your state ranked in each category, visit www.bettergov.org.

About the Better Government Association:

The BGA works for integrity, transparency and accountability in government by exposing corruption and inefficiency; identifying and advocating effective public policy; and engaging and mobilizing the electorate to achieve authentic and responsible reform.

Zimmerman Aftershock: NBC lawsuit, calls to investigate State Attorney Corey

July 15, 2013/in Government Transparency, Gun Rights, Must Read, News, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

The name George Zimmerman is sending aftershocks across the state of Florida and the nation.

Since his acquittal on all charges stemming from the self defense shooting of Martin many actions and counter actions are anticipated. Among them: the lawsuit against NBC for “yellow journalism” and calls to investigate Florida State Attorney Angela Corey‘s misleading affidavit of probable cause, which had not disclosed significant exculpatory details.

Both are interrelated and deal with telling the truth.

In the first instance NBC employees (recently fired) selectively edited the 911 call that aired.

The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple reports Zimmerman attorney James Beasley stated that he and his team were eager to resume the [NBC] suit, which had been put on hold due to the beginning of the criminal trial. With that out of the way, they now intend to proceed. “We’re going to start in earnest asap, we just have to get the stay lifted which is a ministerial act,” Beasley said via email. Beasley did acknowledge that while Zimmerman’s victory in his criminal trial could be helpful to this civil suit, it was not a guarantee that he would win his defamation case.

To understand NBC’s alleged “yellow journalism” perhaps the following quotes from from a former Monitor/NBC Radio reporter are useful. The comments were sent to WDW – FL by Don Blair, former Monitor/NBC Radio news commentator and Florida resident. Blair’s last broadcast for Monitor/NBC Radio was in 1989. Blair was responding to a column posted by WDW – FL and wrote in a series of exchanges referring to Zimmerman: “Probably that a cold blooded murderer has been set free.” … “Is he immune from a drive-by shooting? I don’t think this man can look forward to a long…or longer life from here on out. I will drink to his death…hopefully a painful one.” … “I’ll say it again. I will drink a toast the day that miserable bastard is gunned down.” Similar comments were made by others on social media sites. One of the defense attorneys referred to the media as “mad scientists“. Some in the media “cry foul” on the verdict.

While Blair’s comments do not reflect on the current management or employees of NBC or its affiliates, there is a lesson to be gotten from his mind set regarding the Zimmerman case.

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey

The second issue are calls for an investigation of State Attorney Angela Corey for the misleading affidavit which lead to charge of second degree murder against Zimmerman.

Multiple emails to WDW – FL state, “Please write to Governor Scott and request that he immediately order a full and comprehensive investigation into the actions of State Attorney Angela Corey during the entire George Zimmerman arrest and trial.”

William A. Jacobson from Legal Insurrection reports:

In early April 2012, Florida State Attorney Angela Corey decided not to take the George Zimmerman case to a Grand Jury, opting for the filing of a Criminal Information which then was presented along with an Affidavit of Probable Cause. The Court found probable cause for the charges.

It turned out, once pre-trial discovery was exchanged, that the affidavit upon which probable cause was found had not disclosed a lot of significant exculpatory details. There was no mention of the significant injuries to Zimmerman, or of John Good’s eyewitness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him Mixed Martial Arts style. All the Affidavit said on the subject of the physical confrontation was that there was “a struggle.”

Journal of Medical Ethics supports “after birth abortions” and “euthanasia”

July 10, 2013/in Culture War, Must Read, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

Since the revelations stemming from the Dr. Kermit Gosnell trial many are asking: How this could have happened? Perhaps a review of a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012 by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva titled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” will answer this question.

The abstract reads:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Giubilini and Minerva state, “Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.”

Single parenthood is an ethical justification for euthanasia.

“[W]e need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human,” write Giubilini and Minerva. They note, “Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”

Giubilini and Minerva write, “[W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’”

Giubilini and Minerva appear to be making the ethical case for Eugenics.

Memorial plaque in North Carolina to victims of Eugenics.

