Second Florida Senate Committee to vote on anti-Sharia legislation

The Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability will vote on SB 58 – Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases during the scheduled March 21, 2013 10:00 to 12:00 am meeting.  

SB 58 Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases reads:

Clarifies that public policies expressed in act apply to violations of natural person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by State Constitution or U.S. Constitution; provides that act does not apply to corporation, partnership, or other form of business association, except when necessary to provide effective relief in proceedings under or relating to chs. 61 & 88, F.S.; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system in proceedings brought under or relating to chs. 61 & 88, F.S., which relate to dissolution of marriage, support, time-sharing, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, & Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; declares that certain decisions under such laws, codes, or systems & certain choice of venue or forum provisions in contract are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by State Constitution or U.S. Constitution; declares that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied; limits construction of provisions in certain circumstances.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6 – 3 on March 6, 2013 to approve SB 58.  Click here to read the article and vote record.

All committees in the Florida House of Representatives have approved this legislation (HB 351).  Click here to read the article and vote record.  HB 351 is pending a second reading before the full house.

If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws and legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system.

Florida Family Association has sent an email asking supporters to send Senators on the Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability to support Senate Bill 58. The link is here.

UPDATE 3/22/2013:

The Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability voted on SB 58 – Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases during the scheduled March 21, 2013 10:00 to 12:00 am meeting.  The committee voted as follows:

Chair
Senator Jeremy Ring (D) No
Vice Chair
Senator Alan Hays (R) Yes
Senator Aaron Bean (R) Yes
Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R) Yes
Senator Rob Bradley (R) Yes
Senator Dorothy L. Hukill (R) Yes
Senator Bill Montford (D) No
Senator David Simmons (R) Yes
Senator Christopher L. Smith (D) No

Florida Democrats file 50 anti-Second Amendment bills

Senator Audrey Gibson (D-Jacksonville)

Under a bill proposed by Senator Audrey Gibson (D-Jacksonville), a person could not purchase any firearm ammunition without presenting a certificate showing that the would be purchaser had completed an Anger Management Course — which must be renewed every ten years.  Representative Perry Thurston (D-Ft. Lauderdale and also the House Minority Leader) filed the companion bill in the state House.

This is one of nearly fifty gun control bills filed by Florida Legislators — all bills have been filed by Democrats.

The NRA in an email to members states, “These Democrats are working to ban your freedom, your rights and your ability to defend yourself and your family.”

FLORIDA SENATE BILLS:

SB-136  Self-defense (Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground)
SB-314 Repeal Privacy of Firearm Owners/Doctors
SB-344  Assault or Battery on a Utility Worker
SB-362  Use of Deadly Force (Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground)
SB-374  Authority for Gun Control by Local Governments
SB-622 Repeal of Castle Doctrine
SB-1000 Regulation of Firearms
SB-1018 To Allow Local Governments to Adopt Gun
SB-1208  Taxes on Guns & Ammunition
SB-1234 Special 4% Tax on Firearms And Ammunition
SB-1272 Prohibit Firearms Sales at Gun Shows
SB-1426 Trespassing on Railroad Property
SB-1488  Licensure to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm
SB-1582 Assault Weapons/Culpable Negligence
SB-1640 Firearms “Universal Background Check Act”
SB-1670 Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban
SB 1678 Anger Management/Sale of Ammunition

Rep.Perry Thurston, D-Ft. Lauderdale

FLORIDA HOUSE BILLS

HB-97  Authority for Gun Control by local governments
HB-123 Use of Deadly Force (Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground)
HB-325 Sales Taxes on Guns & Ammunition/School Safety
HB-327 Creates Trust Fund for Guns & Ammunition Taxes
HB-331 Self-defense (Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground)
HB-501 Possession or Discharge of Firearm
HB 511 Assault or Battery on Utility Worker
HB-799 Use of Force in Self-Defense
HB-993 Authority for Gun Control by local governments
HB-1051 Prohibits Firearms Sales at Gun Shows
HB-1209  Special 4% Tax on Firearms And Ammunition
HB-4009 To Repeal of Castle Doctrine
HB-4017 To Repeal Privacy of Firearm Owners/Doctors
HB-1229  Anger Management Course Required to Buy
HB-1343 “Universal Background Check Act”

Phyllis Schlafly asks: What happened to the loyal opposition? (+ video)

Joe Miller from Restoring Liberty reports, “Conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday that the Republican establishment had given America a series of losers as presidential candidates over the last two decades–and the last time they picked a winner, George W. Bush, he was a bigger spender than the Democrats.

