Thursday, March 27, 2014
I'm visiting my dad in FL right now, down in the Parrish-Ellenton area,
but I do admit, folks down here like (Even LOVE!) to tailgate, along
with ignoring stop signs, sometimes altogether, and red lights, along
with speeding. I'm not talking a couple of miles over, but 10, 15 and
even 20mph over the speed limit, with a total disregard to other drivers
safety. Glad you caught him on video. What a butthead.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
New Phishing Funeral Notice “Clearwater & Largo (Hubbell) Memorial Funeral Home” by Greedy Bastards and Dirtbags!
We would like to express our deepest sorrow for the untimely death of your beloved
friend and inform you about the life service celebration that will take place at
Hubbell Funeral Home on March 15, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
Please follow this link to get funeral invitation.
Please be there to honor the memory of your friend with her closest people.
Our best wishes and prayers,
Funeral home assistant
99 North Indian Rocks Road | Belleair Bluffs, Florida 33770
Phone 727-584-7671 | Fax 727-584-1073
Remember, share this with everyone, and now, before they strike again!
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Posted Mar 12, 2014, 2:46 pm
By: Lori Udall | A Special to TucsonSentinel.com
Forty-six years ago, my father Stewart Udall — as Secretary of Interior —issued the first endangered species list under the Endangered Species Preservation Act. His list included such great American icons as the timber wolf, red wolf, bald eagle, grizzly bear, American alligator, and the peregrine falcon. Also listed as endangered in 1967 was the gray wolf.
Six years later, in December of 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support. President Richard Nixon promptly signed this landmark wildlife conservation bill into law. In those years, decisions about endangered species listings were
founded in science and fact, which is where they should be decided.
2013 marked the fortieth anniversary of the Endangered Species Act. As the years have passed, evidence is overwhelming that the law is highly effective and has saved hundreds of species from extinction. The bald eagle has been restored to most of its original habitat; the peregrine falcon has soared back to recovery and both were taken off the list. The grizzly bear, listed in 1975 as threatened is recovering well in some areas in the west. The American alligator was delisted due to recovery
However, the gray wolf is an example of a species that is coming back but has not yet made it back, and yet now is caught in political limbo.
In 2011, Sen. John Tester of Montana (D-Mon) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), under pressure from constituents, introduced a rider to a spending bill that delisted the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho, while the agency charged with protecting the wolf under the Endangered Species Act — Department of Interior — turned a blind eye.
This was the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act that a single species was delisted through legislation instead of through the scientific study around the species recovery.
That a single species can be delisted through legislation in Congress instead of scientific study of its recovery sets a dangerous precedent for the future of all protected species. Already, other members of
Congress are following suit and have introduced amendments to defund recovery for the Utah prairie dog, the greater and Gunnison sage grouse, preventing a listing of prairie chickens, as well as other amendments to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
To add insult to injury, under Secretary Sally Jewell's direction, the Department of Interior is now proposing to delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states (except the Mexican wolf). Americans have until March 27 to submit their comments.
The proposed rule has been challenged by an independent scientific peer review study released on Feb. 7 and done at the request of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The peer review scientists convened by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis disagree with the proposed rule regarding the status of the wolf under the Endangered Species Act.
There is unanimity among the panelists that the proposed rule does not represent the best available science and that the rule is based narrowly on one study that has problematic assertions and conclusions and was not analyzed critically. Moreover, the scientists suggest that the Fish and Wildlife Service was wrong to base its ruling on FWS scientists rather than a broader selection of scientific viewpoints.
Given the positive impact that wolves have on whole ecosystems, Jewell is faced with perhaps one of the most important conservation decisions of her tenure.
It is her turn to make the big decisions for wildlife and wild lands.
My father used to say if you developed a policy the wrong way you would have a big fight on your hands. Well, The Department of Interior certainly has picked a fight! Over a million Americans, and counting, have commented on the wolf delisting and the majority are against it; now top scientists concur. It's time for Secretary Jewell to follow the science, rethink her strategy and finish the work my father and his successors started.
Courtesy of: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/031214_wolf_udall_op/udall-gray-wolf-delisting-not-sound-science/
Sunday, March 2, 2014
The Supreme Court will rule soon in McCutcheon v. FEC, which could further increase the influence of big money in elections. But McCutcheon is just the latest in a long string of cases weakening campaign finance rules. Since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the Court in 2005 and 2006 respectively, five decisions have significantly reshaped the legal landscape dictating how much big money can flow into political races. Here is some background on what the Court did, how it affected American elections, and what could happen next.
2007: Federal Election Commission (FEC) v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
- The SCOTUS Ruling:The
Court struck down a law regulating sham issue ads — television advertisements that clearly target specific candidates, but avoid regulation by posing as "issue" ads. For example, an advertisement referring to a candidate by name close to the election, but instead of
explicitly advocating voting for or against the candidate, tells the viewer to “call Rep. Smith and tell him to stop corporate polluters.”
