Regulation Archives - Page 154 of 156

Florida Churches changing bylaws after gay marriage ruling

September 4, 2013/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, News, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Worried they could be sued by gay couples, some churches are changing their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman.

Although there have been lawsuits against wedding industry businesses that refuse to serve gay couples, attorneys promoting the bylaw changes say they don’t know of any lawsuits against churches.

Critics say the changes are unnecessary, but some churches fear that it’s only a matter of time before one of them is sued.

“I thought marriage was always between one man and one woman, but the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said no,” said Gregory S. Erwin, an attorney for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, an association of Southern Baptist churches and one several groups advising churches to change their bylaws. “I think it’s better to be prepared because the law is changing. America is changing.”

In a June decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. A second decision was more technical but essentially ushered in legal gay marriage in California.

Kevin Snider is an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit legal defense group that specializes in conservative Christian issues. His organization released a model marriage policy a few years ago in response to a statewide gay marriage fight in California. Snider said some religious leaders have been threatened with lawsuits for declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Dean Inserra, head pastor of the 1,000-member City Church Tallahassee, based in Florida, said he does not want to be alarmist, but his church is looking into how best to address the issue.

Inserra said he already has had to say no to gay friends who wanted him to perform a wedding ceremony.

“We have some gay couples that attend our church. What happens when they ask us to do their wedding?” Inserra said. “What happens when we say no? Is it going to be treated like a civil rights thing?”

Critics, including some gay Christian leaders, argue that the changes amount to a solution looking for a problem.

“They seem to be under the impression that there is this huge movement with the goal of forcing them to perform ceremonies that violate their freedom of religion,” said Justin Lee, executive director of the Gay Christian Network, a nonprofit that provides support for gay Christians and their friends and families and encourages churches to be more welcoming.

“If anyone tried to force a church to perform a ceremony against their will, I would be the first person to stand up in that church’s defense.”

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage.

Some Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, accept gay marriage. The Episcopal Church recently approved a blessing for same-sex couples, but each bishop must decide whether to allow the ceremony in his or her local diocese.

Republican support for Common Core crumbles

August 29, 2013/in Education, Featured, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Chrissy Blevio from the Florida Stop Common Core Coalition states, “After the recent release of the well-documented response [CLICK HERE] from twelve Republican leaders from all over Florida to the Common Core [HERE] put forth by Senator John Thrasher and other former Republican (RPOF) leaders, support was overwhelming from many others within the RPOF. So much so, that twenty-five additional leaders RPOF and a few other officials have asked for their names to be added, and the letter has been released again.”

“This effort to impose Common Core on our children and divide our party must end,” said Randy Osborne, Marion County chairman, director of education for Heartland Research, and lobbyist for the Florida Stop Common Core Coalition. “The signers of this letter represent Republican Executive Committee membership – parents, grandparents, concerned citizens, and grassroots activists from all over this state, the heart and soul of the Republican Party.”

“The Florida Stop Common Core Coalition is extremely pleased and appreciative of the stand taken by these wise leaders,” said Dr. Karen Effrem, president of Education Liberty Watch and a co-founder of the FSCCC. “It is not these leaders, the Republican Executive Committee membership or the many groups and individuals that have joined our coalition that are “misinformed” or “laboring under conspiracy theories,” but rather it is Senator Thrasher and the many other proponents that are trying to force this untested education system on Florida and the nation. The standards are academically inferior to what many states, including Florida, already have. There is no evidence that they will raise student achievement. Failed attempts at this type of centralized education planning litter the ash heap of history all over the world. We call upon the RPOF and elected officials to reject the Common Core system and return education accountability to local instead of federal control.”

Below is the complete list of Republican officials that reject the imposition of the Common Core standards system in Florida and have signed on to this rebuttal letter.

Randy Osborne – Chairman Marion County Republican Executive Committee

Eric Miller – State Committeeman, Martin County

John Drozinski – Chairman, Republican Executive Committee Highlands County

Teri Armstrong – State Committeewoman, Marion County

Michael Levine – Chairman, Lake County Republican Executive Committee

Elvira Hasty – Former State Committeewoman, Saint Johns County

Gaye Ellis Chair – Okaloosa, County Republican Executive Committee

Tony Ledbetter – Chairman, Republican Party Volusia

Sheri Ortega – Chairman, Republican Suwannee County

Patricia Sullivan – State Committeewoman, Lake County

Alan Burton – State Committeeman, Volusia County

Marguerite Cavanaugh – Former State Committee Woman, Marion County. Executive VP Florida Eagle Forum

Carlie Rogers, Brevard State Committeewoman

Bradley Maxwell Leon County Chairman

Larry Taylor, Wakulla County State Committeeman

Mrs. Taylor, Wakulla County School Board Member District 2

Debi Large, Okeechobee County Chairman

Sandra Atkinson, Okaloosa County State Committeewoman

Anne-Marie Shaffer, Flagler County State Committeewoman

Frank Meeker, Flagler County State Committeeman

Dave Sullivan, Flagler County Chairman.

Bill Fochi, Charlotte County Chairman

Steven Czonstka, Okaloosa County State Committeeman

Robert E. Hagaman, Citrus County State Committeeman

Jane Sturges, Charlotte County Committeewoman

Lindsay Harrington, Charlotte County Committeeman

Joe Arnold, Okeechobee County State Committeeman

Melissa Arnold, Okeechobee County State Committeewoman

Mike Cribby, Putnam County State Committreeman
BryAnne White, Calhoun County State Committeewoman

Mark Cross, Osceola County State Committeeman

William Paterson, St. Lucie County Chairman

Michael Hofstee, St. Lucie County State Committeeman

Mary Ann Russell, St. Lucie County State Committeewoman

Joseph Sowell, Holmes County State Committeeman

Susan Sowell, Holmes County State Committeewoman

Ryan Anderson, Broward County State Committeeman

To learn more about the Florida Stop Common Core Coalition contact Chrissy Blevio flstopcccoalition@gmail.com.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools teachers illegally and improperly evaluated?

Florida considering adoption of national “sexuality” education standards

August 29, 2013/in Education, Healthcare, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

To download a copy of the National Sexuality Education Standards click on the image.

