"The Global Consciousness Project, also known as the EGG Project, is an international multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others continuously collecting data from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites worldwide. The archive contains over 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second."
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, February 19, 2021
Imagine for a minute, if you can, what it would be like for your elected Representatives and Senators, at either the State, or Federal level to literally “undo,” or attempt to “undo,” an election that was in every way conducted properly (meaning ethically, honestly, and openly, in accordance with all applicable laws), simply because they didn’t “like” the way The People voted – the results or outcome of the election wasn’t to their suiting, or liking.
The Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney and the Georgia State Attorney General’s Office are both investigating that matter in order to determine what, if any, election-related laws were broken in the course of that phone call, which may include “the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”
The audio taped recording of the Trump-Raffensperger phone call is quite likely much worse than any of the numerous covert so-called “smoking gun” audio tapes of Richard Nixon’s presidency. Nixon’s numerous recorded conversations with staff, and others, including of his phone calls, which detailed his involvement in the numerous crimes of the Watergate burglary/break-in, also revealed him to be paranoid.
And cockamamie conspiracy theories aside – especially and particularly the one of “The BIG Lie,” as told by the former President – NO ONE made any overt, or clandestine effort or attempt to “steal” any election from anyone. PERIOD.
But the point of the matter is this:
There are
GENUINELY
now-ongoing efforts
to literally “undo”
the results of honest elections
in the United States.
No, this is NOT a joke… and, NO this is NOT a conspiracy theory.
It is a documented fact.
What does it say for democracy and the democratic process if the expressed will of the people is somehow, overridden, undone, or cancelled?
Yeah… it’s that “cancel culture” thing.
And it is Republicans who are doing it.
Remember the thing about “psychological projection” – a morbid behavior in which people deny or defend in themselves the very characteristic or behavior they abjure and detest in others? It’s a type of “blame shifting,” and a refusal to accept either reality or responsibility.
Read for yourself the following 2 news items to learn what GOP-Banana Republican types are doing in some states.
Marijuana Foes Deploy New ‘Playbook’ To Thwart State Legalization, Upend Election Results
Efforts to thwart voter-approved marijuana legalization in Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota are evidence of a “playbook” that reflects new legal strategies and greater willingness among local government officials to nullify election results, experts say.
Those efforts – led by anti-marijuana politicians and other opponents – threaten to stop or delay the implementation of new medical and recreational cannabis markets that would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in sales a year.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, February 12, 2021
“Trump told us to do it.”
Trump’s MAGA supporters rioter-insurrectionists who were assembled at the White House Ellipse Park January 6, 2021 quickly became violent exclusively because they believed that Trump was asking them to do so – that they were doing his bidding.
“He said, ‘Be there.’ So I went and I answered the call of my president.”
House Impeachment Managers cited social media posts, recorded video, and court documents which reflected as much.
“I Answered the Call of My President.”
Impeachment Managers also extensively documented that several months BEFORE the election, Trump was laying the groundwork for convincing his cult of followers that the November presidential election was fixed, and that his victory was stolen because of Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, February 8, 2021
See how insane that headline is?
The fact of the matter is, that 43-year old quarterback Tom Brady led the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to a Super Bowl 55 victory over the Kansas City Chiefs 31-9 in Tampa, Florida’s Raymond James Stadium.
And like the 2020 General Election, it too was seen worldwide. There was no “Deflate-Gate,” there were no biased referees, there were no ineligible players on field, there were no players on either side using performance enhancing drugs, and there were no changes to the goal lines, or hash marks.
It was a 100% fair game.
Just like the 2020 November General Election.
Maybe in the interim, before the next season starts, for the benefit of future games, and in order to restore confidence in the game, the Kansas City Chiefs can get some rules changed to help them win next time.
Remember: Denial is not a river in Egypt.
States’ Republicans Weigh New Laws Making It Harder To Vote
After an election that saw record voter turnout, with many of those voters casting their ballots early and by mail, some Republican state lawmakers are proposing a wave of new voting laws that would effectively make it more difficult to vote in future elections.
The proposals come in the aftermath of the unprecedented onslaught of disinformation about the conduct of the 2020 election by former President Donald Trump and some of his allies in the Republican Party.
“Some folks bring these proposals forward and say, ‘Well, we just need to address confidence in our election systems,’ when it’s some of those very same people, or at least their allies and enablers, [who] have denigrated our election system by either telling lies or at least leveraging or relying on other people’s lies to justify some of these policies,” said Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Democratic Secretary of State, at a news conference organized last week by the Voter Protection Program.
A recent analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found that 106 bills have been filed by Republican lawmakers in 28 states that would restrict voting (the group also found 406 bills in 35 states that would expand voting access). Many of the bills would limit voting by mail, add new voter ID requirements, make it more difficult to register voters and give states greater leeway to purge voter files if voters don’t consistently cast ballots in every election.
“Some of them are for show; some of them have to be taken more seriously,” said Trey Grayson, a former Republican Secretary of State in Kentucky, at the same news conference.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, January 15, 2021
Freedom.
What a concept, eh?
The very idea that you have a brain, and therefore, can think independently to decide FOR YOURSELF what you want, or ought, to do, continues to frustrate others who think that they know better than you do what personal decisions you should make for yourself!
It’s an adult decision.
Why, it’s nothing short of… LIBERTY!
ENOUGH! of the “Nanny State”!
Take your religion home, and GET IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT!!
Practice it PRIVATELY, with your family, friends, and other like-minded individuals. STOP forcing your PRIVATE religious ethics and morals upon others by writing public laws that mirror your private interpretation of your religion.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists that cited the establishment clause of our nation’s Constitution, which as he wrote, erected a “a wall of separation between Church & State,” or as we now say, between government, and religion.
Religious nuts have been trying to tear it down, ever since.
And they’re STILL TRYING TODAY!
‘Drug Use For Grown-Ups’ Serves As An Argument For Personal Choice
If you grew up scared of what illicit drugs could do to you — hearing about all the horrors that could befall you from everyone from Nancy Reagan to your parents — the threat may have felt very real: If you actually took a puff off that joint that the kid who slept through math class offered you, it could lead to failed relationships, chronic unemployment, self-destruction.
The shame would outlive you.
But drugs are a more complicated matter than they’ve been made out to be, according to Dr. Carl L. Hart. In his new book Drug Use for Grown-Ups, the Columbia University professor of psychology and psychiatry zealously argues that drug use should be a matter of personal choice — and that, in more cases than not, personal choice can lead to positive outcomes. His positions may seem quite extreme to some but they also, by and large, make a lot of sense — and are backed up by ample research.
A major reason drugs have such a negative public image, Hart asserts, is racism. He notes that after the Civil War, some Chinese railroad construction workers smoked opium and, sometimes, established “opium dens” to do so. Over time, more and more white Americans visited these dens to smoke opium too. That in turn led to broader, bigoted social fear among whites, like, for example, the sentiments captured in H.H. Kane’s 1882 report:
“The practice spread widely…Many women and young girls, as also young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise.”
Then there was the post-Civil War use of cocaine among some Black day laborers, something Hart writes was at first encouraged by white employers because of the productivity it could promote. Soon enough, however, articles appeared widely that tried to make a connection between African American cocaine use and criminality. One particularly egregious article in The New York Times in 1914, cited by Hart, even reported that some police in the South “who appreciate the vitality of the cocaine-crazed” were switching to higher-caliber weaponry capable of “greater shocking power for the express purpose of combating ‘the fiend’.”
But horrifying history aside, one of the book’s most eye-opening aspects is its challenge of the long-running association between drugs and addiction. First the basics: Addiction, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM – 5), must be a source of distress for a drug user. It must also interfere with a person’s job, parenting or personal relationships. Other indications of addiction may be Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, January 12, 2021
For all the hoopla being raised by Banana Republicans parading as GOP types, including the Loser in Chief, about the decision Twitter made to cut him (and others) off from their private non-governmental service, and who are calling it “censorship,” the United States Supreme Court has some news for you:
Censorship laws DO NOT apply to the Private Sector.
Period.
If you don’t like it, take it up with those who decided it: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
In a Certiorari to The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, No. 17–1702, the court ruled that “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech,” and held that MNN (private nonprofit corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN)) was not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
The court wrote further, that, “A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as relevant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re-served to the State.” The precedent for that decision was rendered in the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352.
“The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158.”
In the decision, the court wrote in part that,
“Under the state-action doctrine as it has been articulated and applied by our precedents, we conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The background facts of the case which formed the basis of the suit are fairly straight-forward, and reads as follows:
“DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced public access programming in Manhattan. They made a film about MNN’s alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. Halleck submitted the film to MNN for airing on MNN’s public access channels, and MNN later televised the film. Afterwards, MNN fielded multiple complaints about the film’s content. In response, MNN temporarily suspended Halleck from using the public access channels. Halleck and Melendez soon became embroiled in another dispute with MNN staff. In the wake of that dispute, MNN ultimately suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities. Halleck and Melendez then sued MNN, among other parties, in Federal District Court. The two producers claimed that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when MNN restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.
“MNN moved to dismiss the producers’ First Amendment claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on its editorial discretion. The District Court agreed with MNN and dismissed the producers’ First Amendment claim.
“The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part. 882 F. 3d 300, 308 (2018). In the majority opinion authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge Lohier, the court stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Reasoning that “public forums are usually operated by governments,” the court concluded that MNN is a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. Id., at 306–307. Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that MNN also qualifies as a state actor for the independent reason that “New York City delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum of Manhattan’s public access channels.” Id., at 309.
“Judge Jacobs dissented in relevant part, opining that MNN is not a state actor. He reasoned that a private entity’s operation of an open forum for speakers does not render the host entity a state actor. Judge Jacobs further stated that the operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.
“We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether private operators of public access cable channels are state actors subject to the First Amendment. 586 U. S. __ (2018). Compare 882 F. 3d 300 (case below), with Wilcher v. Akron, 498 F. 3d 516 (CA6 2007); and Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).”