Nora Sullivan, a Charlotte Lozier Institute Research Assistant, writes, “In his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, New York Times bestselling author Edwin Black paints one of the most complete pictures to date of the history of the eugenics movement in America. In this remarkable work, originally published in 2003 and expanded in 2012, Black chronicles a shameful period in modern American history, which has cast a long and lasting shadow across our country’s record on human rights.”

“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the eugenics movement in the United States was the amount of support that it found and the fervor with which it was put forward by its advocates. Those who professed the eugenic gospel were not the uneducated and uncouth. They were not led by a narrow worldview and limited access to information. Rather, they were the academics who led at the nation’s most prestigious institutions, the leaders who shaped the policy of the country, and the progressives with opportunities to make positive changes. They truly were the elites of America.”, notes Sullivan.

Have we returned to that period in American history where the infirm, the poor, the minorities are the targets of a “new Eugenics movement“?

Sullivan writes, “Despite the fact that proponents of eugenics thought they were working for a better world, their work became brutish as it advocated only for the good of a very select few. The horrific result was 60,000 Americans who were forcibly sterilized through state-sponsored eugenics programs that forever ruined countless lives.”

In the 1932 dystopian novel,“Brave New World” Aldous Huxley wrote that:

“In politics the equivalent of a fully developed scientific theory or philosophical system is a totalitarian dictatorship. In economics, the equivalent of a beautifully composed work of art is the smoothly running factory in which the workers are perfectly adjusted to the machines. The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess. The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification for despotism.”

U.S. birth rate hits all-time low…

Texas House approves sweeping abortion restrictions…

Black racism in Florida: “Polar bear hunting” is illegal

July 4, 2013/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Dr. Rich Swier

Are you familiar with the Knockout Game? It is a racially motivated violent game that targets whites. In Florida it is called “polar bear hunting” and it is illegal.

How is it played?

You start with a group of blacks that number anywhere from 3 to 30 people. As a group, they search for white people, preferably alone, elderly and somewhat defenseless. If they can’t find any, Asians are the next ethnic group targeted. When a target is selected, at least one of the blacks approaches the target and then suddenly sucker punches them in the face as hard as they can. If the victim is knocked out, the person that hit them wins. If the victim is not knocked out, then you continue to hit and kick them until you’re too tired to hit anymore or until the person is dead.

Knockout has become all too common in St. Louis, Missouri. In the past two years, there have been at least 100 Knockout victims, some of which have died. In 2011, one victim was Matt Quain, who was jumped by a group of black teens and beaten, suffered numerous abrasions to his face along with a broken jaw. One of the teens involved in the attack was Demetrius Murphy, a member of one of the most heinous groups in St. Louis known as the “Knockout Gang”.

Below are videos on YouTube showing knockouts. Warning the images in these videos are disturbing:

Colin Flaherty has documented this epidemic of black mob violence in his new book “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.” Flaherty documents, “The Midwest state fair with a ‘Beat Whitey Night?’ Or the Black Beach Week that turns a town into a ‘living hell?’ Or the school principal who blamed Asian students for being racist after suffering years of abuse? The eleven episodes of racial violence on the Fourth of July 2012? Some involving more than 1000 black people?”

Knockout is a racial hate crime that is being ignored and swept under the rug by black social leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. and the media. If a group of whites played Knockout and targeted blacks, Sharpton, the media and the national press would be giving it the coverage of the George Zimmerman trial, but since it’s blacks targeting whites, everyone just turns their heads and says nothing.

According to US and World Report, “A poll released Wednesday [July 3, 2013] by Rasmussen found African-Americans are more likely to be viewed as racist than whites. Thirty-seven percent of poll respondents said “most black Americans” are racist, compared to just 15 percent who said most whites are racist and 18 percent who said most Hispanics are racist.”

Hunting “polar bears” adds fuel to the black racist fire.

Watch the Colin Flaherty video documenting knockout gamers:

Florida Middle School students reading child pornography

July 2, 2013/in Education, Must Read/by Dr. Rich Swier

Jewell DeMarco, language arts teacher Laurel Nokomis Middle School

Parents at Laurel Nokomis Middle School in Sarasota, Florida became outraged when they learned their children were reading the child pornography book Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. Speak is about a 13-year old being raped.

