Politics – Page 2054 – Dr. Rich Swier

Open primaries coming to Florida?

July 16, 2013/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Many citizens are concerned that both major political parties have become too powerful. A growing number see Democrats and Republicans as driven by winning at all cost, too friendly with special interests and using a closed system for picking candidates for public office. One group of citizens from Sarasota, Florida is trying to break this “axis of party power” by having open primary elections for elected officials in Sarasota County, Florida.

According to their website OpenOurElections.com, “We are a local group of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others who have come together to Open Our Elections to all Sarasota County voters.”

OpenOurElections.com has initiated a petition to place an amendment to the Sarasota County Charter on the 2014 ballot. The proposed charter amendment states:

Add a new Subsection 6.5B under Article VI of the Sarasota County Charter:

Subsection 6.5B Non-Partisan Election of County Officers

The members of the Board of County Commissioners and Charter Review Board and the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections, and Sheriff shall be elected on a non-partisan basis. Names of all candidates shall be placed on the ballot without reference to political party affiliation. The term nonpartisan shall be as defined by state law; provided that nothing therein shall impair the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, press and association.

Sarasota is one of 20 charter counties in Florida. According to the Florida Association of Counties, “In 1968, the electors of Florida granted local voters the power to adopt charters to govern their counties. Charters are formal written documents that confer powers, duties, or privileges on the county. They resemble state or federal constitutions and they must be approved, along with any amendments, by the voters of a county.”

The rationale for the OpenOurElections.com petition are:

As with all elections, traditional local elections have candidates of various parties vying for the opportunity to be an elected official of Sarasota County. Usually a candidate of each party, for example a Republican and a Democrat, chosen during a primary (August) faces the opponent of the other party in the general election (November).

In a case where there are only candidates from one party running for a given county office, the winner of the primary becomes the elected official. In this situation, according to Florida State law, ALL registered voters, regardless of party, can vote in the Primary for that office.

However, that same state law also includes a ‘loophole’ that allows someone to close the primary to all other voters. It allows for people to file as ‘write-in’ candidates, usually someone who claims they have no party affiliation, for the General Election for a given office. By having someone as a ‘write-in’ candidate, the Primary will become ‘closed’ to all voters except those of the one party. In effect, this locks out more than half of the registered voters in Sarasota County from voting for our local officials and having a say in who makes the government decisions that affect our quality of life.

This situation occurred with the election for the Sarasota Supervisor of Election race in 2010.

According to OpenOurElections.com, ‘This ‘loophole’ has been used several times and both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of using this tactic to manipulate the elections.”

WDW – FL will be following this initiative.

What will President Obama say about the Trayvon Martin shooting now?

July 14, 2013/in Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Foot-in-mouth is saying something stupid, insulting, or hurtful. Normally people regret it when they put their foot in their mouth. They learn from the experience and try not to make the same mistake again. President Obama has a chance to not make another mistake in the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. But will he?

President Obama during a rose garden press conference when asked about the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin stated, “But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Now Americans know exactly what happened. George Zimmerman, after a five week trial in Sanford, Florida, has been acquitted on all criminal charges in the shooting.

The NAACP has called upon the US Department of Justice to “pursue civil rights charges” against Zimmerman. But can Zimmerman get a fair review given the above statement by the President? What about the recent Judicial Watch revelations that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice, the Community Relations Service (CRS), was “deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman”?

President Obama also said in his rose garden comments on the Martin shooting, “I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.” Does this apply to the DOJ getting involved at the behest of the NAACP?

Will the President come out and say it is time to move on? Or will he make this more of a political issue than it already is?

Both the President and AG Holder are facing multiple scandals (targeting journalists, NSA data mining, IRS targeting religious/conservative groups, Benghazi security/cover up, Obamacare shortfalls in implementation, etc.). Will the President make a political calculation to take this on in order to deflect criticism away from his administration’s problems?

The President has used others to change the national narrative. Will George Zimmerman be his next strawman?

EDITORS NOTE: According to Florida law Zimmerman “[I]s immune from criminal prosecution and civil action” in the shooting of Martin.