“Why is it that the establishment has given us this bunch of losers?” Schlafly said. “The establishment has given us a whole series of losers: Bob Dole and John McCain and Mitt Romney.

“And even when they picked a winner–George W. Bush–they picked somebody who spent more than the Democrats,” she said.

Watch the video of Phyllis Schlafly’s speech at CPAC 2013, which begins at the 2:30 mark:

VIDEO: Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Schumer (D-NY) equate lawful gun owners to pornographers

Responding to Senator Cruz’s question on whether Congress should restrict books the same way that Congress wants to control guns, Senator Feinstein states, “The answer is no”. However, after consulting with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Feinstein equates gun control to control of, “certain kinds of pornographic material”.

Senators Schumer and Feinstein equate their efforts to restrict lawful gun ownership as equal to restricting child pornography. The implication is lawful owners of a 30 round magazine and certain types of rifles equal ownership of child pornography.

Watch the video, the comments about pornography come at 3:30 minutes into the exchange between Senators Cruz and Feinstein:

Daniel Horowitz of RedState states, “If Ted Cruz keeps this up in the Senate, Democrats might try to impose gun control on his Cruz missile strikes. Earlier today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, Ted Cruz directly challenges Dianne Feinstein to answer how her gun bans are constitutional if the same language protecting the right to bear arms (“the right of the people”) is used for the First and Fourth Amendments, which presumably, nobody would try to limit in the same way. Of course, she had no answer, except to act like a pugnacious school child.”

Why We Don’t Need Universal Preschool

Column is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said he wanted to “make high-quality preschool available to every child in America” and “make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind.”

So Heritage experts took a look at the President’s plan to see if it would actually help America’s needy children get ahead in the “race of life.”

Another government-controlled, top-down, one-size-fits-all program—what could go wrong?

Look at the government’s record. As Heritage’s Lindsey Burke, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education, and research associate Rachel Sheffield point out in their new paper, “Washington already has a poor track record for K–12 education, with federal spending nearly tripling over the past three decades while academic achievement and attainment languishes.”

Look at the government preschool we already have.There are already 45 government preschool programs run by numerous federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, the Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. Burke and Sheffield note that these 45 programs “are estimated to cost taxpayers more than $20 billion annually. Many are duplicative and ineffective, failing to serve the needs of children from low-income families.”

Head Start, of course, has already shown us the ways government preschool can fail American children:

After nearly 50 years of operation, the federal Head Start program has failed to improve the educational outcomes and kindergarten readiness of participating children. Head Start should be eliminated, or at the very least it should be reformed, to allow states the flexibility to make their Head Start funds portable, allowing families to use their dollars to send their children to a private preschool of their choice.

The President’s new proposal wouldn’t help low-income children. Low-income families already have access to taxpayer-funded preschool through state programs and Head Start (which, if it continues to be funded, should be reformed to serve them better). President Obama’s proposal would subsidize middle-income and upper-income families—with no new benefit to low-income parents.

Three-quarters of four-year-olds are already in preschool. Many parents prefer to care for their young children at home. But for those who want preschool programs, there are a variety of programs available. There is no public demand for new, large-scale government spending in this area. Burke and Sheffield report that “An estimated 74 percent of four-year-old children are enrolled in preschool, public and private, across the country.”

Look at the academic evidence. Do these formal preschool programs really help kids in their academic careers? Our authors write: “Evaluations of preschool programs consistently find that any gains children make as a result of preschool quickly fade away in their early elementary years.” The Obama administration turns to a 50-year-old evaluation of a high-intervention preschool program with 58 at-risk children to make his case for taxpayer-funded, universal preschool. That means President Obama is making what researcher Russ Whitehurst calls “a prodigious leap of faith.” The outcomes of that program, known as the Perry Preschool Project, have never been replicated.

It is far more likely that the President’s proposal will produce outcomes akin to Head Start, which, according to the scientifically rigorous evaluations conducted by Health and Human Services, are abysmal.

Everyone wants children to have the best start in life. Large-scale government preschool programs are not the way to ensure that happens.

LEARN MORE:

Universal Preschool’s Empty Promises

SPECIAL REPORT: Florida’s Sunshine Laws

We at Watchdog Wire – Florida know that politicians change their behavior when they know the citizenry is watching.