One of the parents submitted a complaint to the Sarasota County School Board to have the book removed from the Laurel Nokomis reading list. The book is used in a “gifted language arts class” taught by Jewell DeMarco. It is the language used in the book that the parents object to.

Speak promotes “group rate abortions” on page 30. Other examples of bad behaviors in the book are: “Student steals late passes” (theft) – page 26, “sleep with the football team on Saturday night and be reincarnated as virginal goddesses on Monday” (promiscuity)- page 29; “slit my throat” (child suicide) – page 32, and “the crowd bumping and grinding the horny Hornet heinies” (group sex) – page 141.

Speak also contains graphic language including: “bitch”- page 20, “Asshole” – page 28, “pissed” – pages 30, 64 and 74, “Bitchy”- page 163. Other words and phrases used throughout the book are too graphic to include in the column.

A parent submitted a written request to have the child pornography book removed to Nancy Dubin, Principal of Laurel Nokomis Middle School. According to a letter to the District Superintendent provided to WDW – FL, “On June 21, 2013 I received a Patron’s Request for Reconsideration of instructional Material from [redacted]. The challenged material is the book, Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson, an award-winning novel, currently used in our 8th grade gifted language arts class.”

Nancy Dubin, Principal Laurel Nokomis Middle School

Dubin convened a curriculum council to review the appropriateness of the book for 8th graders. The council members at the school level were all teachers or administrators at Laurel Nokomis School. A member of the panel was DeMarco, the only teacher in the school using the book. The council reached the conclusion that “the material is appropriate for the end of eighth grade”, stating:

“We feel this book should remain as an end of 8th grade book selection, with an alternate selection provided. It provides our students with a guided, approach to think about some of the choices that will face many of them within ten weeks of 8th grade graduation, as they move into high school and are socializing with much older, more mature high school students.“

Additional comments:

“Relevant book alerts students to potentially dangerous situations. Best used as a guided novel study at the end of the 8th grade. Theme fits in with LNS anti-bullying program. Book is used throughout the county and the country in middle schools, in 7th or 8th grade. One parent says, ‘Education is key. Censorship is never the answer.”‘ [Emphasis added]

Scott Ferguson, Communications Specialist Sarasota County Schools, wrote in an email to WDW – FL , “I have heard from five other middle schools, Brookside, McIntosh, Heron Creek and Venice, and Pine View so far. None of these schools is using the book.” At the time WDW – FL posted this column Ferguson has not heard from: Booker Middle, Sarasota Middle or Woodland Middle.

“There is no state or district list of approved novels. As mentioned above, if a teacher wants to use a novel in a class, he or she must get approval from the principal. A list of books that will be used in the classroom is sent to parents at the beginning of the semester. As noted above, a parent can opt to have their child read an alternative selection if he/she objects to their child reading a book that is on the list,” states Ferguson. [Emphasis added]

Ferguson reports, “The challenge has now moved to the district level (see PDF with attached memo) from Principal Nancy Dubin to Superintendent White and related documents from the school-level challenge. Student names have been redacted). For the district challenge, Sue Meckler, our director of Curriculum and Instruction, will determine the committee membership, per School Board Policy 4.3. The committee will not be able to meet until the fall because many of the required members are not on duty during the summer. However, the director will attempt to contact some members to see if they can serve on the committee. If so, they will be asked to read the book before the committee meets in the fall.” [Emphasis added]

Dubin, the principal, approves of the book taught by DeMarco. According to one parent, “The teacher [DeMarco] uses the book to denigrate the male students. She has them stand up and read passages from Speak in class. The teacher is using the book to push an agenda. It is child pornography, nothing more and nothing less. It does not belong in our public schools. We are have our youngest reading child porn sanctioned by a teacher. What message does that send? That is plain wrong!”

Rubio to Arne Duncan: Obama can’t force States to comply with Common Core

July 1, 2013/in Culture War, Education, Government Transparency, Must Read, News/by Dr. Rich Swier

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

In a letter to US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Sen. Marco Rubio says cajoling states to adopt Obama administration reforms – including curricula – are unconstitutional.