Governor Scott and interim Commissioner of Education Pam Stewart just finished hosting a summit on education in Clearwater, FL. Governor Scott called the summit but did not attend it. According to NorthEscambia.com, “The discussions largely focused on high-level ideas and few specific recommendations, such as whether the state should bail out of a consortium of states developing new tests for the nationwide “common core” standards now being implemented in Florida classrooms.”

One of the Common Core standards not discussed was the “National Sexuality Education Standards – Core Content and Skills, K-12“.

Even the birds and the bees will now have national standards under Common Core. “Sexuality” is code for “gender identity”.

Here are some quotes from the National Sexuality Education Standards:

On page 12: “By the end of 2nd grade, students should be able to: Use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy.”

On page 14: “By the end of 5th grade, students should be able to: Describe male and female reproductive systems including body parts and their functions. Identify medically-accurate information about female and male reproductive anatomy. Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”

Page 9 under “Guiding Values and Principles”:

“Instruction by qualified sexuality education teachers is essential for student achievement … Students need opportunities to engage in cooperative and active learning strategies, and sufficient time must be allocated for students to practice skills relating to sexuality education.”

To highlight this principle: Students need “multiple opportunities and a variety of assessment strategies” to determine their achievement of the sexuality education standards and performance.

Will public school children be graded on their sexual performance? It appears this requirement is necessary to measure the “practice of skills relating to sexuality education”.

According to Cheryl Etters, Press Secretary for the Florida Department of Education, “The Florida State Board of Education voluntarily adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in July 2010. The Florida Department of Education strongly supports the full implementation of CCSS in the 2014-15 school year and is focused on providing local districts the support needed for a successful transition to Common Core.”

South Dakotans Against Common Core reports:

And before you say it is not a part of Common Core, because it is “A Special Publication of the Journal of School Health,” please go to page 6 where it says, “The National Sexuality Education Standards were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT)3; existing state and international education standards that include sexual health content; the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.”

And before you say, “We won’t allow it in our schools. We will go to the school board.” Local control is gone. On page 6, “Specifically, the National Sexuality Education Standards were developed to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide and the limited time allocated to teaching the topic.” The whole idea behind Common Core is to create universal standards.

SDACC looked at who was on the advisory committee that developed these sexuality education standards. They found members included:

Robert McGarry, Ed.D., Director of Training and Curriculum Development Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). To learn more about GLSEN click here.

Nora Gelperin, recipient of the national 2010 Mary Lee Tatum Award from the Association of Planned Parenthood Leaders in Education.

Deb Hauser from Advocates for Youth who speaks nationally and internationally about young people’s rights to “honest sexual health information, confidential sexual health services and equitable social and economic opportunities.”

Cynthia Lam, Teen Editorial Staff for Sex, Etc. According to Lam’s bio, “She has written many interesting articles, but her favorite was “It Won’t Fall Off,” a story that debunks myths about masturbation.”

The education summit has been characterized as providing political cover for Governor Scott to adopt Common Core State Standards for Florida. These standards will include the sexualization of our youngest and most vulnerable.

As Milton Friedman wrote, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” What will be results of nationalizing sexuality?

Support for Common Core Standards Continues to Crumble in RPOF

EDITORS NOTE: WDW – FL received the below email from Chrissy Blevio, Florida Stop Common Core Coalition:

While appreciative that Governor Scott convened this summit on critical education issues and hopeful that some meaningful discussion and airing of concerns about the Common Core standards system would ensue, The Florida Stop Common Core Coalition (FSCCC) is deeply disappointed in the results.

“The outcome on the issue of the Common Core standards themselves was pre-determined,” said Dr. Karen Effrem, president of Education Liberty Watch and co-founder of FSCCC. “Continued implementation of the standards was assumed. No meaningful discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the standards themselves was allowed to take place. Any attempt to discuss concerns about rigor, content of the federally funded and supervised model curriculum and text examples aligned with these standards, psychological manipulation and testing as described in federal documents, or any other concern was immediately shut down. Lacking the ability or desire to meaningfully and respectfully discuss and work towards solutions to these critical concerns, prominent officials at this summit resorted to ad hominem attacks calling the citizens and taxpayers of this state with concerns ‘crazies’ and ‘radicals.’ Sadly this whole exercise was a massive waste of time and taxpayer funds.”

A more detailed list of concerns will be forthcoming. Our recommendations for dealing with this issue are available here.

CPS Mandates Sexual, Health Education For Kindergarten – CBS Chicago

Conservatives keep turning up the heat on Common Core in Florida

4th Grade Students Taught: “Government Is Like Your Family”, Provides For You

Gays declare war on Florida’s bathrooms, Russia and vodka

August 26, 2013/in Culture War, Featured, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

No, this column is not satire! Gays across Florida have declared war on Florida’s bathrooms, Russia and vodka. Gays are demanding equal access to all bathrooms in the sunshine state, an end of ties in Florida with Russian Sister Cities and gay bars boycott Russian vodka because of anti-gay laws there.

According to PolicyMic.com, “On June 30 this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning the ‘propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors,’ thus opening a new, dark chapter in the history of gay rights in Russia. The law caps a period of ferocious activities by the Russian government aimed at limiting the rights of the country’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people.” The irony is that Russia is the mother of progressivism throughout the world.

Gays declare war on Florida’s bathrooms.

World Net Daily reports:

A well-organized coalition of pro-family and civic organizations in Miami-Dade soundly defeated a measure that would have given transsexuals access to public restrooms and locker rooms used by the opposite sex.

The Miami-Dade Commission gave initial approval in May to adding “gender identity and expression” to the county’s anti-discrimination law by an 11-1 vote but the measure stalled after intense lobbying by opponents – led by the local Christian Family Coalition.

Bill sponsors withdrew it on August 14 because they lacked the votes to get it through committee.

The victory in liberal Miami-Dade “is really landmark,” said Christian Family Coalition executive director Anthony Verdugo of the win 36 years after singer Anita Bryant led the successful repeal of Miami-Dade County’s homosexual rights law.