That’s why Watchdog Wire and the Franklin Center are participating in Sunshine Week (March 10-16), a nationwide initiative focused on the importance of access to public information. We’ll be featuring articles and resources on FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), state open records law, and other transparency efforts all week.

Sunshine Review evaluates how transparent local and state governments are via a grading system. Florida’s cities, counties, school boards and the state all received a grade of “B”.

Recently, Enterprise Florida, the Florida Public Service Commission and Citizen’s Insurance have come under fire for their lack of transparency. Floridians frequently wake up and read about violations of Florida’s sunshine laws at the citycountyschool board and state agency level.

The common thread to each of these violations is a lack of sunshine in the sunshine state.

For example, did you know that State lawmakers have no power to require the Governor or Cabinet members to meet in public when they are exercising their constitutional administrative duties or acting as a policy-making board related by the Legislature, such as the State Board of Education. For instance, the governor’s deliberations with Cabinet members about whether to grant a pardon or clemency are not covered by the Sunshine Law because they involve constitutional duties, not statutory duties.

Sunshine Review notes, “The Florida Sunshine Law is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to the public records of governmental bodies in Florida. The law was first enacted in 1995. The original statutes state:

The Florida Open Meetings Law (Fla. Stat. sec 286) governs the extent to which public meetings are open to the public. The Florida Public Records Law (Fla. Stat. sec. 119) governs the inspection and copying of public records.

The University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Freedom of Information has a useful list of frequently asked questions:

1. When did Florida begin its tradition of openness?

2. What is the Sunshine Law?

3. What changed after the Constitutional Amendment in 1992 was approved?

4. How does the Sunshine Law work?

5. Who does the Sunshine Law apply to?

6. Which government bodies does the Sunshine Law cover?

7. What types of advisory committees have the Florida courts found to be subject to the Sunshine Law?

8. Which committees are exempt from the Sunshine Law?

9. Does the Sunshine Law Apply to the Governor and Cabinet?

10. What Legislative meetings are covered by the Sunshine Law?

11. What activities are covered by the Sunshine Law?

12. Are there exemptions to the Sunshine Law?

13. Are private organizations covered by the Sunshine Law?

14. Is a private organization that receives public funds subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law?

15. Who is responsible for attorney’s fees when there is a lawsuit over the Sunshine Law?

To help you as a citizen prepare to hold your government accountable, we’ve compiled a list of action items that empower you to shine a light on government waste and abuse in your own communities:

1. Figure out FOIA here:  Florida FOIA procedures

2. Embrace money-tracking tools

3. Check visitor logs and daily schedules

4. Investigate stimulus dollars in your area

5. Dig deeper into ObamaCare repercussions

6. Track state pensions

7. Report on a local transparency hero

Click here to read the full list of transparency tips and report back your findings on Watchdog Wire. We will list your story in our special Sunshine Report featuring all citizen research and writing. E-mail your ideas, tips and questions to me at Florida@WatchdogWire.com.  If you want to write for Watchdog Wire – Florida, sign up here!

Here’s to an open and more accountable government.

VIDEO: Rubio calls for defunding Obamacare

Senator Marco Rubio’s floor statement on Obamacare:

“When they start to fully implement this over the next 12-18 months, it is going to be an epic disaster. An epic disaster. Not because it was ill-intentioned, per se. I think the goal of providing an environment where everybody can buy affordable health insurance is something we should take very seriously and we have to work on. You can’t have a strong, stable middle class if people can’t afford the cost of living. You can’t have a strong and stable middle class if people don’t have access to quality health care at an affordable price. And we should work on that. We should work on that really hard.

“But we have to do that with some balance, and this is not balanced. This is an across-the-board application to the entire country that is going to hurt a lot of people. There are people in America that are going to lose hours at work because of this bill. There are people in America that are going to lose the health insurance they have, which they are happy with, because of this bill. There are people in America that are going to have to lay people off and, therefore, there are people in America that are going to lose their jobs because of this bill. And our debt is going to grow.

“And so I hope we will pass this amendment. I hope we will defund this program. It was ill-designed and as the true ramifications of this bill begin to apply over the next few months and next couple years, we are going to be right back here on this floor trying to fix it. Because this country cannot be what it is meant to be if it has to deal with something like this hanging around its neck.”

