March 3, 2017 Radio Commentary

Skewing the Culture via Education

Radio Commentary, 90.7, 91.7 New Life FM, March 3, 2017 – By Sue Ella Deadwyler

This year the culture changers got a head-start when H.B. 16 was pre-filed and, officially, introduced February 2nd. H.B. 16 is a repeat of last year’s bill about bullying in schools. Georgia’s current law against bullying in school applies to all students equally; it does not categorize students; and its standard penalties are administered to violators, regardless of their personal identity.

H.B. 16 changes the focus of the bullying law by classifying students according to their actual or perceived sexual orientation by inserting a laundry list of alternate lifestyles – gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

Since sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression include lifestyles that some people may or may not agree with, there’s a real possibility that negative comments about certain behaviors may be uttered by students K – 12.

This is what the bill says on lines 237 and 238: “Nothing in this Code section is intended to interfere with the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression of any person affected.” Continue reading

February 24, 2017 Radio Commentary

Will Non-Citizens Govern Georgians?

Radio Commentary, 90.7, 91.7 New Life FM, February 24, 2017 – By Sue Ella Deadwyler

I have two serious questions for you. The first: Will someone who is not a U.S. citizen be allowed to govern in Georgia? The second: Should any citizen of the United States or Georgia be governed by someone who is not a U.S. citizen?

Those questions may be decided this session. On January 11th, Republican Representative Brad Raffensperger introduced H.B. 33 to add a new section to three Georgia Code Titles: 36, 45 and 50, to authorize non-U.S.-citizens to be appointed to local public authorities that make policy, spend public money, levy taxes, or assess, impose, or collect fees or charges.

H.B. 33 would authorize six groups of non-citizens to serve in local government: (a) nationals of the United States, (b) lawful permanent residents, (c) aliens with lawful status in the U.S., (d)legal residents of Georgia, (e) active members of the U.S. military, or (f) members of the soldier’s immediate family to hold public office in authorities, school districts, commissions, councils and boards.

The IRS defines those terms as follows: An alien is someone who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A U.S. National is a person who owes sole allegiance to the United States. That includes U.S. citizens, and individuals who are not U.S. citizens. A U.S. Citizen is someone born in the U.S.; a person whose parent is a U.S. citizen; a former alien naturalized as a U.S. citizen; and individuals born in Puerto Rico, Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Continue reading

February 20, 2017 Newsletter

Casino Embedded in “Immediate Action Needed!

Threat Percolating under the Gold Dome; Will Georgia get two casinos or six?
S.B. 79 and H.B. 158, as introduced, authorize two casinos.
S.R. 249 proposed constitutional amendment authorizes SIX!

S.R. 249, a proposed constitutional amendment dropped in the House hopper February 17th to be officially introduced February 20th, authorizes the General Assembly to license “no more than six” destination resorts (with embedded casinos) “at any given time.” Six casinos are three times the number of casinos authorized in the original versions of S.B. 79 and H.B. 158.

S.R. 249 prohibits all other forms of casino gaming, stating that the prohibition will be enforced by law. Proceeds from licensing, regulation, and taxing of casinos will be used for education after pay-outs, operating expenses, and addictive gambling prevention programs are funded.

Legalizing Casino Gambling could authorize Indian¹ Casinos in Georgia
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a 1988 U.S. federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework governing Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this Act (Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), that established the following three gaming classes:
Class I gaming is defined as (1) traditional Indian gaming, that may be part of tribal ceremonies, and celebrations, and (2) social gaming for minimal prizes. Class 1 gaming regulatory authority is vested exclusively in tribal governments.
Class II gaming is a game of chance commonly known as bingo and, if played in the same location, includes card games that are played exclusively against other players rather than against the house or a player acting as a bank. The Act specifically excludes from the definition of class II games slot machines or electronic facsimiles of any game of chance.
Class III gaming is broad. It includes all forms of gaming that are neither class I nor II. Games commonly played at casinos, such as slot machines, blackjack, craps, and roulette, clearly fall in the class III category, as well as wagering games and electronic facsimiles of any game of chance. Generally, class III is often referred to as casino-style gaming. For Indian tribes to establish and operate casinos, the following conditions must be in place:
(a) Class III gaming must be permitted in the state.
(b) The tribe and state must have negotiated a compact with approved regulatory procedures.
(c) The Tribe must have a tribal gaming ordinance approved by the commission chairman.
A 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision was interpreted to allow states to address only “crimes and civil disputes” in tribal issues. That ruling opened the gates for the Indian gaming industry to become the most widely successful economic initiative on reservations across the country.

ACTION – OPPOSE S.B. 79 and S.R. 249. Vote expected by Thursday, February 23rd. Call Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee Senators Jeffares, Ch., 463-1376; Ginn, V-Ch., 404 656-4700; McKoon, Sec., 463-3931; Cowsert, 463-1366; Gooch, 656-9221; Harbison, 656-0074; Henson, 656-0085; Hill, 656-5038; Kennedy, 656-0045; Lucas, 656-5035; Miller, 656-7454; Mullis, 656-0057; Shafer, 656-0048; Unterman, 463-1368.

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

February 17, 2017 Radio Commentary

The Protect Act

Radio Commentary, 90.7, 91.7 New Life FM, February 17, 2017 – By Sue Ella Deadwyler

You’ll be glad to know that Georgia legislators are keenly aware that terrorism is a threat, so much so that on January 10th, Senator Cowsert introduced The Protect Act, to create real time communication and cooperation with agencies “up and down the chain of command” when terrorism is suspected.

The Protect Act is S.B. 1 that defines domestic terrorism as the (a) violation or attempted violation of laws for the advancement of an ideology or belief, the (b) terrorizing of Georgia’s civilian population, (c) even if only one person is affected. A suspected terrorist is a person reasonably suspected to be, or has been, involved in global or domestic terroristic conduct.

Georgia has four major state agencies dedicated to keeping us safe from terrorism. They are the Georgia Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Georgia Ministry of Defense, the Intelligence Service of Georgia, and the Special State Protection service of Georgia.

The state’s primary agency focusing on terrorism is the Georgia Ministry of Internal Affairsthat heads operations in case there’s a state emergency. Meanwhile, it implements special measures to gather and analyze data on activities of foreign and international terrorist organizations. It makes sure counter-terrorist tactics are implemented and uses its Counter-terrorist Centre to coordinate plans of other terrorism-combating agencies. Continue reading