[ … ]

The Miami-Dade campaigners developed a coalition of 17 Republican, Democrat, human rights and religious organizations and worked with numerous churches to educate and mobilize the opposition.

[ … ]

Nationwide, 17 states and the District of Columbia have embraced the transsexual agenda. Rhode Island added “gender identity and expression” to its anti-discrimination law in June with the support of Gov. Jack Markell, and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden announced his support in an Equality Delaware video.

Florida School District lied and student privacy died

August 23, 2013/in Education, Featured, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Sarasota County School Board members.

WDW – FL did a column on the use of Multiple Intelligence Surveys (MIS) in Florida public schools. Many parents are concerned these surveys ask questions that are private and personal in nature and have nothing to do with the educational process. One survey used in Florida public schools was created by Surfaquarium and questions include:

Ecological issues are important to me
I believe preserving our National Parks is important
Religion is important to me
I wonder if there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe
I value relationships more than ideas or accomplishments
I like to be involved in causes that help others
Fairness is important to me
Social justice issues interest me
I am willing to protest or sign a petition to right a wrong

Superintendent Lori White.

The Surfaquarium survey is being used by Riverview High School English teacher Dr. Elinor Wachs. WDW – FL asked the Sarasota County School Superintendent Lori White about the use of surveys like the one given to students by Dr. Wachs. The answer from Superintendent White’s staff was that teachers may hand out to students any survey they wish and there is no district level policy or concern about their use. According to staff the reason for the lack of concern was:

Multiple-intelligences surveys such as these [MIS] are one way for teachers to get to know students, but students may opt out of answering the questions.

Regarding teachers requesting “private information,” see third paragraph above. If students believe the answers to the questions are “private,” they can refrain from answering them.

WDW – FL has since learned these statements are false.

We received this reply about the assignment from Scott Ferguson, Communications Director for the District:

I do not see the inconsistency of my previous statement because the teacher bases an assignment on a survey. If students or their parents object to a survey or a corresponding assignment, they may let the teacher or an administrator know they would like to opt out of either or both. We understand that one person’s reasonable assignment may be objectionable to another person. We work with parents to develop alternative activities/assignments or other solutions when they or their students raise issues regarding classwork or assignments.

If a student or parent objects to this particular survey or assignment they are welcome to let the teacher, a school administrator or a district administrator know.

Several parents have told WDW – FL that they “fear retribution against their child if they speak out and make this an issue.”

Multiple sources have reported that Dr. Wachs is not only requiring students to fill out the Multiple Intelligence Survey but has made the answers to the survey a class essay assignment. The assignment states, “Using the results of the Multiple Intelligence chart, select the highest three categories to be the topic of your essay.” If you opt out of the survey can you opt out of the class assignment?

Of note is that Dr. Wachs refers her students to the Purdue University writing lab exercises website for help in formatting their essay. It is part of the Purdue OWL engagement program. What is the Purdue OWL engagement program all about? According to the OWL website it is to, “…[F]oster sustained work with local and global partners.”

The idea of children being a “sustainable workforce” and in cooperation with “government” and “global partners” has raised the concerns of parents and educators alike. Data mining is a necessary component to create a “psychological profile” on each “sustainable worker”. Diane Kepus in her column “Data Mining using Common Core: Cha Ching – Cha Ching!” states:

A growing number of parents are disturbed about the “data mining” under Common Core pushed by foundations, not just because of the cost, but the privacy implications. Let me explain why your children’s and your information is no longer private through FERPA although you may have been told otherwise.

Do not let anyone from the Bush Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or any Florida legislator tell you that student and parent information is still protected. The Florida statutes have been changed in 2012 to match the changes in FERPA.

Recently when Governor Rick Scott was asked if he supported the data mining aspect of Common Core, Scott answered ‘no’ to the question. It appears the Governor did not get the memo from the Florida Department of Education that public schools have been data mining for years using “student surveys“.

EDITORS NOTE:

Nothing on the survey forms or essay assignment sent home by Dr. Wachs states it is “optional” or that a student may “opt out”. Surfaquarium offers multiple surveys. WDW – FL asked Surfaquarium about the uses of their surveys in Florida by teachers and schools. We are awaiting answers to our questions. For those interested in contacting key educators in Florida the following information is provided:

Click here for the Florida State Board of Education.

Superintendent of Schools Lori White email: lori.white@sarasotacountyschools.net or phone: (941) 927-9000 ext. 31105.

Warning: That Jacksonville or Tampa city employee you deal with may be a criminal

August 13, 2013/in Culture War, Economy, Government Transparency, Must Read, News, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

In 2008, the Jacksonville City Council adopted an ordinance reforming both its hiring procedures and its contractor bidding policies. In July 2009, the City’s Human Resources Department released the revised standard. In 2010 Jacksonville revised its screening summary for city employees and contractors.

The directive states that department heads will “not inquire about or consider criminal background check information in making a hiring decision.” Instead, “criminal information disclosure is required as part of the post-offer new hire process.”

The application instructions even encourage people with a criminal record to apply for city jobs.

The criminal background check screening is centralized in the City of Jacksonville Human Resources Department. Moreover, the screening process requires taking into account the specific duties of the job, the age of the offense, and rehabilitation. Denied applicants may appeal to Human Resources. Contractors are required to tally job opportunities for people with criminal records and report back to the City.

On January 14, 2013 Bob Buckhorn, the Mayor of Tampa, signed the ban the box ordinance approved by the City Council which covers city employees. Advocates in Tampa continue to work on expanding the ordinance to include city contractors. The Tampa Ordinance 2013-3 may be viewed by clicking here. The Tampa ban the box program is administered by Sharon Streater HOPE lead organizer, from the Direct Action & Research Training Center.

This effort is part of the Ban the Box project and National Employment Law Project. The ordinance only applies to the City Jacksonville employees. As of April 2013 there are fifty cities in twenty-one states that have implemented some form of Ban the Box ordinances. California, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut and Massachusetts have statewide Ban the Box legislation.

For a larger view click on the map.