Kathleen Rae Doan, a Mom Coordinator Region #8 “Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots“, states in an email to WDW -FL, “In a letter to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has expressed his concern about the Obama administration’s use of waivers in exchange for states’ adoption of the administration’s policies. Sen. Rubio contends that not only is the waiver [a] scheme and abuse, but that such a nudge toward adopting federally-backed curriculum is unconstitutional.”

Senator Rubio’s letter to Secretary Duncan is reproduced below.

The Honorable Arne Duncan
Secretary United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Secretary Duncan:

As you may know, a rising number of parents, teachers and administrators from across our nation have expressed concerns regarding the Department of Education’s recent announcements relating to the issuance of waivers from No Child Left Behind (NCLB); particularly the stipulations expected to be attached to those waivers.

The issuance of conditional waivers is detrimental to our country’s shared goal of educational success for every student. Our principal concern is that the Executive branch does not possess the authority to force states into compliance with administration-backed reforms instituted through the issuance of waivers.

We acknowledge that NCLB allows the Secretary to grant waivers for existing provisions under the law, but nowhere does the law authorize waivers in exchange for the adoption of administration-preferred policies. This initiative is an overstep of authority that undermines existing law, and violates the constitutional separation of powers. The responsibility for legislating lies with Congress, and forcing policy reforms through NCLB waivers violates this most basic of constitutional structures.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the administration’s requirements for granting a waiver from NCLB would entail states having to adopt a federally-approved “college and career ready” curriculum: either the national Common Core standards, or another federally-approved equivalent. I am also concerned that the U.S. Department of Education has created, through its contractors, national curriculum materials to support these Common Core standards. Such activities are unacceptable; they violate three existing laws: NCLB, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the General Education Provisions Act.

All three laws prohibit the federal government from creating or prescribing national curriculum.

If you believe that conditional waivers tied to content standards do not violate these laws, I invite you to explain the reasoning underlying that belief. Since legislating is a duty reserved for Congress, attaching administration-preferred reforms to NCLB waivers would counteract and inhibit meaningful education reform desperately needed to ensure that our children receive an education that will prepare them for the challenging global economic marketplace.

I respectfully ask that due consideration be given to options that have been advanced through Congress and provide genuine flexibility to states, so that state and local lawmakers – those closest to children and families – can focus on high-quality education policies that will benefit our nation’s children.

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator

Kathleen Rae Doan a Mom Coordinator Region #8 “Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots” quotes Dr. Martin Luther King who wrote, “To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”

To learn more about Common Core visit Floridians Against Common Core Education.

Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee starts “Recall Rubio” petition

June 29, 2013/in Must Read, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

William May has begun a petition to recall Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The petition is sponsored by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

After signing the petition individuals receive an email from the DCCC saying, “Thank you for taking action through Care2 to protect America’s middle class and to keep our country moving forward. The DCCC is committed to supporting Democrats across the country because the success of President Obama’s agenda depends on a strong Democratic majority.”

The petition states:

Marco Rubio in his own words previously while serving in the state legislature; during his campaign for office and his recent rhetoric on TV, Talk Radio, commercials, emails and surveys sent to his constituents stating that the border must be secured first then path to citizenship. The senator now has changed his promise to suit what he decides is in his best interest and not honor his own commitment to his campaign, voters and supporters thereby disenfranchising them.

Had the Senator expressed his true beliefs on illegal immigration over his term in the state legislature and during his campaign it is doubtful that he would have acquired the nomination to run as the republican candidate for Senator from Florida and most assuredly the election results would be in doubt for his favor.

Due to his own words and actions Senator Marco Rubio has nullified the votes cast for him by disenfranchising voters with glib and false rhetoric corrupting the good faith and will of the voters whose recourse now is to recall the Senator and force him to reveal the factual representation of himself and allow the voters to now judge him based on his true beliefs, values not on false and misleading campaign rhetoric statements.

To view the petition click here.

According to Attorney David C. Grossack in his white paper “A Legal Analysis Prepared for the U.S. Citizens Association” states, “While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials [Florida is one of these states], it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled. It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen…”

Grossack notes, “Legal scholars who have written concerning the issue frequently point out that the issue of recall was heavily debated by the Founding Fathers during the drafting of the Federal Constitution. They deliberately omitted language enabling recall from the Constitution, and some use this as a basis for arguing that recall is not constitutionally permissible. The Founding fathers did, however, subsequent to the body of the Constitution, amend it. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Most appropriate to this discussion is the Tenth Amendment.”