Zimmerman: Not Guilty

July 14, 2013/in Featured, Gun Rights, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

George Zimmerman, who put his faith in the legal system, is now vindicated.

The fundamental question in this case was: Does a person have a right to carry a gun and defend themselves when attacked?

Under Florida’s stand your ground laws they do. There are over 1 million Floridians with a concealed carry permit. The right to self defense is inalienable and codified in both the Florida and the US Constitutions as a right to life. There are those who believe differently. That is what this was case all about. The law has prevailed.

CNN reports, ” George Zimmerman never denied shooting Trayvon Martin, but he said he did so in self defense. Late Saturday night, a Florida jury [made up of six women] found him not guilty in the teenager’s death. The verdict caps a case that has inflamed passions for well over a year, much of it focused on race and gun rights. The six jurors — all of them women — deliberated for 16½ hours. Five of the women are white; one is a minority.” Racism entered the equation for political reasons, not legal ones. Florida’s stand your ground laws are clear. Zimmerman should never have been arrested or charged.

Below are Florida’s stand your ground statutes:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

“They Come to America 2: The cost of amnesty” film maker coming to Florida

July 10, 2013/in Featured, Immigration, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Beth Colvin, founder of the non-partisan Sarasota Patriots has announced in an email that Dennis Michael Lynch will be speaking about his documentary “They Come to America 2: The Cost of Amnesty” at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Sarasota, Florida on August 6, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.

Lynch will speak and have a question and answer session. He will give away DVDs of his two documentaries They Come to America 1 and 2 for the $10.00 price of admission.

Lynch will appear in The Villages, Palm Beach and Florida panhandle. Details TBA.

Below is the trailer for They Come to America 2:

This showing comes as the US House of Representatives takes up their version of an immigration bill. The US Senate passed their version under the leadership of Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas District 26)

Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas District 26) believes “legalizing 11 million immigrants will undercut wages of blue-collar Americans.” In a USA Today column Burgess states, “In my opinion, the Senate’s amnesty-first immigration bill is not in the country’s best interest. Talking about immigration reform raises several questions. Does it make us more secure? The border security provisions in the Senate bill don’t actually secure our border. A lot of grand claims, but so many purposeful loopholes and waivers ensure they will have marginal effect. In fact, just like the 1986 amnesty, it almost guarantees that we will be having this same debate again in 10 years.”

The controversial Senate bill gives amnesty (in the form of green cards) to all illegals in the United States. Florida will be especially impacted as according to FAIR report it costs the state over $5 billion annually to incarcerate, medicate and educate illegal aliens.

Stephen Dinan from The Washington Times reports, “The Obama administration is deporting fewer people than it did in 2011 or 2012, but has ousted more than 110,000 illegal immigrants this year who didn’t have criminal records, according to statistics that call into question the Obama administration’s public statements about its deportation policies … Although the drop isn’t steep, the trend suggests that the administration is finding it increasingly difficult to meet its goal of deporting 400,000 people a year while focusing chiefly on the most dangerous immigrants.”

According to Dinan:

They show that through June 1 [2013], ICE had deported 246,333 immigrants, which is a dip in the total number of deportations from the 264,518 recorded at this point in 2011 or the 275,067 at this point in 2012.

Of those deported this year, 55 percent had criminal records. That is higher than the 53 percent in 2012, but less than the 56.7 percent in 2011. Read more.

Therein lies the center of the controversy – border security.

Watch Dennis Michael Lynch interview on Huckabee:

Republicans meet to talk…

Dem Memo Outlines Strategy for Passing Bill Through House…

Cantor Scolds Committee Chairmen For Rebellion…

Exclusive interview with Egyptian activist Cynthia Farahat (+ Video)

July 8, 2013/in Featured, National Security, News, Opinion, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Cynthia Farahat

Florida radio talk show host Tom Trento interviews Egyptian activist Cynthia Farahat on the imploding and exploding events in the Middle East. During this exclusive interview Farahat provides key insights into what is happening in Egypt and its short and long term implications on the United States and its allies.

Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian political activist, writer and researcher. Co-founder of the Misr El-Umm (2003-06) and the Liberal Egyptian (2006-08) parties, which stood for peace with Israel, secularism, and anti-Islamism, she was under long-term surveillance by the State Security Intelligence Service before seeking political asylum in the United States in 2011.

Ms Farahat worked with Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty in Cairo, and the Center for Security Policy and Coptic Solidarity. She has testified before the U.S. House of Representatives and received an award from the Endowment for Middle East Truth in 2012, and the Profiles in Courage Award from ACT for America in 2013.

She is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum and co-author of two books in Arabic and, among other journals, has published in the Middle East Quarterly, National Review Online, Front Page Magazine and The Washington Times.

Watch this exclusive interview with Cynthia Farahat courtesy of TrentoVision.TV and The United West:

EDITORS NOTE: Please contact Tom Trento at The United West for more information on his program and guests. WDW – FL is not responsible for the content of this broadcast.

Florida National Guard to begin furloughs due to sequester

July 5, 2013/in Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Governor Rick Scott

Governor Scott has repeatedly called for an end to the National Guard furloughs (forced leave without pay), which start Monday, July 8^th. The Governor offered the state’s budget experts to assist the Department of Defense in finding ways to save federal money that do not result in a loss of pay for National Guard military families or jeopardize state preparedness and response capabilities during hurricane season.

In a letter, Governor Scott points out that the National Guard offered to take funding reductions from other areas in their budget that would not impact personnel. The Guard also requested to take reductions before or after hurricane season so as to not affect emergency response capabilities. Unfortunately, both requests were denied by the federal government. Now, Florida National Guard members will begin taking leave without pay beginning Monday, July 8, 2013.

Florida Today reports, “Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio say there’s nothing they can do right now. Congress agreed to the across-the-board sequestration cuts as part of a 2011 deal to raise the nation’s debt limit. They affect almost every area of the budget, including defense programs that help coordinate National Guard activity in every state.”

Videos of Governor Scott calling for the National Guard furloughs to end during a press conference at the state’s emergency operations center a few weeks ago are here and here.

Division of Emergency Management Director Bryan Koon sent a letter to U.S. Senator Bill Nelson on the effects of the National Guard furloughs. The letter is available here.

In an email to WDW – FL a retired veteran writes, “This has impacted our son, a special agent for the FBI. This year he will loose 10% of his pay with a daughter who will start college this fall. Nice. He is working on a top priority investigation (all secret, of course) but can not get any exemption from the unpaid days off. Our overall security is on the decline!”

Study: Voters fleeing Republican Party, tired of “lesser of two evils” argument

July 5, 2013/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Breitbart reports, “A new study by the Frontier Lab, a conservative market research group, found that Republican voters who leave the party do so because they are are tired of being told to vote Republican as the ‘lesser of two evils’. The study, ‘Switching Behavior: Modeling disaffiliation from the Republican brand’, is published on the group’s website and applies scientific methods of qualitative research to the GOP’s most urgent problem.”

One Republican in Venice, FL is among them.

WDW – FL received the following in an email dated July 3, 2013 from Kathy Bolam:

Sadly, today at the Board meeting of the Republican Club of South Sarasota County, I made the following statements…..

I have been actively involved with the Republican Party since 2007. I have always been a Republican. I have watched you all work hard, giving your all to get Republicans elected. But, how has that worked for us? Are we as a nation, state or even county, better off than we were 5 years ago? Those we elected have betrayed the Constitution (Buchanan, Rubio, violated our morals (Nancy Detert), refuse to act on behalf of the 2nd Amendment (Sheriff Knight), allow contracts that benefit developers (Commissioners). It seems the goal of the Republican party is to elect Republicans….not to elect people who will lead ethically, and uphold our Constitution. I have seen you all work hard, but I haven’t seen too many Republicans following up on those we have elected…..via personal visits, attending County Commission Meetings, Charter Review Board Meetings and Town Hall. If we don’t monitor their performance, then they feel empowered to do as they please.