According to its website, “Ban the Box is a nationwide effort to remove criminal history inquiry; i.e. ‘the box’ from employer job applications. All employers have the right to know an applicant’s conviction history but the inquiry should be deferred until later in the interview process and not utilized as an automatic bar to employment at the application stage.” [Emphasis mine]

WDW – FL contacted both the City of Tampa and Jacksonville to determine how many people with criminal records have been hired as city employees and in the case of Jacksonville by contractors. According to Sharon Streater who administers the program for Tampa she has no data as the program is new. However, Streater did state that the disclaimer in the city announcements for job openings saying those with criminal records need not apply has been deleted.

The City of Jacksonville Civil Service and Personnel Rules and Regulations (revised in 2010) states:

The following are examples of extraordinary situations in which an employee may be immediately suspended without pay:

1. Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the job.
2. Use of alcohol or illegal drugs on the job or during the employee’s work day, to include breaks and lunch period.
3. Commission of an act which constitutes a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude under the criminal laws of the State of Florida or Federal Government. [Emphasis added]

The question: Are those Jacksonville public employees and contractors with criminal records given access to sensitive citizen information?

As Milton Friedman wrote, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

Tipping the public sector job market to favor convicted criminals is problematic at the least and dangerous at the worst.

But, voters, like in the case of Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, re-elect criminals from time to time but that is another story. BTW Washington, D.C. passed a ban the box ordinance in 2010.

EDITORS NOTE: WDW – FL contacted the City of Jacksonville and is awaiting a reply on how many city employees and contract employees have been hired since 2008 who have a criminal background. When that information is made available this column will be updated.

Self-Defense Immunity Laws: Florida protects you best

July 22, 2013/in Featured, Gun Rights, News, Policy, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

There are over 1 million concealed weapon carry permit holders in the state of Florida. The concealed weapon or firearm program is administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Section 790.06 (1), Florida Statutes, defines concealed weapons or firearms as those carried in a manner that conceals them from the ordinary sight of another person. This includes: handguns, electronic weapons or devices, tear gas guns, knives and billies.

According to Adam H. Putnam, Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, “Applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm for self-defense is a right of law-abiding Floridians. However, you must remember that a license to carry a weapon or firearm concealed on your person does not authorize you to use that weapon. Use of a concealed weapon or firearm is regulated by other provisions of Florida law. It is my hope that you will exercise your lawful right to carry a concealed weapon or firearm responsibly, properly, and safely.”

Florida statute 776.032 covers the uses of a weapon in Florida for self-defense.

Andrew Branca from Legal Insurrection did a comprehensive analysis of stand your ground laws and reports:

Now that the Zimmerman criminal trial has concluded, much attention has focused on the prospects for Zimmerman seeking protection under Florida’s self-defense immunity statute from any possible civil action against him.

Florida’s statute 776.032, is among the broader self-defense immunity statutes, in that it possesses all four qualities of an optimal statute of this type.

First, it is not limited to particular settings or circumstances (e.g., such as to self-defense encounters in and around one’s home).

Second, it prohibits even the arrest of the person who acted in self-defense, in the absence of probable cause for such arrest.

Third, it immunizes against criminal as well as civil liability.

And, fourth, it provides for the defendant who successfully obtains immunity to recover all reasonable legal expenses (and, in the case of Florida, even compensation for lost income) from the plaintiff.

Fully 32 states provide some degree of limitation of liability for the individual who has genuinely acted in self-defense, but there is considerable variety in terms of the scope and manner of protection provided.

Property-centered Immunity

Five states provide self-defense immunity only in the context of a defense of dwelling. Conceptually, this is very similar to the Castle Doctrine, in which you are relieved of any generalized duty to retreat if you are defending yourself in your home. These states include Colorado, Georgia, Hawai’i, Maryland, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

No Arrest In Absence of Probable Cause

Three states provide that the person who acted in claimed self-defense may not even be arrested unless their exists probably cause to believe that their use of force was not legitimate self-defense. As a practical matter, the use of deadly force in self-defense routinely results in the arrest of the person who used that force. Typically the person who used the force either clams up when confronted by investigating officers, or they admit to the use of force but claim it was done in self-defense. All this in the context of a “victim” who is either complaining bitterly about a gun having been pointed at him, or perhaps bleeding out in the street.

Under these circumstances the officers usually conclude that there is at least probable cause that there exists reasonable evidence in support of a potential crime having been committed, and an arrest is made. Whether the act was done in self-defense is, from the officer’s perspective, to be determined by others further down the criminal justice “pipeline”. (For a detailed explanation of the criminal justice “pipeline” and what to expect at each step of that pipeline, see Chapter 1, “Criminal Law: What to Expect,” in “The Law of Self Defense.”).

The five states that prohibit arrest unless there is probably cause that the use of force was not done in legitimate self defense–Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma–essentially require that the police look at both sides of the question–both the use of force as a potential crime and the justification of self-defense.

Immunity Protection from Both Criminal and Civil Liability

Ten states provide immunity protection against criminal prosecution as well as civil lawsuits. These include: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Washington. Note, however, that where a state limits the scope of its self-defense immunity statute generally–as Colorado limits its statute to use of force around one’s home–this limitation applies in the context of both criminal and civil liability.

Recovery of Attorneys Fees, Trial Expenses If Sued Anyway

If a person who used force in self-defense is nevertheless sued, and they successfully argue their claim to self-defense immunity at trial, the party suing them is subject to having to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees and other legal expenses. This rule applies in sixteen states, including Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

In fifteen of those states the statute provides that the court “shall” award such expenses where the defendant has successfully argued self-defense immunity. This gratifyingly takes the reimbursement of these expenses out of the hands of the trial court’s discretion. In Maryland, however, the statute only provides that the court “may” order the reimbursement of such expenses.

Odd Twists

I did come across a couple of odd twists in looking at the various states’ self-defense immunity statutes, and thought I share a couple with you.

First, Delaware appears to provide for immunity for the use of force in protection of property, but not for the use of force in self-defense. Indeed, the statute specifically references defense of another person’s property. My sense is that this statute was actually written to protect persons such as armed guards against civil liability for their use of force against robbers. Perhaps a lawyer from Delaware could provide greater context.