The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“What certain commentators and scholars don’t acknowledge that while debate over recall occurred in 1787, it was four years later (1791) that they gave us the Tenth Amendment. The timing may or may not be indicative of a shift of attitude about recall on the part of the Framers,” states Grossack.

BallotPedia states, “The recall of local elected government officials in Florida is governed by Fla. Stat. Ann §100.361. This statute applies to “cities and charter counties whether or not they have adopted recall provisions.” Florida’s recall law says that the law is applicable to Florida’s charter counties, regardless of whether the county has specifically included a charter provision in its county charter governing recall. Florida has 67 counties, and as of 2010, 18 of these counties were charter counties.

Florida’s charter counties are: Alachua, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte,Columbia, Duval, Hillsborough, Lee, Leon, Miami-Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole and Volusia.

While May’s petition may send a political message to Senator Rubio, as of the writing of this column the petition has 1,748 signatures, it has quetionable grounds in Florida laws.

Tim Brown from Freedom Outpost reports, “Earlier in the week, we told you how Arizona has had it with Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake over their persistent push of the Senate’s amnesty bill and began petitions to recall them.”

Sarah Palin’s Biblical Insult To Marco Rubio On Immigration Bill: Was It Worth ’30 Pieces Of Silver?’

Editorial: Is Rubio the new face of “Progressivism”?

June 28, 2013/in Elections, Must Read, Opinion, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Florida has a penchant for growing and electing Republicans who morph into big government “progressives”. The most recent example is Marco Rubio. But he is not the first and certainly will not be the last.

Before Rubio there was Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist.

Jeb is the brother of George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative” President. Compassionate conservative came to mean during Bush’s second term “progressive big government”. Remember it was former President Bush who dramatically expanded Medicare (Part B) and bailed out the banks. Government stimulus is an ongoing program created by a Republican President and expanded under the current administration. G.W. Bush famously said, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Jeb and G.W.’s father former President George H.W. Bush signed the Agenda 21 Treaty.

Charlie Crist soon after being elected governor adopted California’s carbon emission standards by issuing an Executive Order imposing them on all Floridians. Crist morphed from being a Republican, to a Progressive Independent and is now a registered Progressive Democrat. It is expected Crist will challenge Governor Rick Scott in 2014.

Jeb has visions of following in his father’s and brother’s footsteps. He has embraced President Obama’s Common Core education initiative, which will enrich Jeb and his family. In September of this year he will award the Liberty Medal to Hillary Clinton. Jeb will present the award on the eve of the deadly Benghazi attack in Libya. The Liberty medal is awarded by one of Jeb’s many foundations.

Rubio willingly became the face of the progressive goal of amnesty with the passage of the immigration bill this week. There is a pattern. While Rubio was Florida Speaker of the House he supported the REAL ID and failed to strengthen immigration laws in Florida. Many were concerned that Rubio would be pro-amnesty but he reassured Floridians that he would not during his 2010 campaign. In 2010 Rubio stated, “’an earned path to citizenship,’ such as his opponent Gov. Charlie Crist, former President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain had advocated, was nothing more than a ‘code for amnesty’.”

Fast forward to this week. Greg Gutfeld, co-host of The Five on Fox News, said, “For politicians [like Rubio] immigration is more about bodies than borders.” Republicans, like Rubio, are becoming more and more progressive in their views and now actions. Many conservatives say the Republicans have compromised their principles on key issues, which according to Slade O’Brien from Florida Americans for Prosperity, “Is the art of losing slowly.”

Today, Florida Republicans are breeding the next generation of progressive politicians. Heritage Action for America scorecard gives a lower than 60% rating to six Florida Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL 13), who leads the Florida delegation and sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Another of the upcoming “new progressives” in Florida is Senator Nancy Detert who was given an “F” rating on the Americans for Prosperity legislative scorecard.

Is seems to more and more Americans that both Democrats and Republicans are now two squads on the same team. The only difference is who has the ball.

