Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, September 3, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. In the last five years, four bills have been introduced in Georgia to prohibit mandatory microchip implants in humans. Although other states passed laws requiring personal consent, all four bills were killed in Georgia, leaving the population vulnerable if the governor orders mandatory implants during a declared emergency, during a real or imagined threat.

No one was concerned when trash barrels were microchipped, so waste disposal businesses could tell which barrels were theirs. No one was disturbed when wildlife was tagged to track migration routes. Cattle owners were the only ones affected when herds had to be tagged and pet owners welcomed microchips so they could locate Fido and Fluffy, if they strayed.

Medical facilities offer patients microchip implants so health records will be instantly available and no one seems to be concerned … as long as microchips are offered and not forced upon patients. But desensitizing is becoming more frequent. We’re hearing that prisoners should be microchipped, Alzheimer’s patients should be microchipped, soldiers should be microchipped and workers may be forced to be microchipped or lose their jobs.

A school district in Rhode Island announced a pilot program to monitor 80 students with RFID chips in their school bags. The chips would uniquely identify the student and would be read by an electronic reader installed in a school bus that’s been fitted with a GPS device. Naïve parents may be persuaded that’s the way to go. But, if someone else uses a similar device to hijack that information, students and their families could be in unnecessary danger.

Georgia needs a law against forced microchip implants. So, while you’re talking to candidates for the General Assembly, ask whether they would do us all a favor and vote FOR a bill to prohibit mandatory microchip implants. Implants may be a blessing for dogs that get lost, but microchips can place individuals in greater harm than being lost. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.

In this Issue: Research on the Candidates Running for Judge in November
Judges elected November 2, 2010 take office January 1, 2011.
Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges are elected for six-year terms.
Superior Court Judges are elected for four-year terms.

• To read the rest of this newsletter in PDF format, please click here.

Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, August 27, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. During the past legislative session, we won the first round against juvenile prostitution, but we’ve been promised Round Two for next year. The sponsor of S.B. 304 got similar wording in a bill that passed last session, making it easier for her language to be put into the Code Section that would remove all penalties for minors who work in the sex trade.

When you add to that H.R. 5575 Congress introduced to remove federal penalties for juvenile prostitution, you’ll understand the enormity of the battle. This is their rationale: since minors under 18 cannot legally consent to commercial sexual exploitation, they must be classified as “victims,” regardless of their willingness to work in the sex trade or whether they deliberately chose such a dangerous occupation. Victim compensation money is “the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow” in this attack on hundreds of years of natural law.

But, why do they want moral law overturned? If minors under 18 are charged with prostitution, they have a criminal record and are not eligible for victim compensation. So, in order for them to tap into victim compensation money, the law must be changed to classify prostitutes under 18 as sex slaves, including those that choose to work the streets. Result: willing participants in prostitution or the porn industry would make money twice – once on the street or in porn and again as candidates for victim compensation funds.

H.R. 5575 introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives asks Congress to require the U.S. Attorney General to change the National Crime database to automatically list minors as endangered juveniles, if they run away three times in a year. Then, H.R. 5575 would have states treat them as sex trafficking victims, whether they are willing participants or were forced into it, and would have states presume minors are victims, so they can avoid criminal charges. That would make them eligible for victim compensation.

But there’s more. H.R. 5575 also directs states to change their laws and regulations, accordingly. So far, this federal bill has not passed, but if it does, states will be expected to pass STRICTER PENALTIES FOR BUYING sexual favors, BUT NOT FOR SELLING sexual favors. This master plan for disaster was endorsed last session by legislators that want to decriminalize juvenile prostitution in Georgia. With that in mind, ask candidates for the house and senate how they would vote, if this comes up next session. Then, cast your vote for candidates who promise to uphold Georgia’s moral laws that often keep juvenile prostitutes off the street. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.

Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, August 20, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. Nothing has attacked states’ rights more than the federal effort to force-feed Americans the bitter pill called “national healthcare.” But the states are fighting back. On August 6th, Governor Perdue joined 19 other states in a constitutional challenge to the federal healthcare reform act, after the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Florida’s Northern District federal court March 23 – just minutes after President Obama signed the healthcare bill into law. Hearings will begin September 14th in Pensacola and there are indications the states will prevail. Earlier this month, a judge in a similar lawsuit in Virginia ruled against still another Department of Justice motion to dismiss and the Virginia lawsuit was allowed to proceed through the courts.