I saw the deplorable treatment given to Ron Paul last year at the Convention, I saw the injustice meted out to Linda Long, I’ve seen Mr. Waechter’s manipulative words at the Charter Meetings and County Commission Meetings, I see Rubio and Buchanan violating the Constitution. I saw in the 2012 August Primary that only 10 % of voters elected the Supervisor of Elections. To me that disenfranchised 90% of the voters and was a sham perpetrated via Victoria Brill and denied citizens equal rights at the ballot box. I see the Party more important than the Constitution. Therefore I plan on changing to an Independent voter.

I have enjoyed my relationship with this club and find no fault therein, but I have to be honest to myself and cannot continue as a Republican. Let me know to whom I should turn over the records, etc. I will miss all the good people and friends of the South County Club, but I just can’t continue to be loyal to the Republicans standards when are leaders have not been loyal to the Constitution.

Since 1972 there has been significant growth in Florida of Independent voters. Both political parties are losing voters. Since 1972 the Republican Party has grown by 430%, the Democrat Party by 197% and Independents have grown by 2,489%. The total number of registered voters has grown by 339%.

The Florida Division of Elections provides the below infographics to show changes in party affiliation since 1972:

Year	Republican	Democrat	Other	Total
1972	974,999	2,394,604	117,855	3,487,458
1974	1,035,510	2,438,580	147,166	3,621,256
1976	1,138,751	2,750,723	204,834	4,094,308
1978	1,178,671	2,812,217	226,299	4,217,187
1980	1,429,645	3,087,427	292,649	4,809,721
1982	1,500,031	3,066,351	299,254	4,865,636
1984	1,895,937	3,313,073	365,462	5,574,472
1986	2,038,831	3,214,753	377,604	5,631,188
1988	2,360,434	3,264,105	422,808	6,047,347
1990	2,448,488	3,149,747	432,926	6,031,161
1992	2,672,968	3,318,565	550,292	6,541,825
1994	2,747,074	3,245,518	567,006	6,559,598
1996	3,344,036	3,774,809	1,077,812	8,196,657
1998	3,327,207	3,731,367	1,268,133	8,326,707
2000	3,474,438	3,853,524	1,552,434	8,880,396
2002	3,610,992	3,956,694	1,756,873	9,324,559
2003	3,577,179	3,880,342	1,808,963	9,266,484
2004	3,954,492	4,322,376	2,199,569	10,476,437
2005	3,954,304	4,276,512	2,241,102	10,471,918
2006	3,920,201	4,196,608	2,268,797	10,385,606
2007	3,826,836	4,138,604	2,241,161	10,206,601
2008	4,106,743	4,800,890	2,504,290	11,411,923
2009	3,967,472	4,637,354	2,459,541	11,064,367
2010	4,042,393	4,611,335	2,562,010	11,215,738
2011	4,061,224	4,552,483	2,622,454	11,236,161
2012	4,263,587	4,821,859	2,953,125	12,038,571
May 2013	4,194,220	4,717,750	2,933,883	11,845,853

St. Lucie (FL) Commission to change zoning laws to accomdate Islamic cemetery

July 3, 2013/in Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Creeping Sharia reports:

Board of County Commission St. Lucie, Florida

The St. Lucie County Commission on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on a rezoning request to allow for an Islamic cemetery.

In a 6-0 vote June 20, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission,with three members absent, approved a request by Adel Nefzi to rezone about 5 acres on Christensen Road south of West Midway Road to institutional from agricultural residential for the purpose of building a private cemetery for Baraka Center, a nonprofit Islamic educational and cultural center.

About 20 residents objected to the rezoning.

As usual, ignored by those who supposedly represent them.

Also, Nefzi received a conditional use to build a cemetery, as cemeteries regardless of religion, are not permitted under the county’s zoning code

Islamic faith prohibits Muslims from being buried next to non-Muslims.

The Islamic faith also tells Muslims not to take Christians and Jews as friends and commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they accept Islam.

Co-Chair of FL Delegation Rep. Vern Buchanan: Border Security First! Senate Bill Amnesty!