Certiorari [pronounced “sir-sha-rar-ee”] is a writ [a written order issued by a court]seekingreview of a lowercourtdecision by a highercourt.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, January 7, 2021
U.S. Capitol Police in plain clothes stand behind barricaded doors to the House floor and draw pistols upon Trump 2020 mobsters who violently invaded the U.S. Capitol Building, Wednesday, January 6, 2021 during the Constitutionally-ordered tallying of the states’ certified Electoral College votes.
The shocking events that unfolded yesterday in our nation’s capitol – rioting thugs, marauders, and hooligans who violently overthrew and violently invaded our Nation’s Capitol building complex thereby participating in insurrection after being egged on by their losing candidate, the soon-to-be-former President Trump – are unprecedented. Not since the War of 1812 when British soldiers breached and burned our nation’s capitol has the capitol been invaded. The sad part is, that it was brought about EXCLUSIVELY by a Lying, Lawless and Treasonous American President – Trump – whom the GOP has coddled and cultivated.
Again, yesterday’s domestic terroristic events were brought about exclusively by President Trump, who has consistently falsely asserted that he “won” the 2020 General Election, despite numerous Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, January 3, 2021
By now, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, or just checked in from an overnight trip to Mars, you’ve heard the news that the soon-to-be-former President suborned conspiracy and fraud from the Georgia Secretary Of State Brad Raffensperger.
The Washington Post, in conjunction with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, first published the story, which was quickly picked up by other news reporting outlets, including the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, New York Times, NPR, and many others, including international news outlets.
The Loser in Chief and POS45 LEFT, and Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger RIGHT
Throughout the entire call, The Lying Sack of Shit in Chief, aka the Loser in Chief and Criminal in Chief, was consistently inconsistent in asserting his “the Earth is flat” debunked fraudulent election claims.
And even though his figures throughout the hour-long recorded phone call were inconsistent, there was one thing he consistently stated, in many ways, that he wanted : For the GA SOS to invalidate enough votes from the already-certified election results which would cause the election to be thrown to him.
If that’s not corrupt – to blatantly ask (numerous times) for a criminal act to be performed (to suborn fraud and conspiracy, “suborn” being defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. 2004, as “to induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or wrongful act, esp. in a secret or underhanded manner”) – I don’t know what is.
And, as it turns out, it is illegal, at the State -and- Federal levels.
Republicans should rejoice that laws exist which regulate behavior involving elections and voting, and not just at the ballot box, either.
Georgia Code Title 21 – Elections Chapter 2 – Elections and Primaries Generally Article 15 – Miscellaneous Offenses
Section § 21-2-604. Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; penalties
(a) (1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.
(2) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a misdemeanor under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.
(b) (1) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.
(c) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation to commit election fraud that the person solicited could not be guilty of the crime solicited.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section are cumulative and shall not supersede any other penal law of this state.
Code 1981, § 21-2-604, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 683, § 21/SB 82.
-AND-
2010 Georgia Code TITLE 16 – CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 4 – CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION § 16-4-7 – Criminal solicitation O.C.G.A. 16-4-7 (2010) 16-4-7. Criminal solicitation
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.
(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit a felony shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years. A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit a crime punishable by death or by life imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.
(c) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation that the person solicited could not be guilty of the crime solicited.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section are cumulative and shall not supersede any other penal law of this state.
A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office-
(1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for-
(A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;
(B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or
(C) exercising any right under this chapter; or
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by-
(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
( Pub. L. 103–31, §12, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 88 .)
-AND-
18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights
Text contains those laws in effect on January 3, 2021 From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 13-CIVIL RIGHTS
§241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696 ; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60006(a), title XXXII, §§320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970 , 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
-AND-
2 USC 10307: Prohibited acts Text contains those laws in effect on January 3, 2021 From Title 52-VOTING AND ELECTIONS Subtitle I-Voting Rights CHAPTER 103-ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS
§10307. Prohibited acts
(a) Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote
No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of chapters 103 to 107 of this title or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person’s vote.
(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 10302(a), 10305, 10306, or 10308(e) of this title or section 1973d or 1973g of title 42.1
(c) False information in registering or voting; penalties
Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(d) Falsification or concealment of material facts or giving of false statements in matters within jurisdiction of examiners or hearing officers; penalties
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(e) Voting more than once
(1) Whoever votes more than once in an election referred to in paragraph (2) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(2) The prohibition of this subsection applies with respect to any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term “votes more than once” does not include the casting of an additional ballot if all prior ballots of that voter were invalidated, nor does it include the voting in two jurisdictions under section 10502 of this title, to the extent two ballots are not cast for an election to the same candidacy or office.
(Pub. L. 89–110, title I, §11, Aug. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 443 ; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 91–285, §2, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 314 ; amended Pub. L. 91–405, title II, §204(e), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853 ; Pub. L. 94–73, title IV, §§404, 409, Aug. 6, 1975, 89 Stat. 404 , 405.)
And yet, as of this writing, there has been only ONE reporting outlet with the gumption to tell it like it is.
“Georgia state law includes two provisions that criminalize “solicitation of election fraud” and “conspiracy to commit election fraud.” Trump’s detractors also pointed to a federal statute that criminalizes “the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent.”
“Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, said: “The Georgia code says that anybody who solicits, requests or commands or otherwise attempts to encourage somebody to commit election fraud is guilty of solicitation of election fraud. ‘Soliciting or requesting’ is the key language. The president asked, in no uncertain terms, the secretary of state to invent votes, to create votes that were not there. Not only did he ask for that in terms of just overturning the specific margin that Joe Biden won by, but then said we needed one additional vote to secure victory in Georgia.”
““There’s just no way that if you read the code and the way the code is structured, and then you look at what the president of the United states requested, that he has not violated this law — the spirit of it for sure,” Kreis continued.
“Kreis added that the phone call could not be divorced from recent episodes in which Trump amplified a false conspiracy theory about Raffensperger’s family and his vows to end the political careers of people like the secretary of state and Kemp for upholding Biden’s victory in the election. He also said Trump’s request for a specific number of votes — just enough to prevail by one — undercut the notion that he was simply asking for the truth.
““If I’m the president of the United States and my pardon power is not — does not extend to state acts, I don’t think that in the last few days of my term that I would want to be engaging in activities that even remotely subject me to the possibility of state criminal prosecution,” Kreis said. “That’s what makes this even more bewildering to me, is because if he had sensible advisers they would just keep him off the phone.”“
Regarding the claims of inaccurate, or otherwise invalid absentee, and mail-in ballots, which require signatures, the Liar in Chief claimed that there were “thousands and thousands” of ballots illegally cast which did not properly have signatures authenticated properly.
Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State:
“President Trump, we’ve had several lawsuits, and we’ve had to respond in court to the lawsuits and the contentions. Um, we don’t agree that you have won. And we don’t — I didn’t agree about the 200,000 number that you’d mentioned. And I can go through that point by point.
“What we have done, is we gave our state Senate about one and a half hours of our time, going through the election issue by issue, and then on the State House, the Government Affairs Committee, we gave them about two and a half hours of our time, going back point by point on all the issues of contention. And then just a few days ago we met with our U.S. Congressmen, Republican Congressmen, and we gave them about two hours of our time talking about this past election. Going back, primarily what you’ve talked about here focused in on primarily, I believe, is the absentee ballot process. I don’t believe that you’re really questioning the Dominion machines. Because we did a hand re-tally, a 100% re-tally of all the ballots and compared them to what the machines said and came up with virtually the same result. Then we did the recount, and we got virtually the same result. So I guess we can probably take that off the table.
“Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong. We talked to the congressmen and they were surprised.
“But they — I guess there was a person Mr. Braynard who came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that’s wrong. There were two.”
The GBI (GA Bureau of Investigation) examined signatures (which change over time) on ballots and found no problems.
The entire state’s ballots was recounted at least three times – and once manually – and no problems were found which would have affected the outcome of the race.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, December 11, 2020
Dynamite raises clouds of dust above Guadalupe Canyon, near the New Mexico-Arizona border. The Diamond A Ranch, which is located next to the construction site, has sued the government, claiming the blasting has sent “car-sized boulders tumbling down onto ranch property.” Image by John Kurc
The Trump administration is making it easier for illegal aliens to come into the United States.
The route along the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico has some of the most ruggedly inhospitable, and treacherous terrain in the nation. It is only barely accessible by foot, or mule, and is range for numerous wild animals, such as the jaguar, and ocelot – large cats – and a longtime wildlife migration corridor.
Construction crews using tons of explosives in a technique called “pioneering,” are leveling mountains and cliffs to make roadways for heavy equipment to access the area.
The private landowners complaint and lawsuit states that crews must first “make a level road, with the necessary grade and ability to support the weight of construction vehicles, and ultimately the wall itself.”
In a combined Federal lawsuit filed by private landowners near the Arizona-New Mexico border known as the malpais, or badlands, the owners of Read the rest of this entry »
Professor Dr. Zhang believes science holds the key to predicting viral outbreaks with similar accuracy as with which we now anticipate typhoons and tornadoes. He said, “If we don’t learn lessons from this disease, humankind will suffer another.”
Moderna’s vaccine design only took one weekend to develop at their Massachusetts facilities.
In fact, Moderna had completed development of their COVID-19 vaccine mRNA-1273 before the Chinese government had acknowledged the disease was transmitted by human-to-human means, and more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States – January 21.
And by the time the first American coronavirus death was reported a month later, on February 29, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 coronavirus vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health to begin its Phase I clinical trial.
In essence, what that means, is that for the entire time the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic has infected well over 15 million – and counting – in the United States, we had the tools we needed to prevent it, as well as the death of over 250,000 Americans… and counting.
So, that begs the question: If Moderna had a vaccine ready in January, why has it taken until now – December, very nearly a year later – to have a vaccine readily available?
Moderna, a publicly-traded company (stock symbol: MRNA) with operations and headquarters in Massachusetts, is a biotechnology firm focused exclusively upon development of vaccines using mRNA – messenger RNA. Their vaccine is the first in the history of vaccine development to use mRNA.
Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier-L & Jennifer A Doudna-R, are 2020 Nobel laureates, and creators of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tool
Vaccines made using mRNA are fundamentally different from any other vaccine ever made. The history of vaccination began on May 14, 1796, when a country doctor from Gloucestershire, England, Dr. Edward Jenner, MD, first took some fluid from a cowpox blister and scratched it into the skin of James Phipps, an 8-year-old boy.
Dr. Jenner developed his vaccine while he was still a medical student, after noticing that milkmaids who had contracted a disease called cowpox, which caused blistering on a cow’s udders, did not catch smallpox. However, unlike smallpox, which caused severe skin eruptions and dangerous fevers in humans which often led to death, cowpox led to few ill symptoms in those women.
Science has come a very long way since then. While traditionally, vaccines were first made using active, live, then attenuated, then inactivated, or dead cells from the organism or virus. Throughout the history, the process of making vaccines used chickens’ eggs for the protein they contained, and were literally injected into the shell of an egg. Some are still made that way.
Most recently, two women have forever changed health, medicine, and many other life sciences, which gives hope to millions, and holds untold promises. Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, Ph.D., Director of Infection Biology at the Max Planck Institute, and Professor Dr. Jennifer A. Doudna, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Li Ka Shing Chancellor’s Professor in Biomedical and Health at the University of California Berkeley, in October 2020 won the Nobel prize in chemistry for the development of the revolutionary CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tool which has been described as enabling “rewriting the code of life.”
Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier-L & Jennifer Doudna-R, are the 2020 Nobel laureates in chemistry, and creators of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tool.
Cas9 is a type of modified protein and acts like a pair of scissors that can cut parts of DNA strands. CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, in essence, a repeating mirrored DNA sequence in genomes that repeats. The technology has worked in most every organism that it has been used on, including plants, animals, microbes and humans.
By using the gene editing platform CRISPR, which could be thought of as cut-and-paste, the idea is to remove parts of a genome using RNA as a means of guiding to a particular place within a genome, genes can then be modified to eliminate mutated, or harmful parts.
The ability to use such sophisticated gene splicing technology holds enormous promise.
As it relates to the coronavirus, the gene splicing technology uses a very small portion of messenger RNA (mRNA) from the coronavirus genome, and produces a gene that codes for the spike protein – the characteristic protruding part seen on images.
The coronavirus has 4 proteins, the spike is 1, and is the part that enables the virus to invade cells. By using only that part of the virus, it causes the body to produce antibodies that neutralize that spike protein. RNA vaccines cause the body to make only that spike protein. Then, encased in a fat molecule mRNA then enters cells, and sends a coded message to the body to make the protein, which in turn causes an immune response.
RNA vaccines have many advantages, which, unlike other vaccines produced other ways, they stimulate the production of killer T-cells which stop the coronavirus from replicating. And because mRNA vaccines are produced in test tubes or tanks, rather than being cultivated in cells (such as in eggs), they should be relatively quick and easy to produce.
The use of mRNA to treat disease, even genetic-based disease, such as cystic fibrosis, is brand new, but holds exciting possibilities. Moderna is perhaps one of the most promising mRNA therapeutics research firms in the world. And under the leadership and direction of Chief Science Officer Dr. Melissa Moore, Ph.D., Moderna has developed, and publicized, the scientific blueprint for a unique form of cancer therapy using mRNA which when used used, ensures its mRNA is made only inside cancer cells. Ryan Cross reported in Chemical and Engineering News on September 3, 2018 in “Can mRNA disrupt the drug industry? Messenger RNA technology promises to turn our bodies into medicine-making factories. But first Moderna—and a long list of old and new competitors—needs to overcome some major scientific challenges.” and wrote in part that, “Moderna scientist Ruchi Jain designed an mRNA that causes cancer cells to self-destruct but is recognized by, and destroyed in, healthy cells.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, December 4, 2020
Despite numerous polls from various polling organizations showing an increasing desire of a majority of Americans to legalize cannabis, House Banana Republicans have run away from The People’s will and desire to continue to exact increasingly costly tolls upon taxpayers burdened by incarcerating its consumers.
Pew Research Centers latest findings on Americans’ attitudes toward cannabis show that “an overwhelming majority of U.S. adults (91%) say marijuana should be legal either for medical and recreational use (59%) or that it should be legal just for medical use (32%),” and that “fewer than one-in-ten (8%) prefer to keep marijuana illegal in all circumstances.”
“The 68% of U.S. adults who currently back the measure is not statistically different from last year’s 66%; however, it is nominally Gallup’s highest reading, exceeding the 64% to 66% range seen from 2017 to 2019,” they wrote on November 9, 2020.
Cannabis, also commonly known as “marijuana,” remains illegal under U.S. federal law. H.R.3884 Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019 or the MORE Act of 2019 (“To decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.”) was introduced by Jerrold Nadler (D, NY-10), had 120 cosponsors, passed through 8 committees: House – Judiciary; Energy and Commerce; Agriculture; Education and Labor; Ways and Means; Small Business; Natural Resources; Oversight and Reform.
Specifically, it removes marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminates criminal penalties for an individual who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana.
The bill also makes other changes, including the following:
replaces statutory references to marijuana and marihuana with cannabis,
requires the Bureau of Labor Statistics to regularly publish demographic data on cannabis business owners and employees,
establishes a trust fund to support various programs and services for individuals and businesses in communities impacted by the war on drugs,
imposes a 5% tax on cannabis products and requires revenues to be deposited into the trust fund,
makes Small Business Administration loans and services available to entities that are cannabis-related legitimate businesses or service providers,
prohibits the denial of federal public benefits to a person on the basis of certain cannabis-related conduct or convictions,
prohibits the denial of benefits and protections under immigration laws on the basis of a cannabis-related event (e.g., conduct or a conviction),
establishes a process to expunge convictions and conduct sentencing review hearings related to federal cannabis offenses, and
directs the Government Accountability Office to study the societal impact of cannabis legalization.
The measure is not expected to pass into law, and, due to political skittishness, it was only voted on after the November election and more than a year after it emerged from committee. But the House took a stand at a moment of increasing momentum, with voters last month opting to liberalize marijuana laws in five states — including three that President Trump won handily.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, December 1, 2020
The Federal government under this administration has recently re-activated the Death Penalty, and has argued also for adding other methods of execution to the mix, which is now only comprised of lethal injection, including firing squad. Hell… why can’t they just give ’em some fentanyl?
I have no pity, and no mercy for such individuals as referenced in the story below. I have none for any members of a faith organization who abuse their children. NONE WHATSOEVER.
And though I oppose the Death Penalty on pecuniary principles exclusively – it’s simply far too costly to execute (bad pun… I know) the law – we could, perhaps, make exceptions for cases like this.
Once a jury finds them guilty, or they plead guilty, march their sorry asses to some place and give ’em the fentanyl.
Lawsuit: LDS Church officials, teacher knew of abuse but kept silent
by Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
30 November 2020
A lawsuit filed Monday charges that two Mormon bishops and a teacher failed to report a Bisbee, Arizona father’s repeated sexual and physical abuse of three of his children, despite a state law that makes reporting such offenses mandatory.It argues that the “clergy-penitent privilege” in the law, which keeps confessions confidential, does not apply to such cases. The teacher, a former border-patrol agent as well as the children’s Sunday school teacher, had a clear duty under the law in both of her roles to report the abuses to police, the suit alleges.
“Each of the Defendants had personal observations of the abuse, and also knew of the abuse outside of any confidential communication,” the complaint, filed in Cochise County Superior Court, alleges. The father’s abusive practices were discussed by church officials in routine meetings, and led to his excommunication in 2015 after church officials learned of his abuse of his daughter, then age 5.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three of the six children of Paul and Leizza Adams, details Paul Adams’ repeated sexual abuse of his daughters over a seven-year period, including the rape of his infant daughter. Paul Adams was indicted on 11 counts of child sexual abuse in 2017 and was awaiting trial when he hanged himself in his prison cell later that year.
Leizza Adams, the mother, was convicted for child abuse in 2018 and was released from Perryville state prison in early October, state records show.
The children have since been adopted by various families and have different last names than their parents.
The suit names the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as well as the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church.
In a statement Monday, an attorney for the church, Bill Maledon, wrote:
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, November 24, 2020
Wear a mask.
Yes, it’s just that simple.
None of this “I ain’t gonna’ wear a mask and you can’t make me, ‘cuz this is ‘Murka and we have FREEDOM!” kind of malarkey.
No, that simply won’t do.
Look out for A-number-one – yourself.
It’s like saying, wear gloves when you go outside, because it’s -30º below zero Fahrenheit. Protect yourself. Gloves only protect the person wearing them.
You see, even though we do have liberties – as good ol’ Justice Samuel Alito – a Bush II-appointed Supreme Court Judge who has been on the court since a 58–42 vote of Senate approval on January 31, 2006 – we also have limits. But Justice Alito doesn’t think so, and, has said as much.
It was the Supreme Jurists who gave We the People the nefariously infamous and disastrous rulings in:
• Citizens United v Federal Election Commission – essentially ruling that money is free speech;
• McCutchen v Federal Election Commission – essentially allowing unlimited money to be contributed to candidates/politicians, and;
• Shelby County, Alabama v Holder – essentially gutting the Voting Rights act by removing sections 4(b) and 5, which were its “heart and lungs,” whereupon the decision, many states enacted restrictive voting laws.
There are others, of course, but those three are perhaps the most notorious during the oversight of Chief Justice John Roberts.
And that was all in the name of “originalism” and “textualism,” the preferred interpretive modality of The Federalist Society.
So, it should come as no surprise that Alito – a longtime member of the Federalist Society, who said “I have been a member for many years,” and by his own admission has attended every annual meeting for the past 14 years – would sacrifice the greater good upon the altar of “originalism” to the god of individual liberty.