- The Majority Opinion:Chief Justice Roberts on the continued regulation of issue ads: “Enough is enough. Issue ads like WRTL’s are by no means equivalent to contributions, and the quid-pro-quocorruption interest cannot justify regulating them.”
- The Dissenting Opinion:Justice
Souter: “Neither Congress’s decisions nor our own have understood the
corrupting influence of money in politics as being limited to outright
bribery or discrete quid pro quo; campaign finance reform has instead consistently focused on the more pervasive distortion of electoral institutions by concentrated wealth, on the special access and guaranteed favor that sap the representative integrity of American government and defy public confidence in its institutions.”
- The Result:
By rejecting Congress’s decision to regulate political spending, the Court encouraged the creation of more and more political ads that circumvent campaign finance law by leaving out “magic words” such as “vote for” or “vote against.” As any voter who lives in a battleground
state knows, these ads now dominate many elections, often funded by shadowy groups that do not reveal their donors.
- The SCOTUS Ruling:The Court struck down the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,”
which had permitted congressional candidates facing wealthy opponents who spent more than $350,000 of their own money on the race to raise larger contributions until they achieved parity with their wealthy opponents.
- The Majority Opinion:Justice Alito:
“While [the law] does not impose a cap on a candidate's expenditure of
personal funds, it imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who
robustly exercises that First Amendment right.”
- The Dissenting Opinion:Justice Stevens: The law “does not impose any burden whatsoever on the self-funding candidate’s freedom to speak, it does not violate the First Amendment, and . . . it does no more than diminish the unequal strength of the self-funding candidate.”
- The Result:Opponents
of extremely wealthy candidates are left without an effective way to
overcome their significant financial disadvantage. By striking down the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” the Court helped to ensure that Congress would continue to be dominated by the very wealthy, a state of affairs recently described by the Center for Responsive Politics.
- The SCOTUS Ruling:The
Court opened the door to allow unions and corporations, including
for-profit corporations, to spend unlimited amounts on elections, as long as that money is not given directly to or used in coordination with a candidate.
- The Majority Opinion: Justice Kennedy: “Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption. . . .” “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
- The Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Stevens: “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and
instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”
- The Result: The Citizens United
decision laid the groundwork for the creation of Super PACs, or
independent political groups that can take in and spend unlimited sums.
These groups, paired with newly unrestrained corporations and unions,
have contributed to astronomical growth in independent political spending. Outside groups spent more than $1 billion dollars on the 2012 election, which is more than
the total outside spending reported to the Federal Election Commission
from 1980 to 2010. Outside spending in Senate races alone went from
about $18 million in 2008 to about $260 million in 2012. Much of this money remains untraceable, as groups have taken advantage of loopholes in the election law and tax code to hide the identities of spenders.
- The SCOTUS Ruling:The Court struck down part of an Arizona program that provided public funds to candidates who agreed to only raise very small contributions from the public and to abide by campaign expenditure limits. Specifically, the program could no longer provide additional money to these candidates if they faced big-spending opponents.
- The Majority Opinion:Chief Justice Roberts: “Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand.”
- The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Kagan: “Some people might call [it] chutzpah” that those who challenged the law claim that it “violated theirFirst Amendment rights by disbursing funds to otherspeakers, even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance.”
- The Result:Public funding programs can no longer provide candidates with additional funds if they are vastly outspent by their opponents.
- SCOTUS Ruling:The Court struck down a Montana ban on corporate political spending and refused to reconsider Citizens Unitedeven as outside spending skyrocketed. The Court rejected the evidence relied upon by the Montana Supreme Court that outside spending can cause corruption and the appearance of corruption.
- The Majority Opinion: Per Curiam: “The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
- The Dissenting Opinion:Justice Breyer: “Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.”
- The Result:By
doubling down on its conclusion that corporate election spending may
not be limited, the Court blocked future efforts to regulate outside money at the state level.
- What’s At Stake: At issue in McCutcheonare aggregate contribution limits — the amount one contributor can give in federal elections to all candidates, political parties, and PACs, combined. Under these limits, no donor can give more than $48,600 to all candidates and $74,600 to parties and PACs in one federal election cycle (two years).
- What Could Happen:McCutcheonthreatens
to exponentially worsen the political spending arms race — and to
create risks of government corruption unlike anything the country has
seen since the Gilded Age. If the Court strikes down aggregate contribution limits, one politician could use joint fundraising committees to directly solicit more than $3.5 million from a single donor in an election cycle. That’s more than 70 times the median annual family income
in America. For an ordinary American to raise and spend this amount would take a lifetime. Striking down aggregate limits would also effectively render individual contribution limits meaningless, since many candidates could collect money to funnel toward a single
politician. As a result, far more money will flow into an American political system already flush with cash.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
"NYPD Police Officer Efrain Rojas, Shield No. 23404, Assaults an American Citizen Legally VideoTaping Police activity & it's Caught On Camera!"