Florida man whose ancestors escaped religious persecution in 1626 files a federal Lawsuit to escape religious persecution

Thomas Beckwith’s ancestors, enduring the hardships of a storm tossed ocean voyage, landed on American shores in 1626 to escape religious persecution from England.  One hundred and fifty years later, one of his ancestors, as a member of the Connecticut militia, fought against the tyrannical British king in the Revolutionary War.  Today, Thomas Beckwith, a devout Southern Baptist, and his family-owned  Beckwith Electric Company, Inc, filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new form of tyranny and religious persecution—the HHS Mandate.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced it filed a 48-page federal lawsuit in a Florida Federal District Court against the Obama Administration challenging the HHS Mandate.  TMLC’s Erin Mersino is lead counsel in the case.  She is assisted by local co-counsel Paul Pizzo and Scott Richards of the Tampa firm of Fowler, White and Boggs.

Thomas Beckwith is an active member of the First Baptist Church of Indian Rocks, a Southern Baptist congregation located in Largo, Florida. 

Thomas Beckwith

Beckwith Electric founded in 1967 by his parents has 168 full-time employees and provides micro-processor-based technology that protects and controls giant power system generators, transformers, and power lines, and protects the interconnection of alternative energy.  The Company also provides energy-saving Volt/VAr optimization strategies and the automation of Conservation Voltage Reduction.

In his management of Beckwith Electric, Thomas Beckwith strives to “lead the company under God’s direction and by God’s principles.”  His Faith prompted a business model that includes generous employee benefits, including:  medical insurance, pharmacy, dental  insurance, vision insurance, group life insurance, voluntary group life insurance, short term disability, long term disability, long term care insurance, Flexible Spending Accounts, Emergency Travel Assistance, Employee Assistance Program, 401(k) Retirement Plan, Profit Sharing, Educational Assistance, Due Time (Paid Time Off), 8 Paid Holidays, and a free-of charge membership at the L.A. Fitness Gym.

The Company also provides a chaplain for those employees who may be facing difficult issues of bereavement, marriage, children, finances, addictions, elder care, and other types of crises.  Chaplains visit Plaintiff Beckwith Electric Co., Inc. on a weekly basis to build caring relationships with the employees.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called the HHS Mandate “outrageous.”  According to Land, the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million members in the United States, “share[s] the concern of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), by which Beckwith is informed, protects the sanctity of life. According to the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission the Mandate is a threat to religious freedom. The commission stated that, “Government cannot be allowed to tell people of faith when they can live out the values of their faith and when they cannot.  We must not render to government what is God’s.”

Should Mr. Beckwith refuse to comply with the HHS Mandate, in addition to the yearly fine of $2,000 per employee amounting to $336,000 per year, the Company could also be charged with violations of the Internal Revenue Code amounting to $100 per employee per day each year totaling over $6 million in fines per year.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “By promulgating the HHS Mandate, the Federal Government intentionally declared war on people of Faith.  The Law Center is privileged to represent Thomas Beckwith, a man who not only states what his Christian Faith stands for, but takes action to defend it.”

The first paragraph of the lawsuit succinctly sets forth the nature of the case: “This is a case about religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of our country, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third president, when describing the construct of our Constitution proclaimed, ‘No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.’”

Thomas Beckwith believes that life begins at the moment of conception.  His deeply held religious convictions disallow him from providing for, participating in, pay for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting emergency contraception, abortion, abortifacients, and any drugs, devices, and service that are designed to kill innocent human life because such activities are sinful and immoral.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to permanently block the implementation of the HHS Mandate requiring employers and individuals to obtain insurance coverage for emergency contraception, abortion, abortifacients, and any drugs, devices, and service that are capable of killing innocent human life.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Seth D. Harris, Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor; Jack Lew, Secretary of the Department of Treasury; and their respective departments.

Click here to read the Federal Lawsuit.

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER:

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, as well as 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.

Florida’s Javier Manjarres re-launches HISPOLITICA

Javier Manjarres, founder of The Shark Tank, is  inviting Floridians and every American to Hispolitica. Manjarres envisions Hispolitica as a “place where a legitimate conversation about Hispanics in America can happen…without the narrative filters imposed by mainstream or Hispanic media.”

Manjarres notes, “Given how badly both major political parties suck at Hispanic engagement, and the fact that immigration will not always be on the table, now is an opportune time to get the conversation going. Feel free to jump in.”

Full text of the video:

Hi, I’m Javier Manjarres.

I’m proud to announce the re-launch of Hispolitica.  Hispolitica brings a balanced journalistic approach to the issues and concerns of Hispanics in light of their increasing influence in the American political process. Hispolitica will provide  equal time and space to political personalities across the spectrum whose viewpoints are of interest to Hispanics across the country.