Where in our nation is the sense of shared sacrifice for the greater, common good? That some obviously think that they simply MUST have “freedom” to do whatever they want, when they want, where they want, without regard for anyone else is anathema and contrary to the very idea of a “united” states – e pluribus unum – though many, one. And of course, now, we’re paying for it. For if you’re gonna’ dance, you gotta’ pay the piper. And we’re dancing like mad. But the greatest problem is, eventually, there’s nobody to dance with, and the piper gets sick and dies.
But hey… “You danced like hell, didn’t you!?!,” read no headstone ever.
Of course, the members would recite a quote often misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, though historical researchers tell us that the phrase was Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Today, Wednesday, 18 November 2020, Georgia’s Appointed Senator, multimillionairess Kelly Loeffler flagrantly violated Federal Campaign Finance laws, and Senate ethics rules by requesting/seeking/soliciting campaign contributions/donations for herself while on Senate property.
Senate Rules PROHIBIT any kind of political or candidate fundraising on U.S. Government/Congress property.
“Well, look… we know that hundreds of millions of dark, liberal money is pouring into our state. That’s why it’s so important that everyone across the country get involved. They can visit Kelly for Senate dot com, to chip in five, or ten bucks, and get involved, volunteer…”
– Appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler on Fox News program “America’s Newsroom,” Wednesday, 18 October 2020
Senate resources may only be used for official purposes.
No official resources may be used to conduct campaign activities.
In addition to this general prohibition, there are several criminal statutes that impose additional restrictions on campaign activities by Senate Members and staff:
No Campaign Activity in a Federal Building
Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in any federal building.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, November 15, 2020
If you thought it couldn’t get any more weird, think again.
There are actually TWO “issues” here:
1.) What the church did to her, and;
2.) How the news reporting media is handling it.
Let’s take the 2nd one first.
Nowadays, news reporting agencies do not name the victim in cases of news reports of sexual assaults. Not identifying the victim is a good, right, proper, and just response to the problems that often occurred as a consequential by-product of naming the victims in news stories. Naming the victim served no genuine need and had no purpose as it related to reporting the story, and so in response, for the greatest part, most news reporting agencies have declined to publish the victim’s name. The obvious exception is for the stories in which a victim names a well-known/high-profile individual as the assailant/perpetrator.
That I’ve been able to find so far, there are very few news stories about the matter, and none of them name the victim.
The Scott M. Matheson Courthouse, 450 S State St, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, is the location for the Utah Supreme Court.
While normally, that isn’t a problem, per se, in this case, however, the female victim has filed suit against the church and four elders, and her case has come before the Utah State Supreme Court.
Fundamentally, what that means, is that she is named in the case as the plaintiff.
So the news reporting agencies which wrote about the story fundamentally erred by not reporting the most basic and important fact as it exists, which indeed, forms the very basis of the story – that an important, and problematic question has come before the Utah State Supreme Court and revolves around a religious practice.
In the story below, read for yourselves the inconsistencies in the various states on the single topic of election voting recounts. And those are just the handful of states in which the race is “too close to call,” per se, even though some have already been “called” by the Associated Press – though their call is NOT OFFICIAL. Their call is, however, widely respected because of its veracity and consistency. And to be widely respected for those reasons is good.
Point being, is that in the 7 states mentioned below, there are 7 DIFFERENT laws.
Here’s an example of something that would be a good compromise:
I think that it’s a good practice to be able to have requests for recounts by the interested parties, i.e., the candidates, rather than being court-ordered. In states where recounts may be requested by either candidate (the requestor), and in which the state pays, that could be modified to be a shared expense, borne in equal parts by the requestor(s) and the state, and perhaps even, in the case of a Federal election, in an equal third part by the U.S. Government. But again, these are things that merit, warrant and deserve significant further discussion.
There is LITERALLY NO SENSE in having 50 DIFFERENT sets of laws governing something common to us all as citizens – voting. If our nation had a National Uniform Voting Standards law, it would help establish unity in our nation, by creating uniformity, and it would similarly streamline many states’ operations, as well as significantly reducing questionable matters, and increase efficiency.
Georgia is heading for a recount over close Trump-Biden race. How does that work? How long will it take?
By Karina Zaiets, and Janet Loehrke, USA TODAY
Updated 8:24 a.m. CST Nov. 9, 2020
On Friday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said the state would have a recount because of the slim vote margin. The margin is currently 0.2% with 99% of votes counted. The state had about 4,169 votes left to count, according to Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting system implementation manager. A [full statewide] recount could take until the end of the month, he noted.
Sterling said counties will hand-count a deck of ballots as a test, which will then be sent through high-speed scanners located at the central county elections office. If the tallies match and the election workers determine the scanner is working accurately, every single ballot will then be rescanned. According to AP’s research, there have been at least 31 statewide recounts since 2000. And of those, only three changed the outcome of the election. The initial margins in those races were all under 300 votes.
Rules for recounting
The laws governing recounts vary by state and a handful of states do not offer a recount process at all. Here are the rules in key states:
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, November 1, 2020
How many voting-related laws are there in our allegedly “united” United States?
You’d likely be shocked to find out.
Maybe, maybe not.
And frankly, I don’t know how many voting related laws there are in our nation, and I’ve neither read, nor heard of any compendium on the subject, nor have I ever heard anyone directly or indirectly address the topic.
But, laws are finite – there are only a fixed amount at any given time – so it’s entirely possible to make a reasoned determination of that number. So let’s work it this way:
There are 3141 counties and county equivalents in the 50 United States.
If each county or county equivalent had only 1 law pertaining to voting related matters, that’d be 3141 laws.
If each state had only one law pertaining to any voting-related matter, there would be at least 50 laws.
So, if the 90,095 total general-purpose governments and special districts, 3141 counties/county equivalents and 50 states each had only 1 voting-related law, that’d be a GRAND TOTAL of 93,286 laws.
But I assure you, there are MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY MORE than just one voting-related law in each of those areas.
So, purely for illustration purposes, let’s just hypothetically say there are at LEAST 100 voting-related laws in each of the 50 United States. Doing the math, that’s 50 x 100 = 5000. Again, that’s at a minimum.
But, what if there are 200 voting-related laws in each of the 50 United States?
That’d be 10,000 voting-related laws. And that’s only at the state level.
Perhaps already you’re beginning to “get the picture,” to understand the size, scope, nature, and extent of the problem.
And to be utterly certain, and without question, the problem is the variety and number of voting-related laws, many of which are contradictory among them.
There’s LITERALLY NO justifiable, commonsensical, rational reason to have so many DIFFERENT – even blatantly contradictory – laws on just one subject over which the Federal government has ultimate authority.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Today, A.C. Barrett was administered the Constitutional oath as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court by SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.
She must still be administered the oath of office.
It’s only her SECOND job as a judge.
And she hasn’t even been a judge a total of 3 years yet!
Not even!!
Can you say “GREENHORN”? “Wet behind the ears”?
Recall that she came from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – her first job as a jurist, which Trump also gave her. No doubt, he’ll expect something in return.
Yesterday, the Senate confirmed her nomination along a party line vote, 52R-48D.
It only took 31 days from nomination to confirmation for the Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell of Kentucky to ramrod her through the process – a record time. She must like being Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, October 25, 2020
If you have family and friends whom reside in Mississippi, the following will be of particular interest to you.
If not, it will still be of significant interest. We’ll explain why momentarily.
First, some background.
This year, Mississippians will have the opportunity to vote on whether, or not, they want to avail themselves, their loved ones, and friends, of the opportunity to use cannabis to treat the symptoms of their diseases.
The bill which would bring Medical Marijuana to Mississippi is called Initiative 65. The bill is fully written, and is not a mere hollow proposal. Establishing a complete infrastructure, Initiative 65 thoroughly lays out the plans by and through which cannabis would become available to medically qualifying Mississippians, including the regulatory agency and mechanism, the taxation structure, prescriptive authority, distributive network, farming and production facilities, product safety testing mandates, and more.
Mississippi, like some other states, has a public initiative process by and through which citizens have the ability to facilitate legislative action outside of their legislature. It is a direct type of democratic involvement, which for them is ensconced in their State Constitution. The Mississippi Secretary of State’s website writes explicitly that, “The Mississippi initiative law affords voters an avenue for addressing important constitutional issues which the State Legislature does not.”
The site further references the qualifying conditions that must be met in order for any prospective measure to be placed on the ballot – and win – by stating that,
“for an initiative measure to be placed on the ballot, a minimum of 106,190 certified signatures must be gathered with at least 21,238 certified signatures from each of the five congressional districts as they existed in the year 2000. Signatures must be certified by county circuit clerks. A completed petition is filed with the Secretary of State’s Office, along with a $500 filing fee. Not only must an initiative receive a majority of the total votes cast for that particular initiative, it must also receive more than 40% of the total votes cast in that election.”
Suffice it to say, the state law establishes a very high standard which prospective initiative measures must meet in order for them to be placed on the ballot, and then to pass. Whereas in most other states, a simple majority is often all that’s required for any candidate or measure to win, or to pass, in Mississippi, that state’s Initiative Law requires that IN ADDITION TO meeting all other qualifying conditions, it must be voted upon by AT LEAST 40.1% of all voters/ballots cast.
For purposes of illustration – if there are 100 TOTAL voters/ballots cast in an election, and only 30 out of the 100 voters voted on the measure (called an “undervote,” a condition in which all voters do not bother to vote on a particular race or measure), and voted for it to pass, and the nay votes were -0- (zero), despite the 30-0 victory margin, it will NOT pass, because it did NOT “receive more than 40% of the total votes cast in that election.”
Again, despite the fact that more voters voted FOR the measure to pass, than voted against it (which in this example would be zero -0-), or did NOT vote upon it, the measure still would not be considered to have passed.
Comprised of 76 diverse individuals from a variety of backgrounds including Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and Professors, Registered Nurses, Republican and Democratic politicians, Party Executive Committee members, State Legislators, and Local Officials from both major parties, Ministers, retired Military Service members, Business Owners and Executives, District Attorneys, retired Law Enforcement Officers, and more, they are the members of the steering committee which are guiding the measure called Initiative 65 which, if approved by voters, would establish a Medical Marijuana Law in Mississippi.