Gone are conservative men of conscience like former Senator Barry Goldwater, American Politician and Senator, 1909-1998. It was Goldwater who wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

While Florida Republicans may embrace Ronald Reagan, and declare they are conservatives during their campaigns, it is their actions once elected that make their true beliefs clear. Is the public conscience in decline and Republican politicians just a reflection of the “new, new”; or are they the proximate cause of the moral and cultural decline in America?

That is the question.

Florida Federal Judge Bans Enforcement of HHS Mandate

June 27, 2013/in Healthcare, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that this past Monday, Federal District Court Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich of the Middle District of Florida granted its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction barring enforcement of the HHS Mandate. The motion for a Preliminary Injunction was filed by TMLC on behalf of Plaintiffs Thomas R. Beckwith and his family’s company, Beckwith Electric.

The government claimed that once a business owner chooses to enter into the marketplace or incorporate his business, he surrenders his right to exercise his religious beliefs.

However, Judge Kovachevich’s 37-page decision which mentioned Thomas R. Beckwith’s unique family history—Beckwith’s ancestors arrived on the shores of America in 1626 to escape religious persecution from England — ended with a powerful statement on religious freedom:

“The First Amendment, and its statutory corollary the RFRA, endow upon the citizens of the United States the unalienable right to exercise religion, and that right is not relinquished by efforts to engage in free enterprise under the corporate form. No legislative, executive, or judicial officer shall corrupt the Framers’ initial expression, through their enactment of laws, enforcement of those laws, or more importantly, their interpretation of those laws. And any action that debases, or cheapens, the intrinsic value of the tenet of religious tolerance that is entrenched in the Constitution cannot stand.” (Emphasis added)

Erin Mersino, TMLC’s lead attorney representing Beckwith, commented, “Tom Beckwith was fighting the Federal Government for the freedom to practice his Southern Baptist faith. The HHS Mandate would have forced him to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in violation of his religious beliefs or face up to $6 million in annual penalties. Kovachevich’s ruling halts enforcement of the HHS mandate until a final decision is reached in this case.”

Click here to read Judge Kovachevich’s entire opinion.

Judge Kovachevich’s ruling is the first injunction against the HHS Mandate granted in the State of Florida. It also marks the twenty-second injunction against the HHS Mandate granted by Federal Courts on religious freedom grounds across the country. The Government is expected to appeal the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Thomas More Law Center was assisted by local counsel Paul Pizzo and Scott Richards of the firm Fowler White Boggs, P.A. located in Tampa, Florida.

The Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a friend of the court brief in support of the Thomas More Law Center, as did several other Christian organizations, including the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER:

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Allen West: “We need to beware judicial activism” #DOMA

June 26, 2013/in Culture War, Must Read, News, Policy/by Dr. Rich Swier

Posted by allenwestrepublic on June 26, 2013

130327-Supreme_Court-DOMA_620x350

by Allen West via Facebook

I don’t believe when the 14th Amendment was passed to support the 13th amendment, the writers ever conceived it would be used as a catch-all for various special interest groups. And I am very concerned that special interest groups can challenge the referendum of the people and seek out their interest before the courts – and in fact overrule the democratic process by legislating from the bench.

America is facing immense issues that threaten our republic — economic, energy, and national security issues –and I shall not get caught up in debates at the federal government level on legislating sexual behaviors. The states will make the final determination….but then again, we need to beware judicial activism.

EDITORS NOTE:

Florida in 2008 passed an amendment to the Florida Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Amendment 2 added Article I Section 27 of the Florida constitution, which states:

Inasmuch as 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.

Rubio: Supreme Court made “serious mistake” striking down DOMA

June 26, 2013/in Culture War, Must Read, News, Policy/by Dr. Rich Swier

Pro-gay marriage advocates celebrate at the US Supreme Court.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) released the following statement on today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings:

“I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today when it overstepped its important, but limited role. I do not believe that President Clinton and overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress acted with malice or intent to ‘demean’ a class of people when they adopted a uniform definition of marriage for the purposes of federal law. The Court should not have second guessed the will of the American people acting through their elected representatives without firm constitutional justifications. The sweeping language of today’s majority opinion is more troubling than the ruling itself as it points to further interference by the Court in the years to come.