The Hispanic electorate continues to grow, and most political observers believe that this coveted vote is in a state of flux and very much in play for Republicans and Democrats moving forward. Although the immigration reform issue is at the forefront of today’s political debate, trends show that Hispanics assign greater importance to a number of issues other than immigration

Before we can more effectively engage the Hispanic community, we must  understand that first and foremost, Hispanics are primarily concerned with their own economic prosperity and prospects for advancement in our society based on their own efforts, merits and accomplishments.

Unfortunately, both of the major political parties have major short comings as they approach the Hispanic voting bloc. Their actions- or in some instances their inaction- shows that they are both incapable of messaging and winning the trust of the Hispanic community.

On the one hand, we have a political party that refuses to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and actively seeks to bribe hispanics with the prize of U.S. citizenship. On the other hand, we have a party that has proven itself of having ineffective messaging and lacks in its efforts to reach out to immigrants.

The diversity of the Hispanic community goes well beyond the stereotypical depiction in the media, specifically by Spanish-language TV networks that cater to a subset of the Hispanic demographic while passing themselves off as representatives of ‘all’ Hispanics. These networks have refused to criticize race-baiting special-interest groups whose agenda is divisive and does not serve the best interests of Hispanics at large.

Earlier generations of Hispanic immigrants were very socially and fiscally conservative in their beliefs, regardless of their political affiliation. Hispanics have always been a people of faith, and have articulated a strong belief in God. Their strong family values are directly correlated to their unwavering dedication to their religious faith.

Hispolitica seeks to provide an alternative viewpoint to those expressed in the mainstream and Hispanic media. We’re looking forward to having this conversation, and thank you for joining us.

Que dios los bendiga

Florida Senate Committee reconsiders vote to sanction Domestic Partnerships (i.e. Gay Marriage)

The Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs will hear the Domestic Partnership bill SB 196 Families First on March 12 at 2:00 PM.

The Florida Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs considered SB 196 on February 19, 2013.  However, a voice vote failed to pass the measure.  To avert the deadly vote, Senator Sobel, Chair of this committee and sponsor of SB 196, asked the committee to temporarily postpone final action on the bill until she could rewrite it apparently to the liking of Republican Senator Nancy Detert.

Several pro-family leaders spoke during the February 19, 2013 committee meeting in opposition to the bill.  Those speakers in opposition included John Stemberger President of Florida Family Action, Michael B. Sheedy, Director for Public Policy for the Florida Catholic Conference of Bishops and Bill Bunkley President of Florida Voices.

John Stemberger, Florida Family Action president, pointed out that the bill was unconstitutional because it violated the Florida Defense of Marriage Act.  Stemberger told the committee that  unlike the language used by cities and counties across Florida that adopted Domestic Partnership Registries, SB 196 was much broader.  This broader language violated the “substantial equivalent to marriage” prohibition in the Florida Defense of Marriage Act.

Republican Senator Nancy Detert made it clear  after hearing from the public that she  could not support the bill as written but would support a Domestic Partnership bill if it were modeled similar to the one adopted by the City of Sarasota.

Senator Sobel rewrote the bill.  Now Senator Sobel is looking to Senator Nancy Detert’s swing vote to pass this legislation through the Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs.

SB 196 named “Families First” would set up a Domestic Partnership registry in Florida.   Here is the language of the bill:

“Families First; Setting forth fees and costs to be applied when petitioning for a dissolution of a domestic partnership or registering a domestic partnership, respectively; requiring that certain fees relating to declarations of domestic partnership and dissolution of domestic partnership filings be deposited in the Displaced Homemaker Trust Fund; requiring two individuals who wish to become partners in a domestic partnership to complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership form with the clerk of the circuit court; providing methods to prove the existence of a registered Declaration Domestic Partnership when the certificate document has been lost or is otherwise unavailable, etc.”

Every benefit of this legislation can be accomplished through private contract or authorization forms.  In all cases Health Care Surrogate, Power of Attorney and other lawful designations of authority by one person to another must be performed on a separate private agreement form.  This negates the need for this legislation.

Homosexual activists are essentially using the Families First ie Domestic Partnership bill SB 196 to legalize same sex marriage in Florida.  SB 196 does nothing but add government bureaucracy while advancing legal recognition of same sex relationships.  Heterosexual couples are not demanding this legislation.  They can marry if they want their relationship legally recognized.  SB 196 is being pushed by homosexual activists who demand that the State of Florida legally recognize same-sex relationships.