Second, New Jersey’s self-defense immunity law is written specific within the context of the use of a “chemical substance in self-defense” . . . and that’s it. So, if you use pepper spray or mace or something equivalent in legitimate self-defense, you seem to fall under the protection of the statute. Any other means of self-defense, whether deadly or non-deadly, would seem to place you outside that umbrella of protection.

Self-Defense Immunity Statutes of the Various United States:

Alabama
13A-3-23 Use of force in defense of a person.

Alaska

09.65.330. Immunity: Use of defensive force.

Arizona
AZ 13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

Arkansas
5-2-621. Attempting to protect persons during commission of a felony.

Colorado
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder

Delaware
466. Justification — Use of force for the protection of property.

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

Georgia
51-11-9. Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

Hawai’i
663-1.57. Owner to felon; limited liability

Idaho
6-808. Civil immunity for self-defense

Illinois
7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

Iowa
707.6 Civil liability.

Kansas
21-5231. Same; immunity from prosecution or liability; investigation.

Kentucky
503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force

Louisiana
2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

Maryland
5-808 – Civil immunity for defense of dwelling or place of business.

Michigan
600.2922b Use of deadly force or other than deadly force by individual in self-defense; immunity from civil liability.

600.2922c Individual sued for using deadly force or force other than deadly force; award of attorney fees and costs; conditions.

Missouri
563.074. Justification as an absolute defense, when.

Montana
27-1-722. Civil damages immunity for injury caused by legal use of force.

New Hampshire
627:1-a Civil Immunity.

New Jersey
2A:62A-20. Immunity from civil liability for use of chemical substance for self-defense.

North Carolina
14‑51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

North Dakota
12.1-05-07.2. Immunity from civil liability for justifiable use of force.

Ohio
2305.40 Owner, lessee, or renter of real property not liable to trespasser.
Added: 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act.

Oklahoma
Added: 21-1289.25 Physical or deadly force against intruder

Pennsylvania
8340.2 Civil immunity for use of force

South Carolina
16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

Tennessee
39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability.

Texas
83.001. Civil immunity.

Washington
Added: 9A.16.110. Defending against violent crime — reimbursement.

Wisconsin
895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.

Wyoming
6-1-204. Immunity from civil action for justifiable use of force.

Obama co-sponsored 2004 bill to bolster justified force law

Danger: Public-private partnerships come to Florida

July 1, 2013/in Budget and Finance, Featured, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

Governor Rick Scott signed into law HB 85 – Public-Private Partnerships (PPP or P3) on June 27th, 2013. HB 85 states:

Public-Private Partnerships: Provides legislative findings & intent relating to construction or improvement by private entities of facilities used predominantly for public purposes; provides for procurement procedures, requirements for project approval, project qualifications & process, notice to affected local jurisdictions, comprehensive agreements between public & private entities, use fees, financing sources for certain projects by private entities, & applicability of sovereign immunity for public entities with respect to qualified projects; authorizes counties to enter into public-private partnership agreements to construct, extend, or improve county roads; provides requirements & limitations for such agreements; provides procurement procedures; requires fee for certain proposals; revises limit on terms for leases that Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority may enter.

HB 85 takes effective on July 1, 2013

According to Joan Veon, author, journalist and expert on globalization, “Public- Private Partnerships are one of the most effective tools that are used by the globalists to implement Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, with the goal of destroying the structure of governments that represent the people, and puts profits and resources in the hands of those private interests.”

The below video is by Cassandra Anderson, based on an interview with Veon discussing public-private partnerships.

According to Veon:

The public part of the Public- Private Partnership (PPP or P3) is the government, which becomes corrupted and no longer represents the taxpayers, when it accepts funding from private interests. Further, the government becomes silent against abuses to the public when they have been compromised by PPP business arrangements, and, worse yet, may also sell off resources and utilities that were owned by the taxpayers. The government does this because they are broke and more taxation is unpopular.

The private part of the PPP is often a combination of these entities: * Corporations (usually multinational) * Foundations (like Rockefeller) * Associations * Universities * Any entity with a lot of money * Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s). NGO’s are usually environmental agencies, like the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy.

The private stakeholder in the business arrangement always has profit as its goal, not service. Service was formerly the role of the representative government. The assets that once belonged to the taxpayers are then transferred to private interests, in a transfer of wealth through the assets, to private parties that seek profit at any price. Frequently, deceit, deception and distortion are used to fleece the taxpayer into this ‘solution’ for governments that are broke.

American local, county, state and the federal governments have gone broke and are ripe for the sale of their assets to PPP’s because of deficit spending, and a lack of economic common sense. John Maynard Keynes promoted deficit spending to Roosevelt as a way to escape the Depression. This results in diluted government and loss of power.

For more information on PPP’s and related topics visit www.womensgroup.org.

Florida Parents Against Common Core preparing legislation for 2014 session

June 24, 2013/in Culture War, Education, Featured, News, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Florida Parents Against Common Core (FPACC) are putting together draft legislation to stop the implementation of the program in Florida.

In an email to WDW – FL Laura Zorc, FPACC SE State Coordinator, states, “What is happening in other states is what we are looking to do here in Florida. However, in our bill we will add a third review that would encompass a legal review to determine if violation with state and federal constitution. We have team of attorneys working on establishing the need for review based on their findings. Our intentions are to have this a back up support for our bill sponsor.”

Fifteen states have filed bills in their state legislatures to stop CCSS.

Below are of examples and actual legislation that addresses issues related to the adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) by delaying the implementation of the standards or assessments, not funding implementation, or withdrawing completely from using the CCSS. These vary considerably in the scope of what is addressed. Links have been provided for the History, Download, and Alternate. Original bills as introduced are often stronger in nature before being subjected to changes as it is considered during the legislative process in each state.

