Florida’s Rubio and Scott grandstand with bill to raise reward for Venezuelan dictator’s capture | Opinion

Least wanted

According to a Sept. 20 Miami Herald story, a U.S. Senate bill will raise the offer for the capture of nefarious Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to $100 million. I was appalled. I don’t care how evil and despotic he is.

I am sure most taxpayers would agree there are better ways to spend $100 million, such as improving conditions in our own country. I was not surprised to read further down in the article that our self-serving Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio sponsored this ridiculous bill. Those two must understand they were elected to serve the interests of Florida’s residents, not to grandstand for a small audience.

David Halpern,

Miami

Hope for Haiti

Donald Trump Jr. told an interviewer recently, “You look at Haiti, you look at the demographic makeup, you look at the average I.Q. If you import the third world into your country, you’re going to become the third world.” That statement was an emotional sucker punch to the Haitian community.

Hundreds of Haitian professionals and academics are making invaluable contributions in universities and government agencies around the world, from Harvard to the Sorbonne, from NASA to the White House. Although crass and devoid of any academic relevance, Trump Jr.’s statement calls for closer scrutiny.

A discussion about IQ should consider the theory of Multiple Intelligences, developed by American psychologist Howard Gardner. Based on that theory, success in any aspect of life — music, for example — is predicated on an individual’s capacity to excel in that particular field.

This theory is so powerful that other researchers have expanded it to include emotional and political intelligence. The late Nelson Mandela and former President Bill Clinton are two examples of leaders with political intelligence. Haiti longs for this.

Georges Francois,

Fort Myers

Unpleasant ballot

Never in recent history have there been two so unlikable candidates running for office of the President of the United States. Unfortunately for Republicans, short of digging up Ronald Reagan, there is no choice but to vote for Donald Trump.

Unlike Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump has a sensible agenda. He will work to curtail out of control spending and reduce the national debt. He is also committed to stopping illegal border crossings.

Trump had a successful four years as president and many feel they were better off during his term. He can be boorish at times, but voters must hold their nose and vote for him.

Gilbert Schwartz,

Aventura

GOP for Harris

Hundreds who worked for former Republican presidents and senators have called on their fellow “moderate Republicans and conservative independents” to join them in backing Vice President Kamala Harris. Numerous retired military generals and admirals have also endorsed Harris. These individuals are sending a strong message to their party that they will only vote for truthful, law-abiding candidates who uphold the Constitution.

Each of us must demand that candidates back up their statements with facts. We also must demand they will protect all people in our country, especially children.

Republican candidates support government interference in many areas of our private lives, imposing their narrow definition of “family.” Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, defines a healthy family as comprised of a mother, father and their biological children.

I grew up in a non-traditional family unit. I know children will thrive in a loving home regardless of who is fulfilling the parent role, as long as they have their basic needs fulfilled, a sense of belonging, words/actions that build self-esteem, love and a proper education.

Any candidate who makes it okay, by words and actions, to shame children based on their definition of a non-traditional family unit does not merit our votes. Cruel, insensitive words cause children harm.

Candy Banks,

Jupiter

Harris’ choice

Vice President Kamala Harris would like to see a national law reinstating the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. This is part and parcel of being “pro choice” and a Democrat.

However, the citizens of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and other states have expressed their choice (through their elected representatives in state legislatures) to not allow abortions in their states with certain exceptions.

Harris and her cronies want to overrule these citizens simply because they don’t like their choice. This is not democracy but autocracy. Harris is telling these citizens they have the freedom to choose as long as they choose the way the government wants.

Do Harris and her cronies think they are living in China?

Donald Trump is correct that overturning Roe did not outlaw abortion but allowed the matter to be decided by each state in accordance with the “choice” of its citizens. To be “pro choice” is to champion the right of the electorate to choose even if their choice is not to one’s liking.

Michael Katz,

Miami

Extreme amendment

The vaguely worded, proposed Amendment 4 to Florida’s constitution would not permit abortion to be restricted before “viability” or if “medical personnel” determined that a mother’s health justifies the killing of her pre-born child after “viability.” The bill does not say when “viability” is, who qualifies as “medical personnel” or whether a headache is a valid “health” reason.

The amendment would also overturn all Florida laws restricting abortion. This would include parental consent for a minor seeking an abortion.

The amendment would be an extreme law that would undoubtedly make Florida an abortion-destination state. Please carefully and prayerfully consider these facts before voting.

Francis Mahoney,

Fort Lauderdale

Freedom for some

Amendment 3 (recreational marijuana) and Amendment 4 (abortion), are all about personal freedom. However, for Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies, it’s all about freedom for me, but not for thee.

David C. Hancock,

Coconut Grove

Let voters decide

Gov. Ron DeSantis is spending his time, energy and taxpayer dollars fighting Amendment 4. He hand-picked appointees who rewrote a financial impact statement, which will be added to the ballot question. This added layer muddies the amendment and is a smoke and mirrors tactic meant to confuse voters.

Then, the taxpayer-funded Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (FAHCA) created a website opposing Amendment 4 by claiming it “threatens women’s safety.” According to the American Medical Association website, women’s health is impacted negatively if they have less access to abortion care.

The FAHCA website also states “the framework ... to regulate abortion sets reasonable and commonsense guard rails.” These “guardrails” prevent a woman from having an abortion after six-weeks of pregnancy, before many realize they are pregnant.

In a desperate last-ditch attempt to defeat Amendment 4, DeSantis has sent election police to question some Florida voters who signed the petition to get the amendment on the ballot. These signatures were verified in January.

DeSantis said he’s fighting Amendment 4 because it’s the “right thing to do.”

Why doesn’t he let the people of Florida decide what is right for women?

Gina Guilford,

Miami

Play later

South Florida U.S. Congressman Carlos Gimenez recently blasted the Secret Service because an armed man was on a perimeter of a golf course while Donald Trump was nearby. Gimenez, like many in his party, claims to be very concerned about reducing “wasteful spending” and the public debt.

I wonder what it costs to encircle an entire golf course with Secret Service agents while a presidential candidate plays a round of golf? Would that be “wasteful spending?”

Perhaps as a loyal Trump supporter, Gimenez could persuade him to postpone all future golf rounds until after the November election.

Robert Gross,

Coral Gables