Florida Family Association is asking those interested to send an email to Florida Senate President Don Gaetz and members of the Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs.

Florida Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs members:

Chair: Eleanor Sobel (D) (850) 487-5033 sobel.eleanor.web@flsenate.gov
Vice Chair: Alan Hays (R) (850) 487-5011 hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov
Thad Altman (R) (850) 487-5016 altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov
Oscar Braynon, II (D) (850) 487-5036 braynon.oscar.web@flsenate.gov
Jeff Clemens (D) (850) 487-5027 clemens.jeff.web@flsenate.gov
Charles S. Dean, Sr. (R) (850) 487-5005 dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov 
Nancy C. Detert (R) (850) 487-5028 detert.nancy.web@flsenate.gov
Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R) (850) 487-5040 portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov
Denise Grimsley (R) (850) 487-5021 grimsley.denise.web@flsenate.gov
Geraldine F. Thompson (D) (850) 487-5012 thompson.geraldine.web@flsenate.gov

UPDATE 3/12/2013: Florida Senate committee delays vote on Domestic Partnerships due to a member’s absence.

The Florida Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs was prepared to vote on SB 196 Domestic Partnerships during the 2:00 PM meeting on March 12, 2012. However, Senator Geraldine F. “Geri” Thompson (D) was absent from the committee meeting. Senator Eleanor Sobel, sponsor of the legislation, requested that the committee temporarily postpone the vote on SB 196 which they did.

The next committee date has not been posted on the Florida Senate web site.

Sen. Feinstein Says Veterans Are Mentally Ill, Can’t Own Guns

Hat tip to Linda Palucci from Mr. Conservative Blog for picking up this testimony by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Florida is home to over 1.6 million veterans. Florida is second only to California with the largest veteran population. Florida is first of all the states as a percentage of  population.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)

Palucci reports:

Feinstein let slip her true opinion of America’s veterans during a Senate Judiciary committee hearing, when she was asked to discuss a proposed amendment to her pending gun control bill.  This amendment would have allowed military veterans to obtain guns that would be banned for other Americans.  Feinstein thought this was a terrible idea, because she presumes vets are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and are therefore too unstable to be trusted with weapons:

“…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.” [My emphasis]

Palucci states, “Translation?  All vets suffer from PTSD; PTSD makes them crazy; crazy people can’t get guns.”

“Not only is Feinstein wrong about vets, she’s wrong about PTSD, which she characterizes as a ‘new phenomenon’.  In every war, some returning veterans have suffered delayed reactions.  Whether it’s World War I’s ‘shell shock’, the Vietnam war’s ‘vet syndrome’, or today’s PTSD, it’s always been out there, and it’s never been a major societal problem.  Only a Democrat would pretend that it’s something new and then use it to take away Second Amendment rights from those who have served this country in battle,” notes Palucci.

Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)

Halimah Abdullah from CNN reports:

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn pushed and then backed away from an amendment to block the Department of Veteran Affairs from automatically entering the names of veterans deemed “mentally incompetent” to handle their finances from having their names entered into a national background check system, thereby blocking them from gun ownership.

Instead, the Oklahoma physician wanted those case[s] decided by a judge rather than a federal agency unless those veterans had been “found by a judicial authority to be a danger to themselves or to others.”

“We’re not asking for anything big,” Coburn said at the time. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights — they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

RELATED COLUMNS:

Vietnam Vet Barred form owning a gun because of a teenage misdemeanor 45 years ago

Should vets with PTSD, mental illness still have access to guns?

Conservation gone wild in Florida

In December 2012, the Florida Cabinet authorized the pursuit of $8 million to buy land for conservation. Certain special interest groups wanted as much as $300 million. More than 33% of Florida is already in government ownership (Federal, State, and local), set aside for conservation.

Enormous amounts of tax payer money have been spent to buy land for conservation. Enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars are being spent to maintain lands under conservation.