History—link to official state legislative page or other page with bill history and info
Download—link to download the legislative bill
Alternate—an alternate download link in event official link is broken

Sample Legislation

Comprehensive Legislative Package Opposing the Common Core State Standards Download

Actual Legislative Bills

2011 Texas HB 2923 An Act relating to the state sovereignty over curriculum standards assessments, and student information. History Download Alternate

2011 New Hampshire HB 164 Requiring legislative approval for the adoption of the common core state standards in New Hampshire. History Download Alternate

2011 South Carolina S. 604 A bill to provide that the common core standards may not be imposed on South Carolina. History Download Alternate

2011 Washington HB 1891 Delaying adoption and implementation of the common core standards. History Download Alternate

2012 Utah S.C.R. 13 Urges the State Board of Education to reconsider the board’s decision to adopt the Common Core standards and, in reconsidering the board’s decision, evaluate the cost, control, and quality of Utah standards and assessments compared to the cost, control, and quality of the Common Core standards and SBAC assessments. History Download Alternate

2013 South Carolina H. 3943 To provide the State Board of Education may not adopt and the Department of Education may not implement the common core standards. History Download Alternate

2013 Georgia SB 167 To declare certain actions void ab initio relating to adoption of certain curricula; to prohibit state education agencies from entering into any commitments relating to the federal Race to the Top program; to require hearings and public input prior to adoption of state-wide competencies and content standards; to limit the compilation and sharing of personal student and teacher data; to prohibit the expenditure of funds for a state-wide longitudinal data system except for administrative needs and federal grant compliance; to provide notice to students or teachers if certain student or teacher data are provided to the United States Department of Education as a condition of receiving a federal education grant; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. History Download Alternate

2013 Alabama SB 190 Relating to education and core curriculum standards; to prohibit the State Board of Education from adopting and the Department of Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative; to prohibit the State Board of Education, the Department of Education, and other state bodies from compiling or sharing data about students or teachers, except under limited circumstances; to prohibit the State Board of Education from entering into an agreement or joining a consortium that would cede any control to an entity outside the state; and to require notice and public hearings before the State Board of Education adopts or implements any statewide standards. History Download Alternate

2013 Alabama SB 403 Companion to SB 190. History Download Alternate

2013 Alabama HB 565 Relating to curriculum standards; to clarify that the State Board of Education retains the sole authority to develop and adopt curriculum standards independent of the federal government or other agency or entity outside of the state. History Download Alternate

2013 Oklahoma HB 1907 An Act relating to schools; creating the Common Core Task Force; providing termination date; stating purpose of the Task Force; providing for membership; providing date for appointments and organizational meeting; providing for selection of officers; stating duties; exempting the Task Force from certain acts; providing for meetings; providing for travel reimbursement and staff assistance; requiring completion of the study by a certain date; providing for non codification; and declaring an emergency. History Download Alternate

2013 Kansas HB 2289 No school district, nor the department of education nor the state board of education shall expend any moneys to implement the set of educational curriculum standards for grades kindergarten through established by the common core state standards initiative. History Download Alternate

2013 Indiana SB 0193 Provides that the state board of education may not adopt as standards for the state any common core educational standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Voids any action taken to adopt common core educational standards. History Download Alternate

2013 Indiana HB 1427 This is the bill that passed and has been signed by the governor. It pauses the implementation of the CCSS while a the standards are evaluated and hearings are conducted. History Download Alternate

2013 Missouri SB 210 The state board of education and the department of elementary and secondary education shall not implement the Common Core State Standards. History Download Alternate

2013 Michigan HB 4328 Budget approved. Sec. 230. Prohibit Funding for Common Core and Smarter Balance – House adds language stating that funds shall not be used to fund the Common Core State Standards Initiative or Smarter Balanced Assessments, and that funds shall not be used to implement programs or assessments created by these organizations. History Download Alternate

2013 Michigan HB 4276 Prohibits implementation of common core standards. History Download Alternate

2013 Texas HB 462 Prohibits school districts from using the common core state standards. History Download Alternate

2013 South Dakota HB 1204 An Act to require the Board of Education to obtain legislative approval before adopting any further Common core standards. History Download Alternate

Breaking News: Florida Patriot Groups feel betrayed by Senator Rubio

June 23, 2013/in Immigration, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Conservative organizations throughout Florida met in Orlando this weekend. After the meeting these patriot groups have united in withdrawing support from Senator Marco Rubio over a string of broken promises made to the American people regarding Immigration.

In an April 16, 2013 letter from the Senator to Florida Patriot Groups, he pledged to not support legislation that is rushed through Congress, does not truly and legitimately secure our borders or that leads to further illegal immigration in the future. In a “Dear Friends” letter Rubio states, “First, there is absolutely no truth to the idea that l will support any immigration legislation that is rushed through Congress in typical Washington fashion.”

“The current bill, current amendment and the rush to ram the bill through the Senate by week’s end violate this letter and earlier public statements by the Senator,” says Pat Wayman from the Venice 912 Group. “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.

These Patriot Groups announce “Kill the Bill” week beginning on Monday, June 24, 2013.

Monday will be called “Bait and Switch Day” in honor of the ineffective and costly 1,000 plus page amendment to the bill allegedly to strengthen border security provisions of the bill.

Wayman notes, “It is apparent that the Senate intends to pass an amnesty-first bill at all costs and that the amendment is only to give the appearance of increased border security. Given the fact that there is no enforcement of existing border security laws, Senator Rubio’s support of this last minute amendment further erodes the public’s trust in the Senator and erodes the public’s trust in the ability of the federal government to protect its citizens. ”

Wayman says, “On Monday, citizens are urged to call and email Senator Rubio and Senator Nelson urging them to kill this amendment. Most importantly, they are urged to visit the Senator Rubio’s local office and deliver a signed ‘You have lost our trust and support, Kill the Bill!’ statement.”

In his letter Rubio declares, “I will not support anything that makes our immigration system worse, that does not truly and legitimately secure our borders, or that leads to further immigration in the future.” The groups that received his letter do not believe him.

The Text of the April 16, 2013 Letter from Senator Marco Rubio to Patriot Groups may be viewed here.

UPDATE: Senator Rubio sent a second letter to Florida patriot groups which may be read here.