Initiative 65 is a well-though-out bill, one which is thoroughly considered, and the bill for the prospective measure contains practically every aspect of consideration which would be involved in establishing an entire infrastructure for Medical Marijuana.
Over the years, in over 20 attempts, the state’s legislators quashed every effort to help the people, and not once did they ever Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, October 15, 2020
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice, has dodged the question of recusal on any potential case which might come before her which would be brought by the President on any matter pertaining to the 2020 General Election. She dodged because she replied that she would follow the law of recusal.
She said in part that, “I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. … I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”
When asked about the law of recusal, she said in part that, “I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting the entire process.”
When specifically asked about election cases, she stated to the effect that it wasn’t a question she could answer “in the abstract.”
Obviously, she is aware of the law’s requirements, but what is concerning is if she will obey (follow) the law.
There could be an argument made that she has no interest in the case, per se, at least insofar as she was not a member of the President’s administration, nor had she done any work for him.
There are several disconcerting aspects of this matter, none of which concern her judicial temperament, nor her judicial philosophy, nor her rulings. First is that she has allowed herself to be used by the GOP and the President to force her, as their nominee, through the confirmation process in the midst of an ongoing election. Already, millions of people have voted.
Secondarily is Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s actions, in conjunction with the President’s efforts, to rush the nominee through the process. Rushed things are rarely done with high quality, or long-term thoughtfulness. Further, that “Moscow” Mitch McConnell has deliberately stalled, or “killed” well over 400 bills from the House of Representatives is prima facie evidence of his contempt for the Constitution, and legislative process. And that he has similarly refused to act upon any bill which would first, and foremost, deal with the matter of the coronavirus, aka COVID-19, and the needs of the people for their health, their needs for economic sustenance, and more, is again, hard-core evidence not merely of a lack of caring, but is an abandonment of his responsibilities to the American people, not merely to the citizens of Kentucky whose interests he is supposed to represent.
To the extent that Amy Coney Barrett participates in that wretched process, she is complicit in it all. She has, in effect, become a political tool, and is doing so knowingly.
Were she to have requested a delay of her hearings until after the election – a delay of a few mere weeks – she would likely have not garnered such opposition. For she is, in my considered estimation, more than a well-qualified jurist, and would be a good addition to the United States Supreme Court. Even 88 University of Notre Dame faculty members wrote an open letter to her, stating that it was “vital” that she “issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”
In the letter, those faculty members also wrote in part that, “The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice,” and stated that “you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice.”
And goodness knows, we need more legal diversity on the nation’s highest court, and I don’t mean to refer to sex, ethnicity, or any physical factor – I mean to refer to the schools of law which the nominees have attended. And as she herself has noted,
“I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.”
Would she be my pick?
Perhaps not, but again, it is the rushed nature of this event which is most exceedingly distasteful. Hypocrisy has neither a pleasing aroma, nor taste.
Finally, there are other matters concerning the Supreme Court which desperately need to be addressed, which undoubtedly will not have an opportunity to be discussed simply because of the Senate Majority Leader’s deliberately destructive tactics to “kill” legislation.
Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 116th Congress (2019-2020)
And so, for your benefit, here is the law of recusal to which she referred. You can, and should, read it for yourself. It’s not difficult to understand, and is straightforward, without mumbo jumbo jargon.
§455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, September 22, 2020
The sorts of problems described in the story linked below could be resolved very simply by Congress, which has the authority to regulate election law, but has chosen to abdicate the responsibility, failed to exercise that right, and allowed chaos and pandemonium to ensue by allowing at least 50 different laws, rules, regulations, and more.
By establishing a National Standard Election and Uniform Voting Law which would cover ALL aspects of voting, from registration, to identification, to hours of operation and places of polls, to dates, times, and types of voting methods used, ALL those questions and more would be settled, and uniform nationwide, from state to state, and sea to shining sea.
From Maine to Minnesota, Mississippi to Maryland, Michigan to Arizona, and from Florida to Washington, Georgia to Oregon, and California to Texas to the Carolinas, and all points in between — ONE LAW to govern them all.
We would then begin to have a truly UNITED STATES!
2020 Election Faces Unprecedented Amount Of Litigation
Hundreds of lawsuits are already swirling around mail-in voting as campaigns, parties and outside groups try to sort issues both basic and technical — questions such as:
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, September 22, 2020
America has problems – 330,337,600 problems, to be exact.
That’s how many people – at least – are resident in the United States as of Tuesday, September 22, 2020.
Previously, there were 330,326,679 people in the USA yesterday.
PROBLEM: The House of Representatives is TOO SMALL.
FACTS: Following the 1910 Census, with the Apportionment Act of 1911, Congress set the number of Members in the House of Representatives at 435, to become effective March 1913. The 1910 Census found 92,228,496 people in our United States, so at that time, the ratio of Residents per Representative was 212,020 to 1. The ratio is now 759,396 to 1. If you feel like you’re not being represented in Congress… guess what? You’re NOT.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, September 7, 2020
Food Fraud: How Do You Know What You Buy Is What It’s Labeled As Being?
What is it, how often, and where does it occur?
Who does it?
What’s being done about it?
Sure, you may pooh-pooh the thought, the idea, the notion, that someone, anyone (people) could be defrauded in food purchases.
And quite frankly, the reason why, is that YOU TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.
Yes, 99.99% of ALL PEOPLE in the United States TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THEIR FOOD IS WHAT IT IS LABELED TO BE.
Milk, for example, comes from a mammal, such as a cow, or goat – NOT a plant, NOT a nut (almond) – a MAMMAL.
Horse, or donkey milk isn’t a popular item in the States. And I don’t think that I’ve ever seen, or heard of camel’s milk anywhere stateside.
But, there is NO SUCH THING as “almond milk.” It’s actually a HIGHLY PROCESSED, chemically-produced, made-in-a-chemical-laboratory concoction that’s a poor wanna-be ALMOND JUICE, or some other disgusting kind of slurry of crushed almonds that couldn’t make the cut for edible snacks.
If you want REAL FOOD, only buy REAL FOOD.
Same thing goes for the gobbledygook parading as “turkey bacon.” There’s NO SUCH THING. BACON COMES FROM THE PORK BELLY – NOT GROUND-UP, HIGHLY PROCESSED TURKEY MEAT.
“early 14c., “meat from the back and sides of a hog” (originally either fresh or cured, but especially cured), from Old French bacon, from Proto-Germanic *bakkon “back meat” (source also of Old High German bahho, Old Dutch baken “bacon”). Slang phrase bring home the bacon first recorded 1908; bacon formerly being the staple meat of the working class and the rural population (in Shakespeare bacon is a derisive term for “a rustic”).”
Chicken, beef, pork… same thing. Not only is it by law, USDA inspected to be free from diseases or defects, and for cleanliness and sanitary conditions of slaughter and preparation, it’s the world’s HIGHEST quality for those reasons.
And, believe it, or else, in some nations – such as China, or India – food is REGULARLY adulterated (contaminated and mixed with) non-food items such as cellulose (paper/wood pulp), then sold to unsuspecting consumers. And, it’s NOT illegal.
Adulterated, and purposely mislabeled food is NOT a problem with a limited scope, or occurrence, and sadly, in recent years, with the proliferation and increase in global trade, it has increased in volume, and incidents, at home, and abroad.
The United States’ food safety and health laws have historically prevented such abusive, deceptive practices from occurring. It doesn’t mean, however, that it never occurs. I have written about this subject previously.
And yet, mostly-Republican administrations (including this one) have attemptedto cut back on Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, August 30, 2020
Weed is popular.
Nova Scotians found that out after that Canadian island province located in the North Atlantic, legalized cannabis for adult recreational use, along with the 9 other provinces and 2 territories.
Cannabis, which Canadians nationally made 100% legal in October 2018 in every Canadian province and territory, had remained illegal for adult recreational use and largely unregulated until then.
The largely rural, Christian Catholic/Protestant, English-speaking provincial island just off the coast of the American state of Maine, has a population approaching 1 million, and demographically, the 25-44, and 45-to-64 age categories constitute the majority of the population, followed by those aged 65-and-older.
The Canadian government also found that in the 4th quarter of 2019, of all Canadian provinces, 27.5% of Nova Scotians had Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, August 15, 2020
Here’s another argument for the jus soli case for citizenship, versus the jus sanguinis.
Just in the case you may not be aware of the two terms’ meaning, they are Latin literally interpreted as “law of soil,” and “law of blood,” more commonly referred to as “by soil,” and “by blood,” respectively, and refers to the principle of citizenship being obtained from the location of one’s birth, and of citizenship obtained through ancestry of one’s parents’ citizenship.
Here’s a simple explanation to further clarify:
• Under the principle of jus soli, one who is born in San Francisco, California is a citizen of that city, state, and of the United States.
• Under the principle of jus sanguinis, one who is born in San Francisco to parents of Indian and Jamaican extraction is Indian and Jamaican.
Once again, jus soli refers to “the principle that a person’s nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth,” while jus sanguinis refers to “the principle that a person’s nationality at birth is the same as that of his natural parents.”
Historically, jus sanguinis came from Roman law, whereas jus soli came from English common law.
Before proceeding further, some background is helpful for greater understanding.
Kamala Harris with her Jamaican grandmother Miss Chrishy in Browns Town Jamaica
The jus soli system, sometimes also referred to as the “birthright citizenship” system, is common in developed nations that desire to increase the number of their own citizens (population).
A few nations that use jus soli are:
• Argentina
• Barbados
• Brazil
• Canada
• Colombia
• Jamaica
• Mexico
• Pakistan
• Peru
• United States
• Uruguay
Several European nations follow the principle of jus sanguinis, which generally means that citizenship is conferred by birth, and is obtained from a parent who is already a citizen of, or naturalized in that nation. The principle of jus sanguinis is contrary to jus soli because, according to the principle, the mere fact that a person is born in a nation does not, in and of itself, confer citizenship.
Some European nations that use jus sanguinis are:
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Ireland
• Luxembourg
• Portugal
• Romania
• Spain
• United Kingdom
Some nations have a blend of the two – soli, and sanguinis – although one is typically predominate.