July 1, 2013/in Featured, Immigration, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-16), co-Chair of the Florida Delegation and member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, sent the following in an email to his constituents:

Earlier this week, the Senate passed a flawed immigration overhaul that rewards illegal immigrants with amnesty, fails to effectively secure the border and puts American workers at a competitive disadvantage.

I do not support this approach.

I have consistently argued for a solution that strengthens our security and upholds the rule of law without granting amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, the 1,200-page Senate bill repeats the mistakes of the past by failing to adequately secure the border while rewarding those who enter our country illegally.

Making matters worse, the Senate legislation is riddled with so many special interest sweeteners that even liberal Sen. Patrick Leahy said it “reads like a Christmas wish list.” Perks for Hollywood, Alaskan seafood processors and Nevada casinos expose Washington’s disgraceful addiction to pork-barrel spending.

Among other things, the Senate-passed bill would:

Grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants within six months of the bill’s enactment without first ensuring our borders are secure;
Give the Department of Homeland Security sweeping authority to waive border security measures such as new technologies deployed along the Mexican border;
Allow the Homeland Security secretary to grant legal status to those with criminal convictions;
Double the number of guest workers admitted annually, decreasing wages and job prospects for U.S. workers.

My constituents have told me loud and clear that they want Congress to enact strict border security measures before addressing other immigration reforms. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that only 44 percent of the Mexican Border is under operational control and that less than one percent of the nearly 4,000 northern border miles had reached an acceptable level of security.

I am hopeful that the House Judiciary Committee will produce a version in the coming months that puts the emphasis on border security and does not punish those who choose to play by the rules and comply with our laws.

As always, please let me know what you think!

Vern

Florida’s Republican National Committeeman calls President “a liar and traitor”

July 1, 2013/in Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Anthony Man from the Sun Sentinel reports, “A high-level Florida Republican Party leader, Peter Feaman of Boynton Beach, used a routine political appearance to deliver an unusually intense denunciation of President Barack Obama. He asserted that the Obama administration lies, the president commits treason, and the IRS investigations of tea party groups seeking tax exempt status originated in the White House. ‘You’re outraged if you’re like me because you love this country,’ he said.” [Emphasis added]

Feaman was unanimously elected the Republican Party of Florida‘s state committeeman, an RPOF officer. Below is a video of his January 2012 acceptance speech courtesy of J. Mark Campbell from The United West:

In 2007, Feaman published a book entitled “Wake Up, America” His second book, “The Next Nightmare,” which includes a foreword by former Congressman Allen West, was published in March, 2012. Feaman has appeared on Fox News and spoken on many radio talk shows throughout the United States to discuss political issues and the threat of radical Islam.

“It’s so bad, Feaman said, that he can’t talk about Obama in front of his son, a Marine captain, because the president is the younger Feaman’s commander in chief,” notes Man.

Peter Feaman is a trial attorney with over 30 years experience specializing in real estate, business, land use, probate and trust litigation. In July, 2011, Feaman was recognized by Florida Trend magazine as one of Florida’s “Elite Layers” in the field of business and commercial litigation.

In February, 2010, Feaman obtained a Jury Verdict in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court in excess of $10,000,000.00 in a case involving fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Nation’s Oldest Leftist Weekly Demands President’s Impeachment Over Mass Surveillance

Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee starts “Recall Rubio” petition

June 29, 2013/in Must Read, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

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. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

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.

Citizens of Florida send “pink slip” to Rubio

June 28, 2013/in Featured, Immigration, News, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

As in all things political an unknown person has created a pink slip for Marco Rubio. It is going viral on the internet and on social media sites.

Candidate Marco Rubio in 2010: An ‘Earned Path to Citizenship is Basically Code for Amnesty’.

When former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio was running for the Senate in 2010–as a conservative candidate backed by the Tea Party movement he insisted that illegal aliens inside the United States would need to go home and that giving illegal aliens “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.”