The Government vs. YOU

June 14, 2013/in Featured, Government Transparency, News, Policy, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

The following column is from the Heritage Foundation:

Every day, more Americans get trapped by big government. In addition to groups targeted by the IRS, upstanding citizens going about their normal lives are suddenly targeted by law enforcement authorities and charged as criminals. Just a few examples:

A young girl from Virginia was fined $535… for rescuing a wounded woodpecker.
A Florida businessman was jailed for years… for shipping lobsters in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes.
A Maryland father and building engineer faced a years-long legal ordeal… after being unfairly targeted under the Clean Water Act.

The following are examples of Floridians caught up in this overreaching dragnet of criminalization:

Sixteen-year-old Kiera Wilmot, described by her principal as “a good kid,” had good grades and had never been in trouble at school—let alone with the law. Now she is facing felony charges for a “science experiment gone wrong.”
Anthony Brasfield, a 40-year-old Florida man, was arrested Sunday for releasing a dozen heart-shaped helium balloons into the air in what was to be a romantic gesture for his girlfriend, according to SunSentinel.com.
The next time a cashier asks “paper or plastic?” think of Abbie Schoenwetter. He spent more than six years in federal confinement for shipping lobster in plastic instead of cardboard.

These are only a few of the shocking incidents The Heritage Foundation chronicles in our new project, USA vs. YOU. Experts at Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies reveal the stories of 22 people from all backgrounds, races, and income levels victimized by carelessly written laws.

Get the FREE e-book USA vs. YOU now

When criminal laws are created to “solve” every problem, punish every mistake, and compel the “right” behaviors, this troubling trend is known as overcriminalization. Ultimately, it leads to injustice for honest, hard-working Americans at every level of society.

Public interest groups from across the political spectrum recognize how this flood of criminal laws violates our basic liberties. Diverse organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Right on Crime, among others, have joined with Heritage to reaffirm the true purpose of America’s justice system: to ensure public safety and protect the innocent.

When was the last time you saw the ACLU work together with a faith-based group like Justice Fellowship? With USA vs. YOU, the problem is grave enough to bring together unlikely allies. And we’re delivering this bipartisan message just as the House of Representatives has launched a task force aimed at correcting this issue.

This morning, Heritage Senior Legal Fellow John Malcolm will testify at the first hearing of the Overcriminalization Task Force—shining a spotlight on the scope and severity of this threat to our liberties. Ending the practice of trapping our citizens with unnecessary laws will be no easy task, with an estimated 4,500 criminal law offenses and 300,000 criminal regulations on the books.

Experience the stories of Americans like you treated unjustly – download the FREE e-book now

Over the next six months, Members of Congress from both parties will study this issue in depth, hold hearings, and—with the right encouragement—take steps to enact real reform.

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

Melbourne, FL citizens outraged that red light cameras to be installed

June 13, 2013/in Featured, News, Policy, Regulation, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

With all of the national attention on government surveillance into the personal lives of citizens one method is drawing fire from citizens – the use of red light cameras. Citizens of Melbourne, FL are now expressing outrage at the City Council of Melbourne’s plan to install red light cameras.

Barbara Langland-Orban, PhD, John T. Large, PhD, Etienne E. Pracht, PhD from the University of South Florida (USF) conducted a study on red light cameras in 2008. They updated their study in 2011. Langland-Orban, et. al. found that red light cameras (RLC) increase the number of accidents at intersections by 28%. WDW – FL reported on red light cameras here and here.

Scott Ellis, a resident of Melbourne, in an email to WDW – FL states, “There is no safety to this issue at all. I have been driving the intersection of US 1 and Eau Gallie Boulevard for 40 years and never seen an accident, as well as hundreds of hours of campaigning at the intersection. But rather than rely on analogy, I requested the study performed by the City of Melbourne used to justify the Red light cameras. In the city study there is NOT ONE MENTION of accident statistics for this intersection. NOTHING. This is supposedly all about safety yet no accident data is part of the study?” [Emphasis added]

The subject line of Scott’s email is, “Government Camera Looters Coming to Eau Gallie.”

Scott wrote, “This is all about the money. If it was about safety the accident records would be a factor. It is all about revenue and traffic count, US 1 and Eau Gallie Boulevard being one of the highest traffic counts in the entire county. The City Manager’s comments are so ludicrous one must question his sanity in believing the general public is as gullible as the City Council. However, let’s take him at his word and have the City of Melbourne donate their $75 skim of every ticket to various charities around the city.” The USF study seems to bear Scott’s concerns out.

The Melbourne red light camera ticket fine of $158. The receiver gets 60 days to pay from date of infraction, not date infraction notification is received. The new law specifies if the receiver requests a hearing the hearing officer is a City of Melbourne appointed special master. If the ticket is not paid by mail to the city. The City turns the red light ticket into a regular Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) and fine increases to $267.

A brochure was mailed out by Melbourne residents. It is similar to brochures used in Edgewood, FL, and Moline, Iowa. Residents noted that the brochure is the same as one provided by Gatso USA the camera vendor.

Cities and counties look at red light cameras as revenue generators. However, some are seeing revenues fall.

Robert Napper from the Tampa Bay Times reported, “The number of tickets generated by the [New Port Richey] city’s red light cameras has dropped dramatically, along with the number of crashes at some of those intersections. That’s the good news, city finance director Doug Haag told the City Council last week. The bad news, he said, is that the city faces an $800,000 shortfall this year in red light ticket revenue.

Napper found, “The city had expected the cameras, installed in July 2011, to generate $1.15 million this year. So far, the city has collected $162,189, and officials expect to finish the fiscal year with just $350,000 in ticket revenue — a 70 percent shortfall. ‘That’s the big elephant,’ Haag said.”

Scott included a letter from an unnamed visitor to Florida subject – “Who won’t be back anytime soon”:

To whom it may concern,

My name is X and I received a letter from a collection agency called Municipal Services Bureau (MSB). It is a collection letter on a traffic infraction ticket for $396.20 in Brevard County I am verifying that this letter isn’t a scam and if not to figure on how/why I got a ticket. It confused me that the offense was supposed to happen in Florida but the letter is coming from Texas. I was in Port Canaveral area in August of 2012 on a business trip with the military during the time frame of a hurricane in the area.