If a nation adheres to the “jus sanguinis” or right of blood system, the child inherits a parent’s citizenship. So, for example, if your father and mother were each from a different jus sanguinis nation and you were born in a jus soli jurisdiction, you would be able to claim citizenship in three countries.
And, as is often the case, there are exceptions to whatever rule a nation follows because of treaties with other nations, including, for example, the determination of citizenship of children born to foreign diplomats, who are recognized as being citizens of the country that sent their parents there, as is done in the United States.
As well, people born on a foreign flagship or airliner are entitled to claim citizenship in the country under whose flag the vessel was registered.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, August 14, 2020
Apparently, it ~has~ come to this sorry state of affairs in our nation.
After Donald the Trump’s ravages, America will DEFINITELY need to be made great again.
Perhaps more than anything, this matter points to the need for the Federal government to step in and establish an across-the-board 50-state Uniform Voting Standard law so that there are NO inconsistencies whatsoever.
Presently, there are a plethora of voting laws nationwide, some even varying within the state, as evidenced by this sentence in the news item: “Ohio offers 28 days of early, in-person voting. Traditional, in-person voting also will be available on Election Day.”
“Early voting is one of two ways in which a registered voter of Tennessee may vote before the actual election day. The second way for a registered voter to vote early is called by-mail voting.
“The early voting period typically begins twenty (20) days before an election and ends five (5) days before an election. The exception is for the Presidential Preference Primary, when early voting ends seven (7) days before the election.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, August 6, 2020
“I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.”
– partial lyric from “Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)” as popularized by Kenny Rogers and The First Edition, 1968
Some critics would point to the recent economic downturn caused by our nation’s inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic as proof positive that we should completely forego any attempts or efforts to control spread of the disease.
With cries of “I want my freedom!” and other similar remarks, of right-wing extremists, in conjunction with their attacks on states’ capitols (most notably in Wisconsin) with loaded assault rifles, and their attempts to disrupt the legislatures, are evidence, and proof positive that the “wrong wing” is purely misguided, and even
The American Industrial Production Index (IPI) “measures levels of production by the manufacturing sector, mining – including oil and gas field drilling services – and electrical and gas utilities. It also measures capacity, an estimate of the production levels that could be sustainably maintained; and capacity utilization, the ratio of actual output to capacity.”
The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) publishes the IPI in the middle of every month, and revisions to previous estimates are released at the end of every March.
In short, it is a head-on, unvarnished examination of the underlying ability of the industrial sector to meet the demands placed upon the economic infrastructure in order to continue and sustain economic growth.
If you’re really froggy, the Federal Reserve states this about the IPI, which they call the INPRO:
The Industrial Production Index (INDPRO) is an economic indicator that measures real output for all facilities located in the United States manufacturing, mining, and electric, and gas utilities (excluding those in U.S. territories).(1)
Since 1997, the Industrial Production Index has been determined from 312 individual series based on the 2007 North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. These individual series are classified in two ways (1) market groups and (2) industry groups. (1) The Board of Governors defines markets groups as products (aggregates of final products) and materials (inputs used in the manufacture of products). Consumer goods and business equipment can be examples of market groups. “Industry groups are defined as three digit NAICS industries and aggregates of these industries such as durable and nondurable manufacturing, mining, and utilities.”(1)(2)
The index is compiled on a monthly basis to bring attention to short- term changes in industrial production,. It measures movements in production output and highlights structural developments in the economy. (1) Growth in the production index from month to month is an indicator of growth in the industry.
For more information regarding the Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization index, see the explanatory notes issued by the Board of Governors.
References
(1) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization.” Statistical release G.17; May 2013.
(1) For recent reports on market and industry groups, please visit the Board of Governors.
Now, if you’ve managed to slog through (or skip over) the preceding information, you’re in good shape to continue.
The American economy as demonstrated by the Industrial Production Index has NOT changed significantly since 1999.
Simply look at the “90” line along the vertical column, and follow it through to April 2020.
Because of President Pollyanna’s approach to governing, decline in the economy – which could have been prevented – the economy is essentially back to where it was in 1999.
Federal Reserve Economic Data, Industrial Production Index, January 1998-June 2020
Up, down, up, down… it’s like a roller coaster – until about 2015, when it hits a high in November 2014 of 106.6634, then “recovers” slightly to March 2016 at 101.4155, then increases again, until it peaks in December 2018 at 110.5516, then pegs along around 109/110, and then, in February 2020 at 109.3246, thereafter falls to 91.1991 in April 2020, where it begins to show some modest improvement through June to 97.4587.
As we all know, things don’t stay down, and once again, it’ll eventually return to elevated levels, but we don’t know exactly how long it’ll take.
Federal Reserve Economic Data, Real Disposable Personal Income (RDPI) 2010-June 2020 –– As shown here, the CARES Act provided a GENUINE and substantial economic stimulus, which is still ongoing.
And in an effort to stave off almost certain practical wholesale economic collapse, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020.
As seen in the FRED graph (Federal Reserve Economic Data), even though Real Personal Disposable Income (RDPI) has declined somewhat since significant boost to a high in April, as of June, the effects of the CARES Act were still ongoing, and have not fallen below February, or March levels – which is a good sign. It means that the economic boost WORKED by placing money in the people’s hands.
“I like your spirit of being more upbeat, more optimistic so I will offer this: why can’t you go across the aisle and say, ‘Representative Lewis, civil rights legend, would have loved it if we could do something for the totally disenfranchised in this country. No matter what, can we give a huge chunk of money to the people who are disenfranchised, to minorities who want so badly to stay in business and can’t and to people who are trying to go to college or have student loans who are minorities who are the most affected because they had the least chance in our country?’ That’s got to be something both sides can agree to.”
In reply, Madam Speaker Pelosi said,
“Yeah. That’s the problem. See, the thing is, they don’t believe in governance. They don’t believe in governance, and that requires some acts of government to do that. But just what you described is what Mr. Schumer, Chuck Schumer, is proposing that we do with some of the resources in the bill. And that – you described Chuck Schumer’s proposal exactly, in addition to the Heroes Act.
If we’re talking about how much and how long and how targeted, if we’re going to juggle some of this money, let’s focus it where it’s going to do the most good. And basically, economists tell us, spend the money, invest the money for those who need it the most, because they will spend it. It will be a stimulus or at least a stabilization of – and that’s a good thing. Consumer confidence is a good thing for the economy. You know that better than anyone.
And one of the things we want to do just before we leave on this, what we’re trying to do to help hotels, which are big employers, restaurants, which are big employers and the rest, is to lower the threshold for how someone can qualify for a second loan. Republicans have it at 50 percent.
Nydia Velázquez, our Chairman, is urging a 30 percent threshold or 30 percent of revenues, of losses from the previous year. It was based on the previous quarter – the similar quarter of the former year. Now, we’re talking about the whole year, and 30 percent rather than 50 percent, which would make, I’m told by the hospitality industry, a big difference for them. Many jobs, many entry level jobs, many union jobs, many people of color jobs, and I would hope that they would consider that.
Jim Cramer: Okay. I’m so glad you mentioned Congresswoman Velázquez, who is my Congresswoman. I think she knows small business better than anyone. I also believe that Chairman Powell would agree with that.
Speaker Pelosi, thank you for coming on Squawk on the Street.
Speaker Pelosi: My pleasure. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Thank you.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, June 22, 2020
Republican Kim Reynolds is Iowa’s first female governor. So far, not good. As Lieutenant Governor, she succeeded to the office upon the resignation of Governor Terry Branstad to become U.S. Ambassador to China in May 2017. She won the 2018 election with a narrow plurality of votes – 50.26%, over Democratic challenger Fred Hubbell with 47.53%.
When I read the headline
“Smokable Hemp Possession Or Sale In Iowa Punishable With Fines, Jail In State’s New Hemp And CBD Regulations,”
the VERYFIRSTTHOUGHT I had was…
I’ll bet “Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds” is a Republican.
Yep.
Sho’ nuff!
What the hell is it with these goddamned GOPers these days, eh?
Stupid mofos!
Seriously.
Stupid.
Kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
They could fuck up a wet dream.
Iowans are NOT happy with her… or with Republicans.
“Very bad news this week for both Governor Kim Reynolds and the Republican-controlled Iowa Legislature. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported the second quarter economic growth by state (GDP). Iowa’s economic growth was a negative .7%, dead last among all 50 states. Of the 50 states, 48 had positive growth in this period. Only Iowa (-.7%) and South Dakota (-.3%) had a negative growth rate.
“While one quarter’s performance doesn’t predict future growth, it’s a huge embarrassment for the Iowa Republican Party. The Republican Governor and the GOP control majorities in both branches of the Legislature and have driven Iowa’s economy to last place in the nation. They can’t blame the Democrats for this economic disaster.”
Look what Republicans did to the Voting Rights Act.
Look what they did to money in politics.
Look what they did in Citizens United.
Look what they did to the PPACA, aka “Obamacare.”
Look what they’ve done to Voting access in the various states, through purges and reductions in polling locations.
Look what they did to the economy with a fouled-up practically non-existent Federal response to COVID-19.
Look what they’ve NOT done for American protectorate “shit hole” countries like Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.
Look what they did to minority communities of almost every variety.
Look what they’ve done to healthcare and the disastrously abysmal lack of healthcare for Americans.
Look what they’ve done to Social Security.
Look what they’ve NOT DONE for the nation’s Economic Infrastructure!
Look what they’ve done to the tax system.
Look what they’ve done to schools and public education.
Look what they’ve done to our Law Enforcement, Justice, and Corrections/Penal systems.
Look at what’s NOT happening to online monoliths like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon.
Look at what’s happening to your privacy.
If you’re not wealthy and White, you’re trash.
At least that’s how they see it.
It’s time to get those pieces of garbage OUT of the nation’s and states’ capitols.