The fact is the Constitution of the United States Commerce Clause has never been used to force citizens to buy unwanted goods or services. But the administration is determined to use it now to force citizens to buy Obamacare or pay a fine if they don’t. Another fact: the administration is now claiming the federal healthcare plan is just another tax, but that’s the exact opposite of what they said when they pushed it through congress. Even if it is a new tax by the federal government, it’s an unlawful direct tax that violates the Constitution, Article I Sections 2 and 9.

Other facts are these: states are already forced to spend their limited tax money on planning and operational requirements to meet the federal mandates of Obamacare. Not only is it a negative impact on lean state budgets, its direct attack on state sovereignty has caused Georgia and other states to pass laws to prohibit mandatory participation in any federal healthcare plan.

That leaves us with this: Obamacare did pass, but it’s been in court since March and the number of states joining the lawsuit is increasing. So, prayer is in order for the judge, for the attorneys involved, for the outcome and for God to bless America by getting us out of this mess. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.

Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, August 13, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. Since we now know who’ll be on the November ballot, you may want to take a break from politics. But don’t quit now. We’re not out of the woods, yet. The first week in August a federal judge overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage. By doing that, he went against 52 percent of California voters who passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, just five months after the state Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage in California.

After hearing 13 days of testimony, including 18 witnesses that defended traditional marriage, U.S. District Judge Walker used 136 pages to explain why he thinks banning gay marriage violates the Constitution. Incidentally, Judge Walker is one of only three openly gay federal judges in the country. Since an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court is imminent, gay marriage will not resume in California right now. Defenders of traditional marriage are expected to take the case to the court of appeals and it could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This situation in California emphasizes the importance of electing the right officials. When California’s governor and attorney general refused to defend Proposition 8 in court, they trampled traditional marriage and the will of the people. That left the defense of traditional marriage to an organization called “Protect Marriage” that got Proposition 8 passed in the first place and spent more money on that political campaign than on any social issue in U.S. history.

Now let’s apply that to Georgia. After Obama’s national healthcare passed, several states filed suit to protect their citizens from being forced to enroll in a national healthcare plan. When Governor Perdue directed Attorney General Baker to add Georgia to that lawsuit, Baker refused and the governor proceeded without him. So, here’s my question. If same-sex marriage were before a Georgia court, would our attorney general DEFEND traditional marriage or let the radicals win? Keep that in mind as you decide which candidate for attorney general deserves your vote in November. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.

Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, August 6, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. “Before any bill or resolution shall become law, the Governor shall have the right to review … veto, approve, or take no action.” That’s what the State Constitution says. So, the governor can choose to sign a bill, which he does when he wants to show special support for it, or he can let it become law without his signature, which happens most of the time.

On the other hand, the governor has 40 days after the end of the session to veto bills he does not want to become law. This year, by the end of that 40-day period, which was June 8th, the governor had vetoed 23 bills, but I’ll mention only one today.

Perhaps the most prominent bill he vetoed is S.B. 291 that allowed individuals to carry licensed firearms into parts of airports that are not regulated by the federal government. It, also, repealed the governor’s emergency power to confiscate guns during a declared emergency. I’m sorry that part of the bill was vetoed, but my problem with S.B. 291 was the politically correct change in the wording on gun-carry licenses.

That change has been consistently popping up in legislation for the past few years. It removes the term “sex,” which indicates the biological identification of males and females, and inserts the word “gender,” that includes sexual behavior as a basis for identity. So, if S.B. 291 had passed, gun-carry applicants could, certainly, identify themselves as male or female, but they, also, could identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender on gun-carry licenses. That’s a dramatic change in the law and an unacceptable fundamental change in society.

Legislative Counsel consists of a dozen attorneys employed by the State to write bills our legislators introduce, but those attorneys are not authorized to change the law themselves. Since Georgia law established the State attorney general as advisor to legislative counsel, ask the candidates for attorney general whether they would investigate who authorized legislative counsel to make automatic politically correct changes in Georgia law. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.

Republican Party – Eight Run-Off Races, 16 Candidates

For Governor

Nathan Deal received 155,920 votes (22.9%). Voters rank him conservative by 54% moderate by 21% and liberal by 11%. He believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception and his pro-life voting record is 98% – 100%; a lifetime NRA rating of A and an A rating from Gun Owners of America. He is a native Georgian with a distinguished career as captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps, Georgia prosecutor, juvenile court judge, state senator (5 terms) and U.S. Congressman (9 terms). The National Journal named him one of 10 most conservative in Congress. Non-partisan OnTheIssues.org rates him a “Hard Core Conservative.”