I had a rental car. I never got pulled over or came in contact with any policemen to receive a ticket. If you could please provide me information on this or information who could answers these question.

Stay tuned, more government surveillance coming to a town near you!

Are Rubio and Reid playing us for fools on immigration reform?

June 13, 2013/in Immigration, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

On the June 12th evening edition of the Bill O’Reilly Show Senator Marco Rubio stated,“It depends on border security, and it depends on ensuring that it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer. I think the bottom line is we can secure the border and ensure that this never happens again, and if we can ensure that it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer by people going on welfare and things like that, then I think it will pass. If it doesn’t do those things, it won’t.”

Earlier on that same day an amendment from Senator Grassley to strengthen border security was stopped from coming to the US Senate floor for an up or down vote by Senator Harry Reid. Surely Senator Rubio knew this because he voted against the amendment.

According to Breitbart.com, “On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on the border security amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Grassley was pushing for an up-or-down vote by the Senate on his amendment, which would have required the border to be secured for six full months before any legalization of illegal immigrants in America began. Reid objected to Grassley’s motion, effectively implementing a 60-vote threshold that completely blocked any attempt at a fair vote on the amendment.”

Is Rubio being played by Reid or are Reid and Rubio playing all Americans for fools?

Eric Erickson from RedState.com in his column “No More Games” states, “… Marco Rubio is being played the fool or we are being played the fool by Senator Rubio. He has become the face of support for this legislation and much of the support of the legislation from those on the right has come because of the good will so many of us have for Senator Rubio.”

Erickson, who is a lawyer and has represented illegals, reports:

Contrary to the Americans for Conservative Reform advertisement in which he appears, the law does not prohibit illegals from getting benefits. Sure, some welfare benefits will be excluded as will, though it is debatable, Obamacare, but a sizable portion of entitlement benefits actually flow through tax credits in the tax code that these immigrants would get.

Contrary to the advertisement, the law does not secure the border in any meaningful way, in fact the “border security on steroids” as the ad claims does not begin until after the citizenship push starts, hence the pretend effort of John Cornyn now that this has been exposed.

Are Rubio and Reid a “Gang of Two” pushing a bill that is eerily similar to Obamacare through the US Senate for political gain? Is Rubio talking about border security but not willing to propose amendments himself to strengthen it? Time will tell.

Senator Rubio on the Bill O’Reilly Show:

UPDATE:

Erick Erickson reports:

Marco Rubio told Sean Hannity yesterday that he had wanted border security before amnesty, but now thinks we need amnesty first so, in paying the government for their amnesty, we can use the illegal aliens’ to pay for securing the border. After all, the border will take several years to secure, so we should encourage people to cross the border illegally and forge documents to prove they’ve met the deadline. Then they can pay the feds to secure the border in even higher numbers. Or something like that.

Four Words to Watch in the Immigration Debate

June 7, 2013/in Budget and Finance, Featured, Immigration, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

This column courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

The Senate will begin debate on the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal next week. Here are four words to watch out for as the Senators make their case—and warnings about what they might mean.

1. COST

“Cost” is one word that should come up in the immigration debate, because the Gang of Eight’s amnesty proposal has a cost that is simply too high for Americans to bear. Heritage analysis found that amnesty would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Amnesty means that illegal immigrants become legal—and become eligible for Obamacare benefits, Social Security, welfare, and Medicare. But they won’t pay enough into the system in taxes to cover the cost of all these benefits, meaning the rest of the taxpayers will have to bear the burden. This simply isn’t fair to hard-working Americans.

2. BORDER

Despite claims of security—and talk of amending the bill—the Gang of Eight immigration bill doesn’t secure the border. Instead, it “delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt.” As James Carafano, Heritage’s E. W. Richardson Fellow, explains: “Amnesty immediately creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the bill’s strategy would drive up the cost of securing the border.”

3. AMNESTY

Heritage President Jim DeMint has said that it’s a false choice for people to say that amnesty is necessary to immigration reform. Amnesty encourages more illegal immigration, and that is not what immigration reform is supposed to do.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese, Heritage’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, reminds us that America has tried this before, and it didn’t work:

Today they call it a “ road-map to citizenship.” Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.” And he was right. The 1986 reform did not solve our immigration problem—in fact, the population of illegal immigrants has nearly quadrupled since that “comprehensive” bill.

4. “COMPREHENSIVE”

Beware the word “comprehensive.” As Meese notes above, the amnesty of 1986 was also called a “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. It doesn’t work, and it’s not what we need. We need a separate, step-by-step approach to immigration reform. An approach that works—that the American people can trust—would start with reforming the legal immigration system and enforcing the security measures that are supposed to be in place.

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

US War Games target Christians and Evangelicals as “The Enemy”

June 6, 2013/in Culture War, Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Todd Starnes from Fox News Radio reports, “A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats.” Fort Leavenworth is home of the Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC). The CGSC is a graduate school for United States Army and sister service officers, inter-agency representatives, and international military officers.

The college prepares US Army Majors and Lieutenant Colonels for battalion and higher command assignments and division and higher level staff positions.

Starnes also reports:

A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.

According to Starnes, “The House Armed Services Committee is considering a religious liberty amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act Wednesday over fears the military is punishing soldiers for expressing their religious faith.”

Marines praying on battlefield

“The men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms should not have their own religious freedom jeopardized during their military service,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), who authored the amendment.

Other incidents reported by Starnes include:

A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
An enlisted service member received a career-ending punishment for sending personal invitations to his promotion party which mentioned that he would be providing Chick-fil-A sandwiches due to his respect for the Defense of Marriage Act.
An Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible from his desk because it might offend someone. The officer had kept the Bible on the desk for 18 years;
A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.
An enlisted service member was threatened and denied promotion by a senior NCO for expressing – during a personal conversation – his religious belief in support of traditional marriage.
Last month Rear Admiral William Lee told a National Day of Prayer audience that religious liberty was being threatened by Pentagon lawyers and service members are being told to hide their faith in Christ.“Leaders like myself are feeling the constraints of rules and regulations and guidance issued by lawyers that put us in a tighter and tighter box regarding our constitutional right to express our religious faith,” he said.