District Attorney Kenneth Thompson can prosecute Officer Rojas under NYS Penal Law section 210.10, just based on the report filed and the video. Section 210.10 is a class E Felony. Rojas must be terminated if found guilty.
Kings County District Attorney's Office
350 Jay St. Brooklyn, New York 11201-2908
Ask for: ADA Charles Guria
718.250.2600 / 718-250-2000
ADA Charles Guria runs the Rackets Division.
The Rackets Division consists of multiple bureaus that share resources and information in order to successfully investigate and prosecute serious and complex crimes in the areas of organized crime, criminal misconduct by public officials and police officers, gang-related activity, major frauds, arson, narcotics and tax revenue crimes.
The bureaus in the Rackets Division are: Civil Rights and Police Integrity Bureau, Major Frauds and Arson Bureau, Money Laundering and Revenue Crimes Bureau, Organized Crime Bureau and Political Corruption Investigation Bureau.
Recording While Black and Contempt of Cop are not crimes just yet, but I think NYC Politicians are
working on it, because Photography Is Not A Crime unless you are photography the Cops of course.
Yet the Department of Justice sees no reason to intervene.
Visit http://themarginalzone.wordpress.com for updates on this case and others.
Here is what Police Officer Efrain Rojas Shield No. 23404, says happened:
Deponent states that, at the above time and place, inside of a Transit Station on the 3 and 4 platform train, which was public, deponent was issuing a lawful summons to an individual and that deponent observed defendant in very close proximity to the deponent and deponent's partner while issuing the summons and that deponent continued to repeatedly ask defendant to step back and that defendant repeatedly refused to do so.
Deponent further requested the defendant to leave said train station and defendant refused to do so, deponent escorted defendant out the above mentioned location and informed defendant that defendant can not come back into said station, defendant continued to film deponent and closely follow deponent back into said train station.
Deponent further states that, at the above time and place, defendant did resist a lawful arrest by crossing defendants' arm across defendant's chest while deponent attempted to place defendant in handcuffs.
Rep. Josh Miller, recipient of significant government assistance, opposes Medicaid expansion in Arkansas and is a typical hypocritical douchebag, I mean Republican!
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"
Miller is of interest because he's a well-known beneficiary of federal government support himself.
Miller, 33, was on an alcohol-fueled drive with a friend about 11 years ago (he can't remember who was driving) when their pickup plunged off a ravine near Choctaw. He was rescued, but suffered a broken neck and was paralyzed. Miller was uninsured. What young, fit man needs health insurance, he thought then. (He had some reason to know better. Not long before, he'd broken his hand in a fight and had to refuse the recommended surgery to fix the injuries properly because he was uninsured.)
Months of hospitalization and rehabilitation followed, including a long stretch in intensive care at St. Vincent Infirmary. There was a $1 million bill. Medicaid paid most of it. Miller was placed on disability and checks began. In time, between Medicaid and Medicare, all his health costs were covered by the federal government. For that reason, he need not be among the 82 Arkansas legislators (61 percent of the body) who enjoy heavily subsidized and comprehensive state employee health insurance.
Health insurance isn't Miller's only government benefit. Another federal Medicaid program for which he qualifies provides daily personal care assistance.
Between the government-paid trauma care, ongoing Medicare and Medicaid coverage, government-provided personal assistant and his own grit, Miller has made a full life. He manages a rental property business (some government-subsidized renters are among his tenants) and serves as a legislator.
My question: How could someone who's received — and continues to receive — significant public assistance oppose health insurance for the working poor? Isn't Miller himself a shining example of how government help can encourage productive citizens?
Miller sees it differently. He said some who qualify for the private option aren't working hard enough. He claims many want health insurance just so they can get prescription drugs to abuse. He draws distinctions with government help for catastrophic occurrences such as he suffered. He falls back, too, on a developing defense from private option holdouts that they prefer an alternative that wouldn't end coverage for the 100,000 people currently signed up, at least until next year. This is disingenuous. He and other opponents have made clear that they want to strip Obamacare from government root and branch. Here's how Miller boiled his opposition down:
"My problem is two things," Miller said. "One, we are giving it to able-bodied folks who can work ... and two, how do we pay for it?"
Lucky for Josh Miller, such thinking didn't prevail when Congress — over Republican opposition — created the programs that sustain him.
A coldly rational person might say a cook in a fast-food restaurant, working long hours at low pay to feed a family, looks more deserving than an uninsured person injured on a drunken joy ride. I would not. No one should be pre-judged on a subjective merit test for health care. We are all God's children — all residents of a country Republicans like to call exceptional, despite its lack of universal health care.
Apart from the core philosophical difference — Miller opposes an expansion of government expenditures; I don't — Miller's position seems to boil down to the belief that some needy people are more deserving than others.
Let's go and ask Rep. Miller if the taxes he has paid or may pay in the future will even come close to paying for all of the government benefits he has and will receive?
His attitude is "I've got mine. Good luck getting yours!" He's just a lower-life scumbag!
William D. Harasym