Smokable hemp possession or sale in Iowa punishable with fines, jail in state’s new hemp and CBD regulations
Published June 19, 2020
New regulations clarifying the types of hemp and CBD products that are legal to sell and purchase in Iowa took effect with the enactment of the Hemp Consumer and Public Safety law on Wednesday.The law changes certain provisions of the Iowa Hemp Act, which Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed to legalize hemp production in the state in May 2019.
Until now, products containing CBD were illegal to be sold or purchased over the counter in Iowa, as CBD still qualified as a controlled substance in the state.
CBD could only legally be sold in a small number of approved pharmacies.
Smokable hemp remains illegal in Iowa and the new rules impose penalties and restrictions on any harvested hemp used for inhalation such as cigarettes, vaporizers and others.Retailers caught selling smokable hemp products and consumers found using them could face “a serious misdemeanor” punishable by up to a year of confinement and a fine of $315-$1,875. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, June 15, 2020
America’s historical laxity on DWI/DUI is infamous.
In some nations, as recently as 1978/9, anecdote suggests that DUI offenders in some nations may have been summarily executed… without trial.
But civilization, you know.
And due process.
There’s something to be said for them both.
And yet, due process is NOT laxity on law.
Consider some contemporary penalties for inebriated drivers in other nations:
In Australia, the names of intoxicated drivers are sent to the local paper and are printed under the heading: “He’s drunk and in jail”.
In England, drunk drivers face a one-year suspension of license, a $250 fine, and one year in jail.
In France, there is a three-year loss of license, one year in jail, and a $1,000 fine.
In Malaysia, the driver is jailed. If he is married, his wife is jailed, too.
In Norway, the penalty is three weeks in jail at hard labor and one year loss of license. With a second offense within five years, the license is revoked for life.In Russia, the license is revoked for life.
In South Africa, the penalty is a ten-year prison sentence and the equivalent of $10,000 fine, or both.
In Turkey, drunks are taken ten miles from town by the police and forced to walk back under escort.
Nevertheless, that I’m aware, there’s little-to-no evidence to suggest that DUI is a capital offense – at least in America.
Or, is there?
There’s the late Rayshard Brooks of Atlanta, you know.
He was summarily executed – shot in the back – by Atlanta police officers for DUI.
Yeah.
And he wasn’t even driving.
That’s an “inconvenient truth” which some don’t want to talk about.
And then, I think about what John Adams (1735 – 1826) – American Diplomat, 2nd POTUS, father of John Quincy Adams, and “founding father” of the United States – said at a December 1770 mass murder trial in which he was the Attorney for the Defense.
“Facts are stubborn things;
and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
or the dictates of our passion,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
They were British soldiers of the 29th Regiment under the command an Irishman, Captain Thomas Preston.
Along with 4 civilians, the soldiers accused of murder were William Wemms, James Hartigan, William McCauley, Hugh White, Matthew Kilroy, William Warren, John Carrol and Hugh Montgomery.
The deceased victims of the event colloquially known as the “Boston Massacre” were Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Coldwell and Crispus Attucks, all who died immediately. Patrick Carr, who was wounded, died 9 days later.
The circumstances of the situation were that, late on the night of Monday, March 5, 1770, a crowd had gathered in front of the Customs House and confronted 8 British soldiers and Captain Preston. The soldiers, armed with muskets fitted with bayonets, formed a semi-circle as the crowd dared them to shoot. The scene was tense, and an unknown man in the crowd threw a club which struck a soldier, whereupon a shot was fired, which was followed by about 6 seconds of silence, followed by a volley of several shots. Many were wounded, including some who died instantly.
Enraged that troops under his command had fired without his order, Captain Preston commanded them to cease fire. Upon restoration of order, the troops departed the scene unscathed, leaving the peaceful civilian protesters feeling powerless.
Shortly, additional reinforcement British troops arrived on scene, which again escalated tensions, which had been significantly reduced following Captain Preston’s orders. Violence again seemed impending, but when Thomas Hutchinson made a quick speech from the balcony of the Town House guaranteeing that Captain Preston and his troops would be tried in court, the peaceful protesters were assuaged, the situation was thereby de-escalated, and the crowd dispersed.
According to the magistrate’s order, Captain Preston and the eight soldiers were to be tried separately.
Kelly Loeffler was appointed by narrow-margin-of-victory Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp to fill the unexpired term of three-term Georgia Republican US Senator Johnny Isakson who resigned from office at the end of 2019 due to Parkinson’s disease.
The gubernatorially-appointed temporary fill-in “Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler told Politico she is not dropping out of the Georgia Senate special election despite facing scrutiny over $20 million in stock sales she made following a closed-door Senate briefing in January about the coronavirus.
““Not only am I not dropping out, but I’m gonna win,” Loeffler told the news outlet Thursday.
“Loeffler, who is married to New York Stock Exchange CEO Jeff Sprecher, has said she does not control her own stock portfolio and that she was unaware of the exchanges. She has submitted documents to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, both of which are investigating trading action among senators around the coronavirus pandemic.”
Loeffloer’s net worth is reportedly well over $500,000,000, and is being investigted by the FBI and the Senate for suspicious stock sales timing in response to insider knowledge of the coronavirus obtained in the Senate.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, April 6, 2020
The Financial Times is no slouch organization – neither are they “left-leaning,” nor “liberal,” per se – at least not in the common, modern political sense.
They’re as “conservative” as they come.
And to read that “an irregular and precarious labour market,” combined with “monetary loosening by central banks [that] will help the asset-rich,” the loss of income by ” the young and active,” multiplied by
In short, nothing but “radical reforms” – defined as “reversing the prevailing policy direction of the last four decades” – will save individual nations’ economies, and the global economy at large.
The “laissez faire” attitude toward business, economy, and finance must be replaced by governments taking “a more active role in the economy,” including making “labour markets less insecure.”
Investing in public economic infrastructure, i.e, considering “public services as investments,” reconsidering the notion of “redistribution” of wealth, in conjunction with eliminating “the privileges of the elderly and wealthy,” and implementing “basic income and wealth taxes” will no longer be “considered eccentric.”
In short, “you must offer a social contract that benefits everyone.”
Suddenly (it seems), Bernie’s ideas aren’t so “radical,” anymore.
Suddenly (it seems), Elizabeth Warren’s ideas aren’t “way out in left field.”
Suddenly (it seems), Andrew Yang’s “Freedom Dividend” isn’t “extremist.”
Suddenly (it seems), everything old is new again.
But, you know the saying,
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The post-WWII Bretton Woods agreement, which pegged international currencies to the U.S. Dollar, which was itself based upon the “Gold Standard,” will again be in the fore of discussion, and was unilaterally abolished by then-POTUS Richard Nixon through a series of measures called the “Nixon Shock” which effectively destroyed the Agreement, which was created when the world’s nations assembled in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to establish a globally stabilizing economic system.
“The international monetary system after World War II was dubbed the Bretton Woods system after the meeting of forty-four countries in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944. The countries agreed to keep their currencies fixed (but adjustable in exceptional situations) to the dollar, and the dollar was fixed to gold. Since 1958, when the Bretton Woods system became operational, countries settled their international balances in dollars, and US dollars were convertible to gold at a fixed exchange rate of $35 an ounce. The United States had the responsibility of keeping the dollar price of gold fixed and had to adjust the supply of dollars to maintain confidence in future gold convertibility.”
Up until the time of the “Nixon Shock,” employees’ wages in the United States had generally kept pace with increases in GDP, or economic output. But after the “Nixon Shock” in 1971, wages have essentially flat-lined, while GDP has risen.
In response to Nixon’s unilateral decision, the ten leading developed nations in the world – Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States – entered into an agreement monikered as the Smithsonian Agreement which was a temporary agreement negotiated in 1971 which adjusted the system of fixed exchange rates established under the Bretton Woods Agreement and created a new standard for the dollar, to which other industrialized nations then pegged their currencies to the U.S. dollar.
As Certified Financial Analyst Michael Lebowitz, wrote in 2016, “unshackling the U.S. monetary system from the discipline of a gold standard, allowed the Fed to play a leading role in replacing the Virtuous Cycle with an Un-Virtuous Cycle. Eliminating the risk of global redemption of U.S. dollars for gold also eliminated the discipline, the checks and balances, on deficit spending by the government and its citizens. As the debt accumulated, the requirement on the Federal Reserve to drive interest rates lower became mandatory to enable the economic system to service that debt. And this effectively changed the course of U.S. economic history.”
These observations, and others, are, and have been, borne out by others, as well, such as in February 14, 2019, by Bloomberg writer Noah Smith, who wrote about wage stagnation in part that, “Workers lost a lot of ground between 1973 and 1994, and didn’t make up enough of it between 1994 and 2009. Stronger worker representation within companies, as well as government health care, would help restore some of those losses.”
But perhaps the simplest explanation I’ve ever heard, or read, about the value of good, strong and effective regulation is one which I’ve said for many years, which is this:
Regulations strengthen markets the same way that regulations create competitive sports, and operate machinery. Remove regulations and games become a pointless free-for-all, while removing or changing regulations on an automobile engine (such as through changing timing), and it will self-destruct fairly quickly.
But again, it seems that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, February 13, 2020
I think there’s little question that this administration is very likely the MOST corrupt administration in the history of our nation. Not even the Nixon administration could hold a candle to it.
And, to be certain, corruption needn’t be blatant, nor does it require violation of law. There is such a thing as “legal corruption,” and this POTUS and his administration are living, breathing, examples of such legal corruption.
Roger Stone, center, pictured in 1985 with fellow Republican operatives Paul Manafort, left, and Lee Atwater. (Photo By Harry Naltchayan/The Washington Post).
So, exactly what IS corruption?
While words usage and meaning often changes over a period of time, one can discern what words meant by examining their origin and derivation, which is called “etymology.”
The etymology of the word “corrupt” shows that, as an adjective, it emerged in the early 14c., and meant “corrupted, debased in character,” and was derived from the Old French word “corropt,” meaning “unhealthy, corrupt; uncouth” (of language), and came directly from the Latin word “corruptus,” which is the past participle of “corrumpere” meaning “to destroy; spoil,” while figuratively it means to “corrupt, seduce, bribe.”