“I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints. These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.

“For millions of Americans, the definition of marriage is not an abstract political question, or some remote legal debate. It’s a deeply personal issue. It’s an issue that I have grappled with as well.

“I believe that marriage is a unique historical institution best defined as the union between one man and one woman. In the U.S., marriage has traditionally been defined by state law, and I believe each state, acting through their elected representatives or the ballot, should decide their own definition of marriage. For the purposes of federal law, however, Congress had every right to adopt a uniform definition and I regret that the Supreme Court would interfere with that determination.

“I appreciate that many Americans’ attitude towards same-sex marriage have changed in recent years. I respect the rights of states to allow same-sex marriages, even though I disagree with them. But I also expect that the decisions made by states like Florida to define marriage as between one man and one woman will also be respected.

“I do not believe there exists a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Therefore, I am glad the Supreme Court did not create one in the Proposition 8 case.

“Rather than having courts redefine marriage for all Americans, my hope is that the American people, through their state legislatures and referendums, can continue to decide the definition of marriage. It is through debates like this that the brilliance of our constitutional system of democracy, and the inherent goodness of our people, is revealed.

“My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay. It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots.” [Emphasis added]

EDITORS NOTE:

Has Rubio read his own immigration bill?

June 26, 2013/in Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

The Weekly Standard reports that at least five S. 744 supporters do not know what is in the bill. When asked about a provision that would give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire amnestied aliens over citizens and permanent legal residents:

Sen. Baucus said: “I don’t know if that’s been solved.”

Sen. Casey: “I just haven’t read it that closely to know.”

Sen. Blumenthal: “that’s a good question. I’d have to check.”

Sen. Carper: “I don’t have the time to drill down on it right now”

Sen. Boxer: “I think if you work for an employer who offers health care, you will get the health care you want.”

Sen. McCain’s and Rubio’s offices didn’t respond.

John Carney of CNBC writes that the Congressional Budget Office says S. 744 would create “another decade of pain” for American workers. But that doesn’t seem to trouble very many Members of the United States Senate.

Instead of discussing the higher unemployment and lower wages S. 744 would mean for American workers, the Gang is “in full horse-trading mode” according to Politico, which also reports (subscribers only) that the entire process has been “mostly via back channels and insider negotiations, with deals reached privately to lock up senators’ votes — rather than amendments adopted publicly on the Senate floor.”

Erick Erickson of Red State has a list of quotes from amnesty supporters back when they were running for office — and againstamnesty.

And Sen. Rubio (among those quoted by Erickson above) reiterated his belief that the Senate needs to convince the American public to trust it on immigration.

Sen. Paul, on the other hand, wrote “Washington parlor tricks disguised as reform will not fool the American people.”

VIDEO: Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks Against Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Immigration Bill:

Watchdog Wire Survey: Do you agree with the IRS IG Report findings?

June 25, 2013/in Must Read, Policy/by Dr. Rich Swier

On June 24, 2013 Daniel Werfel, IRS Director released the report “Charting a Path Forward at the IRS: Initial Assessment and Plan of Action“.

The report opens with this statement:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

To read the full IRS report and its findings click here.

Watchdog Wire asks if you agree or disagree with the findings of the report. Please take the time to complete this short survey.

Please share this survey with your friends, family and contacts.

To view the results of this survey please click here.

Thomas R. Pickering: The Benghazi and Khost coverups

June 24, 2013/in Government Transparency, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Darren J. LaBonte, former Army Ranger, FBI agent and CIA operations officer. Photo courtesy of the Huffington Post.

Since President Obama took office there have been a number of strategically successful attacks by radical Islamists against US special forces units, the CIA and Department of State. In each case, due to security failures, these attacks ended in the largest loss of life for our Navy Seals (Extortion 17), CIA field operators (Khost, Afghanistan) and the first loss of a US Ambassador (Benghazi, Libya) in over 30 years.

One name that comes up in two of these tragic incidents is Thomas R. Pickering (above photo courtesy of the AP). Thomas Reeve “Tom” Pickering, is a retired United States ambassador. Among his diplomatic appointments, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992.