Florida faces difficult budgetary decision again this year in areas such as Medicaid, education, children, job creation and the disabled. Two bills have been offered to address the expansion of government owned land for conservation.  The bills titled “Purchase of Land by a Government Entity” are SB 584 – sponsored by Senator Alan Hays and HB 901 sponsored by Representative Charles StoneSenate Bill 584 and House Bill 901 are identical bills. They call for any government entity to do four things before they use taxpayer money to buy more land out of the private sector for “conservation.” Those four things are:

1. Produce a current and accurate inventory of government conservation land already owned.

2. Have money in the current budget to maintain the land already owned.

3. Produce an estimate of the future costs of maintaining the proposed purchase.

4. For each acre purchased from the private sector by government, sell an acre back to the private sector.

According to Dan Peterson, Executive Director of PropertyRights.com, “These bills simply say, let’s consider the priorities of state spending and focus on people. Before, we use tax payer dollars to buy and maintain more land for conservation, let’s consider our current costs and future potential costs.” In an email Peterson provided the following information about the bills:

SB 584/HB 901 has three objectives:

1. Being good stewards of the land we own.
2. Being fiscally responsible and knowledgeable before we buy more land for conservation.
3. Insuring we keep the majority of Florida’s land under the ownership and control of private citizens who will care for and make the best use of land.

2. What do these bills do?

They require four things to be done before any purchase by government of land to be set aside for conservation:
a. It requires an accurate and current inventory be made public and,
b. It requires money to be in the current budget to maintain the land currently owned and,
c. It requires and analysis be made public estimating the on-going cost of maintenance
d. It requires the sale of land back to the private sector in an amount equal to the land to be purchased.

Why is the sale back to the private sector included?

According to Peterson, “As to the fourth point, private owners (for the most part) are better stewards of their property that government. They are more motivated to keep it up and improve its value. Also, every acre in government ownership is a non-revenue generating acre. Here’s is a way to generate more taxpayers without generating more taxes. The more land in private ownership, the more revenue is available to care for the needs of people.”

Peterson states these bills are not anti-conservation. “They are pro-stewardship of land and money. These bills do not prohibit additional purchases. It simply says, “Let’s consider what we currently have and ask if we can afford more?”, states Peterson.

Rubio opposes Stop-Gap government funding bill — unless it defunds Obamacare

Rubio: “Senator Cruz from Texas is offering this amendment to defund ObamaCare. If that gets onto the bill, in essence if they get a continuing resolution and we vote on that and we can pass it onto a bill, I will vote for a continuing resolution, even if it’s temporary, because it does something permanent and that is defund this health care bill, this ObamaCare bill that is going to be an absolute disaster for the American economy.”

Excerpts of Interview with Hugh Hewitt – Full interview available here.

Senator Marco Rubio: “Well first of all, I don’t think anyone is in favor of shutting down the government, but I think that is where we are headed ultimately here, unfortunately, if we don’t fix our debt problem. And I’m talking about down the road long term – long term meaning five, six, three years. We don’t know when a debt crisis will happen. So look, about a year and a half ago, I voted for the first continuing resolution and then I announced, ‘This is the last continuing resolution, the last stop-gap measure that I am going to vote for. I will only vote, from here on, on something serious.’ And so far we haven’t seen that. All we see is this ‘kicking the can down the road’, these manufactured crises. As if the people back home don’t have enough to worry about with all the problems we have today, now Washington every month seems to be creating a new crisis for them to worry about and for the media to freak out about. But here is what I’ve said about this continuing resolution, you know Senator Cruz from Texas is offering this amendment to defund ObamaCare. If that gets onto the bill, in essence if they get a continuing resolution and we vote on that and we can pass it onto a bill, I will vote for a continuing resolution, even if it’s temporary, because it does something permanent and that is de-fund this health care bill, this ObamaCare bill that is going to be an absolute disaster for the American economy. You are already starting to feel the outer edges of that. In all these debates that we have been having, we have lost sight of how truly bad the health care law is.  I understand the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. It doesn’t make a good public policy, and you’re already starting to hear about it. I am already running into businesses that are planning next year on not hiring next year or laying some people off so they don’t have to meet these mandates. Others are going to push their employees off of their private plans that they offer and onto these exchanges, driving up the cost for the public. So, this is going to be an implementation disaster. It’s going to hurt our economy severely, and we aren’t spending enough time talking about that.”

***

Rubio: “Right, I don’t know if that alone will be enough, but I would certainly support that amendment. I would certainly support that measure because it’s going to hurt patients. What’s going to happen now is that it’s going to become less of an incentive to get into that business and the accessibility of these innovations is going to become less. This is one of the arguments that people were using, and that I echoed. I wasn’t in the Senate when ObamaCare came up, but we don’t just want affordable health insurance market place – that is very important – we want the highest quality healthcare. We want the latest, greatest innovations. That is what Americans have come to expect. You start taxing innovation, people are going to stop innovating here in this country.”