He scored 100 on the Eagle Forum survey

Karen Handel, with 231,959 votes (34.1%), is viewed as conservative by 44% of voters, moderate by 30% and liberal by 14%. She moved from D.C. into Georgia 13 years ago, served as president of the Greater North Fulton Chamber of Commerce, resigned (2003) to run for Chairman of Fulton County Board of Commissioners. She won. While there, she voted with the Commission to approve grants to Planned Parenthood. During her Commission term, she resigned (2006) to run for Secretary of State and won. Less than three years into her four-year term, she resigned (2009) to run for governor.

She did not return the Eagle Forum survey.

• To read the rest of this newsletter in PDF format, please click here.

Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, July 30, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. For the last several weeks I’ve reported on political parties and candidates leading up to the July 20th Primary, because that’s when voters choose candidates who’ll be on the November General Election ballot. But, you might have noticed. Judges are not on the Primary ballot. They don’t run as Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or Independents. They run as non partisan candidates. That means, voters can’t use party platforms to help decide how to vote.

And another thing: judges won’t tell you where they stand on issues. They’ll explain that they might have to judge a case about that subject and answering the question would be unethical. So, where does that leave us? The first thing we have to do is find out who qualified to run for judge in our districts. That information is on the Secretary of State’s web site, where I got my list. 68 judges will be elected in November and one will be on the Georgia Supreme Court. The three candidates running for the Supreme Court are Tammy Adkins, David Nahmias and Matt Wilson.

But how do we know which of those three would be the best Justice for the Georgia Supreme Court? We know that the current Justice is David Nahmias who’s a native of Atlanta, was named to the Supreme Court of Georgia by Governor Perdue and took office less than a year ago on August 13, 2009. There’s a lot about him on the Internet, but information about the two candidates running against him might not be so public. That means a little research is in order.

For those 68 judges who’ll be elected in November, we have three months to find out which have high moral standards, which have proven they’ll uphold the law and constitution and which have the character to retain those standards if they are elected to a high public office. So, find out who’s running for the Appeals Court or Superior Court in your area and don’t forget to investigate the candidates for District Attorney. They all run non partisan, too, so party platforms won’t help in any of their races. Let’s do our homework and elect judges who’ll uphold the constitution and won’t try to create laws, themselves. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.

The 29-question Eagle Forum Survey was sent to Georgia candidates for state offices and the U.S. House and Senate. Along with the usual data gleaned from surveys, the ones returned also revealed a, truly, disturbing fact – some candidates are unaware of the dangers of a constitutional convention (con con). The following information may help you decide which candidates would best represent you in the offices they are seeking. Candidates that are not listed on this page did not return their survey.

• To read the rest of this newsletter in PDF format, please click here.

Radio Commentary, WMVV 90.7 New Life FM, July 16, 2010
By Sue Ella Deadwyler

Good morning, Jim. This year as never before, we know the importance of elections. We’ve learned NOT to elect candidates just because they speak well or promise great things. We’ve learned to look deeper, to find out where they stand on issues and not assume they agree with us on anything. We must be sure of their loyalty to this country and the free enterprise system.

A most critical fact surfaced early in this campaign period. I began writing about it in December 2008, after learning that a Georgia candidate for governor was promoting a constitutional convention to pass a fair tax amendment. While I support a fair tax, I am absolutely opposed to a constitutional convention for any purpose. A fair tax amendment can be passed the same way the other 27 constitutional amendments passed … without a constitutional convention.

The only authority for a constitutional convention is Article V of the Constitution of the United States and is so crafted that most anything can happen after a convention is convened. The best example of that is a historical fact. On May 25, 1787 the first and only U.S. constitutional convention was convened under the Articles of Confederation and adjourned September 17, 1787, less than 100 working days later, after delegates adopted the current Constitution.

To better understand my concerns, please read Article V of the Constitution and ask yourself these questions: Who presides over a constitutional convention? Will every state be invited? How many states must attend and where will it be held? Must delegates be U.S. citizens? What rules of order will be followed and how long would the convention last? How many amendments can it pass? Can states repeal their calls for a constitutional convention?

The answer to those questions is, “No one knows!” But there are two things we DO know. Delegates to a constitutional convention could throw out the current constitution and install an entirely new form of government. So, let’s elect candidates who will protect the Constitution and amend it with the same process that’s been used 27 times without a constitutional convention. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.