Many have never heard of Khost, Afghanistan. However, Venice, Florida residents David and Camille LaBonte will never forget that name. Their son Darren James LaBonte, a former Army Ranger, FBI agent and CIA operations officer, was killed in Khost on December 30, 2009.

“Khost” is the short name for Chapman Airfield, a secret CIA operations base located near Khost, Afghanistan. It was on December 30, 2009 at Khost that the US suffered the loss of seven CIA operations officers, a Jordanian General Intelligence Department (GID or Mukhabarat) officer and two Blackwater security guards detailed to protect the base and its CIA personnel.

There was no formal investigation on the Khost incident by the US Congress. However, the CIA conducted an internal investigation ordered by then Director Leon Panetta, to look at what happened in Khost. According to Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, “The internal investigation documents a litany of breakdowns leading to the Dec. 30 attack at the Khost base that killed seven C.I.A. employees, the deadliest day for the spy agency since the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut. Besides the failure to pass on warnings about the bomber, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the C.I.A. investigation chronicled major security lapses at the base in Afghanistan, a lack of war zone experience among the agency’s personnel at the base, insufficient vetting of the alleged defector and a murky chain of command with different branches of the intelligence agency competing for control over the operation.” [Emphasis added]

“Some of these failures mirror other lapses that have bedeviled the sprawling intelligence and anti-terrorism community in the past several years, despite numerous efforts at reform,” notes Mazzetti.

Mazzetti states, “The report found that the breakdowns were partly the result of C.I.A. officers’ wanting to believe they had finally come across the thing that had eluded them for years: a golden source who could lead them to the terror network’s second highest figure, Ayman al-Zawahri.”

Fast forward to September 11, 2012 and Benghazi. It was Pickering who lead the internal investigation ordered by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Pickering Benghazi internal investigation found:

The attacks in Benghazi were security-related, resulting in the deaths of four U.S. personnel after terrorists attacked two separate U.S. government facilities – the Special Mission compound (SMC) and the Annex.
Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
Notwithstanding the proper implementation of security systems and procedures and remarkable heroism shown by American personnel, those systems themselves and the Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers.
The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.
The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability.

These two internal investigations sound eerily similar. Were both accurate portrayals that led to changes or just reports to be filed and forgotten? The Pickering report on Benghazi quotes George Santayana who wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” First came Khost then came Benghazi. Did our national leaders forget the lessons of Khost and did they repeat the same mistakes in Benghazi two years later?

You be the judge.

Second Billboard Blasts Senator Rubio for his “Amnesty First” Immigration Bill

June 24, 2013/in Immigration, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy/by Dr. Rich Swier

Floridians for Immigration Enforcement announced it has put up a second billboard near the Jaguars’ Stadium in Jacksonville that blasts Senator Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) Senate Bill S.744, the “so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ Immigration bill”, that “would give amnesty to more than 11 million illegal immigrants before any attempt is made to secure the U.S. border against another wave of illegal immigration.”

“Not only did Senator Marco Rubio break his solemn pledge to our organization and Florida Tea Party leaders that he would oppose amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants when he ran for Senate, but he abandoned his promise to make sure the border is secure before considering what to do with illegal immigrants already here,” said Floridians for Immigration Enforcement Legislative Director Jack Oliver. The billboard’s text which also can be viewed above, reads:

The Rubio-Obama Immigration Plan

Amnesty: “Right Away”
Border Control: “Someday”

The billboard location is East-bound Arlington Expressway near the Fairgrounds in Jacksonville, Florida.”Besides breaking his own promises, Senator Rubio should explain why he trusts the Obama Administration to carry out any promises it makes to control the border after it gets the amnesty it wants, in light of Benghazi and the numerous falsehoods and cover-ups involved in the IRS, Associated Press and Fox News scandals,” said Oliver.

“Senator Rubio’s ‘Amnesty First – Border Control Someday’ approach in S.744 will only trigger a new wave of illegal immigration, and should be rejected by anyone who believes that America has the same right to control its borders that every nation on earth does,” added Oliver.

The Rubio-Obama Immigration Plan

Amnesty: “Right Away” Border Control: “Someday”

Amnesty: “Right Away”
Border Control: “Someday”