***

Rubio: “I think it’s coming next week. That is what Senator Reid has announced. That is one of the reasons he wanted to have the Brennan vote this week is because he wants to get on it next week. So, I think you can anticipate this argument next week, and I think it is the perfect opportunity for us to have a debate once again on ObamaCare. I don’t think there has been enough attention paid to it.  It has been a while. We have moved on to these other issues, but there is right now out there probably nothing more damaging to our economy in the short term than this implementation of ObamaCare.”

Florida Senate Judiciary Committee approves anti-Sharia bill

Jihad Watch, winner of the CPAC best blog award, reports:

Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups have consistently and successfully argued that anti-Sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims’ religious rights. They still make headway using that argument with judges and lawmakers who are ignorant of the nature of Sharia.

In reality, no one cares about individual Muslim religious practice or wants to restrict it. The purpose of anti-Sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies or to restrict their religious practice in other ways, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims, denying the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This is the case that must be made, but it still hasn’t been. This bill is certain to be challenged on the same grounds.

“‘Anti-Sharia’ law is back,” from the Miami Herald, March 6:

A renewed attempt to pass a controversial “foreign law” bill proposed by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, and Rep. Larry Metz, R-Yahala, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, after more than an hour of sometimes emotional public testimony. The bill, SB 58, bans courts or other legal authorities from using religious or foreign law as a part of a legal decision or contract relating to family law. Florida law would supersede foreign law regarding divorce, alimony, the division of marital assets, child support and child custody. The bill is ready to be heard on the House floor but it has more committee stops in the Senate. Last year, the bill passed the House but died in the Senate.

Supporters say the proposal isn’t targeting religious groups, but the bill has been criticized as anti-Sharia, a Koran-based code followed in some Islamic countries, by Islamic groups as well as Jewish organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It should raise some eyebrows for you, the fact that there’s a rabbi speaking out against the bill who’s from Israel and a Arab Muslim, that’s me, also speaking out against the bill,” said Ahmed Bedier, president of the United Voices for America. “We may disagree what is happening in the Middle East, but we agree on this bill — that it discriminates and targets our communities.”

Not really. Bedier, of course, is a former rep of Hamas-linked CAIR.

The Florida Family Association in an email stated:

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee voted on SB 58 – Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases during the scheduled March 6, 2013 2:00 to 4:00 pm meeting.  The vote was 6 – 3 in favor of the bill. SB 58 now moves to the Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability.

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases: Clarifies that public policies expressed in act apply to violations of natural person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by State Constitution or U.S. Constitution; provides that act does not apply to corporation, partnership, or other form of business association, except when necessary to provide effective relief in proceedings under or relating to chs. 61 & 88, F.S.; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system in proceedings brought under or relating to chs. 61 & 88, F.S., which relate to dissolution of marriage, support, time-sharing, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, & Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; declares that certain decisions under such laws, codes, or systems & certain choice of venue or forum provisions in contract are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by State Constitution or U.S. Constitution; declares that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied; limits construction of provisions in certain circumstances.

Florida House rejects Obamacare Medicaid expansion

John Hayward from Human Events reports:

On the eve of convening of the 2013 session, the House Select Committee on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rejected the expansion. A Senate counterpart committee postponed consideration of the issue, which is sure to be one of the biggest controversies of the session.

Scott, a Republican who bitterly fought President Barack Obama’s national healthcare plan as a candidate and in his first two years as governor, stunned conservative supporters on February 20 when he endorsed a three-year expansion of Medicaid, provided the federal government picks up the full cost for the first three years as promised.

“There’s definitely a fight between the governor and the (state) legislature over this. The Republicans in the legislature are much more fiscally conservative than his actions have shown him to be,” said Susan MacManus, a Tampa-based political scientist at the University of South Florida.

Republican legislative leaders have been openly hostile toward the plan, emphasizing that state lawmakers will make the final decision in drawing up a budget for next fiscal year.

The Florida based James Madison institute released the following statement:

The House made the right decision today to not draft a committee bill expanding Medicaid under PPACA provisions. Many Members expressed valid concerns that this could hurt the people that it is aimed at helping. State leaders should focus on providing more access to quality care — expanding a program that is inefficient in this effort is not a way to do that.

Additionally, in our recent poll of 600 registered Florida voters more than 63 percent said they are wary that the federal government would keep the funding level promises made, and clearly many House Members share this worry. If history is any indicator, costs of such programs are often underestimated and there has been examples of the federal government going back on their promise before. These issues cannot be ignored.