Alex Leary, Times Washington Bureau Chief, reports, “Increasingly, on TV, conservative talk radio and social media, Rubio has been cast as a sellout, liar and flip-flopper. This was the 2010 candidate who in a debate declared that “earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” The bill passed Thursday has an earned path, requiring immigrants to pay taxes, fines and wait at least a decade before getting permanent residency. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson wrote this week that Rubio had moved a step closer to a Charlie Crist-like hug of President Barack Obama.”

In a column posted before the passage of Rubio’s immigration bill Leary wrote:

A group of pro-reform groups also plans a noon [June 26th] protest at Rubio’s Tampa office. News release:” Come join members of Mi Familia Vota, Florida, clergy members, allies, and MoveOn, as we participate in a vigil at Senator Rubio’s office to ask that he see the error of his ways regarding increased militarization, accepting campaign funds from GEO, an arm of ICE, and also adding English proficiency before undocumented Americans may be legal permanent residents. That’s way before they would be eligible for citizenship. We will pray for him to do the right thing.”

Saying Sen. Marco Rubio has “broken promises” on immigration a group of tea party groups in Florida plan to protest outside his Tampa office tomorrow at noon.

“This bill will forever be known as the Rubio Amnesty bill. As a result, Patriot groups are withdrawing their support for Senator Rubio and demand that he walk away from this bill,” read a statement from three local activists. “As a result, Patriot groups are withdrawing their support for Senator Rubio and demand that he walk away from this bill.”

Here is the pink slip sent to Senator Rubio and his entire staff:

Accompanying the pink slip is this message: “If you like this pink slip forward it onto Rubio and cc his staff so it will send a strong message……then pass it onto your email contacts…….let’s blister his butt……”

Florida Catholic Bishops: The Supreme Court got it wrong

June 28, 2013/in Culture War, Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops issued this statement:

“The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)”, said the U.S. Bishops in a statement on today’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions on marriage. “The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter.”

The U.S. Bishops also expressed, “Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, with renewed purpose we call upon all of our leaders and the people of this good nation to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage: one man, one woman, for life. We also ask for prayers as the Court’s decisions are reviewed and their implications further clarified.”

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions will have profound consequences on marriage and society as a whole, neither of today’s two rulings directly affect Article 1, Section 27 of Florida’s Constitution approved by 62% of voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife. In particular, the limited ruling on DOMA did not strike the portion of the law that protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, and the Prop 8 ruling is limited to California.

The Bishops of Florida will continue to uphold and defend the true nature and meaning of marriage as an exclusive, lifelong communion between a man and a woman. It is within this union of husband and wife that children are received and nurtured. The common good and the future of our society are best served by ensuring that a child’s right to a mother and a father, who bring unique gifts to the education and rearing of children, is protected.

ABOUT THE FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

MISSION: Serve as liaison to state government on matters of concern to the Catholic Church in the seven dioceses of the Province of Miami, as a nonpartisan public policy voice on behalf of the Catholic Bishops of Florida.

VISION: The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of his Church guide the work of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops which, through relationships with representatives and agencies of Florida government, analyzes the moral dimension of public policies, proclaims the sanctity of life and dignity of the human person, leads decision makers in reaching just solutions, and provides opportunities for Catholics in Florida to carry out their responsibility to participate in political life.

The Supreme Court’s Marriage Decisions by the Numbers

June 27, 2013/in Culture War, Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

The following is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important take away: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning. Some key numbers following the decisions:

50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.

38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California and Florida, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

12 The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.

1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.

0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.

Ryan Anderson discusses what the Supreme Court did in its marriage decisions—but why the proponents of same-sex marriage failed to achieve their goal of a court-imposed nationwide redefinition.

The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue. States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.

In the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong. Many believe the Court should have respected the authority of California citizens and Congress.

On DOMA, it appears the Court did not respect Congress’s authority to define marriage for the purposes of federal programs and benefits. The Court may have gotten federalism wrong.

On Proposition 8, the citizens of California who voted twice to pass Prop 8 should have been able to count on their Governor and Attorney General to defend the state’s constitution. That’s what democratic self-government is all about.

Download your free copy of TheMarriageFacts.com.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.