The Latin word itself was an from assimilated form of the Proto-Indo-European past participle stem of “rumpere” meaning “to break,” and a Sanskrit source states that a portion of the word from that language meant “to suffer from a stomach-ache.” It was also used a verb and meant to “deprave morally, pervert from good to bad.” Around that same time, it included, and incorporated a use and meaning to be “guilty of dishonesty involving bribery.”
“Corruption” implies deviation from some ideal state, and so defining corruption usually involves an implicit or explicit selection of a baseline standard of “correct” behavior. The three most common possibilities – none entirely satisfactory – are:
1. Law (“corruption” entails violation of specific legal prohibitions on, say, bribery, nepotism, embezzlement, etc.)
2. Public opinion (“corruption” involves acts, or patterns of behavior, that would be viewed by most citizens as wrongful abuses of power, whether or not they are illegal)
3. Public interest (“corruption” involves acts, or patterns of behavior, that contravene the public interest—whether or not the actions in question are illegal and/or the subject of widespread disapproval).
The Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University writes that there are “…two specific forms of corruption across American states: illegal and legal.
We define illegal corruption as the private gains in the form of cash or gifts by a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private individuals or groups.
“It is the form of corruption that attracts a great deal of public attention. A second form of corruption, however, is becoming more and more common in the U.S.: legal corruption.
We define legal corruption as the political gains in the form of campaign contributions or endorsements by a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private individuals or groups, be it by explicit or implicit understanding.
“Such dealings are, in turn, one aspect of the broader issue of Institutional Corruption which, Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, February 9, 2020
Just in the case you may not know it, there’s a law in our United States called HIPAA, which is the acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Signed into law in 1996 by then-POTUS Bill Clinton, the long title is “An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1996 to improve portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of health insurance, and for other purposes.”
The biggest takeaway from the bill for most people is the privacy it mandates for patient’s medical records, care, and treatment. With fines/penalties for violation starting at $250,000 per violation, an entire industry has grown up around HIPAA.
“The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop regulations protecting the privacy and security of certain health information.1 To fulfill this requirement, HHS published what are commonly known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the HIPAA Security Rule. The Privacy Rule, or Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, establishes national standards for the protection of certain health information. The Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information (the Security Rule) establish a national set of security standards for protecting certain health information that is held or transferred in electronic form. The Security Rule operationalizes the protections contained in the Privacy Rule by addressing the technical and non-technical safeguards that organizations called “covered entities” must put in place to secure individuals’ “electronic protected health information” (e-PHI). Within HHS, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has responsibility for enforcing the Privacy and Security Rules with voluntary compliance activities and civil money penalties.”
POTUS Bill Clinton Signing HIPAA
Before the HIPAA existed, there were no security standards nor requirements to protect patients’ health information or patients privacy in the entire health care industry. In reality, physicians, or anyone with access to the record – including the janitor and housekeeping crew – could simply access and divulge a patient’s entire medical record to the press, or to anyone, without any legal recourse for the victim. Now, it’s a violation of the law to even discuss any Personal Health Information, or Personally Identifying Information about the patient outside of a clinical setting, and that includes on elevators in hospitals. The law is so strict, that anyone who is not involved in the patient’s care cannot access the patient’s record without violating the law.
There have been cases where renown individuals, or those with celebrity status, including politicians, have had their records accessed by those within the healthcare system in violation of the law, ostensibly to satisfy their 24karat curiosity, or for other nefarious purposes, such as to gossip about the patient, or to divulge the information they found to the press. Healthcare organizations, especially large ones, are particularly sensitive to such violations of the HIPAA, and many, if not most, have policy in place to censure, or most often, dismiss for cause (fire) any employee who examines a record of a patient whom they’re not treating, or caring for.
In short, the law safeguards and protects patients’ right to privacy of their healthcare information in ways the average patient cannot imagine, including transmission of such information electronically, such as via facsimile or Internet.
The law also provides authorization for a patient to request a healthcare organization voluntarily release select portions of, or their entire medical records, to individuals whom they specify, such as to attorneys who may be representing their interests in a matter of law, including to the patients themselves, personally.
Instead of being professionally prepared as a chef, restaurateur, food historian, or nutritional anthropologist, author Ai Hisano is Senior Lecturer at the Graduate School of Economics at Kyoto University, Japan, and has been the Newcomen Postdoctoral Fellow in Business History at Harvard Business School, where she most recently authored Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat.
Though her article isn’t difficult to swallow, it was rather bland and under-cooked, because while she did the job fairly well enough sharing some interesting tid-bit details about the history of oleomargarine, she failed overall to address the underlying concern – and therefore the premise of – the rationale for the existence of laws regulating the color of oleomargarine.
Again,
the unspoken and underlying concern
for the color of margarine
– the question
‟Why was it a concern?〞
– failed to be addressed.
That concern is fraud.
Sadly, food fraud remains a concern today – even in the United States.
For example, producers of plant-based non-dairy imitation milk products such as “almond milk” are rapidly being caught in the cross hairs of public intrigue with their highly-processed, made-in-a-chemistry laboratory pseudo-natural products by making numerous varieties of claims about their product(s), none of which are proven, nor represent any improvement in public health, though their marketing obliquely intimates as much.
It is inherently fraudulent to label a product as being a certain thing when it is not.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, January 22, 2020
New polling released by Gallup shows that “Fifty-eight percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the nation’s policies on abortion, marking a seven-percentage-point increase from one year ago and a new high in Gallup’s trend.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, January 20, 2020
Ukraine, schmookraine.
Who gives a rats rip what Trump did, eh?
Seriously.
And yet, that is precisely the attitude that some have about the matter in which the President has found himself placed, which has also led to his impeachment.
Some say, “Ukraine got their money. What’s the big deal?”
Yet others say, it’s all water under the bridge, or worse.
So, let’s examine the matter more fully in order to understand exactly what’s going on, and what’s at stake.
And, for the most part, we’re going to ignore many remarks the Democrats have been making. Well, at least much of them. We’re concerned with the basis for the claim. As it turns out, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is also concerned with that matter – that matter being the question, “Did the President of the United States violate any law in the Ukraine affair?”
But before we proceed further, let’s first answer a couple of important questions about the Government Accountability Office:
What is the GAO, what do they do, and what authority do they have?
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, December 18, 2019
It has begun.
Debate will last 6 hours – 3 hours each for Democrats -and- Republicans.
This is SERIOUS stuff.
It is NOT a “witch hunt,” “fake news,” or any other absurd claim which Trump, his GOP sycophants, or his other blind supporters have made.
AND… “YES!”
Michigan’s U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (13-D) said, “And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Mama, look, you won. Bullies don’t win,’ and I said, ‘Baby, they don’t’ – because we’re gonna go in there and we’re going to impeach the motherfucker.”
Why would she ever say such a thing?
Because our nation’s Intelligence and Investigative services ALL KNEW that the Russians had interfered in our election to aid Trump and get him elected.
Her remarks were made AFTER the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, the CIA, and ALL 17 Intelligence Services concluded the exact same thing – Russians directly interfered in the 2016 General Election to elect Donald Trump.
They – the Russians – were successful.
And WHY?!?
Why did the Russians do that?
Precisely to bring about division and confusion in our nation which is now painfully present.
The Russians have won Phase One of their War Against Freedom – destroy your enemy from within, get them to destroy themselves. Bullets need not be fired, troops need not be dispatched.
The only bomb that been dropped is not just Trump’s election, but the revelations that the man who has long been known to be a skilled and chronically habitual liar – Donald John Trump – lied about what he did, despite overwhelming testimony to the contrary from numerous honorable men and women who have faithfully served in various offices – ranging from our Armed Services, Intelligence Services, to the Diplomatic Corps, and more – in our nation for decades.
Some say that the “Cold War” is over, since the Communists are now apparently gone from Russian government. They claim that since Russia is no longer called the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), that Vladimir Putin, who for many years was the head of the KGB – their Secret Police – (now known as the GRU) and is now “President” of Russia, is some benign benefactor or friendly power to which we should bow.
The lyrics of British rock group “The Who” in their 1971 song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” perfectly and succinctly express the present condition in Russia:
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, October 4, 2019
In an email exchange with a long-time friend about human sexuality and religion, I expressed an idea which I’ve been developing for quite some time, but had never written it. Though I’d talked about it with others, I’d never written it.
The idea concerns itself with the proposal that our sexuality has been, and largely continues to be, a tool by which we are controlled for others’ purposes, most notably religious and political.
Christendom, and other religions – including the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, and Islam – have continually said “no” to the expression of human sexuality, even though sexual response and the orgasm itself is but a mere function of the autonomic nervous system, which is but one of many in a collection of bodily functions over which we have no control, including pupillary response, digestion, rate of respiration and heart rate, blood pressure, and micturition (the creation of urine), most notably.
So it seems more than odd that we should be punished by religions for something over which we largely have little-to-no control. And yet, within many religions, it is precisely that sort of thing which (the attempt to control one’s uncontrollable functions) has innervated religions for eons. We see it in the flagellation associated with the Passion of the Christ in annual displays worldwide. We see it in the writings of the Desert Fathers whose asceticism is renown. We see it even in the daily functions of Abrahamic religions. It is pervasive.
Raquel Welch, in Los Angeles, on a cross; 1970 photograph by British photographer Terry O’Neill; wearing a fur bikini from the 1966 motion picture “One Million Years B.C.,” in which she starred, which was a remake of the original 1940 “One Million B.C.”
As well, a sense of shame and guilt is brought with it in order to continue to subdue others. None of it makes any sense. And yet, amidst it all, faithful adherents are told to become “more Christlike,” or “godly” by taming other genuinely negative behaviors and expressions such as selfishness, anger, hatred, lying, and numerous other unbecoming attitudes.
However, the root cause of it all has largely, to date, undefined – though it has been touched upon in numerous homilies, sermons, and teachings.
And so, while it is largely unrefined, per se, the core of the idea which I have been long considering is expressed here below, and is excerpted from an email to a long-time friend.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, July 21, 2019
It’s said that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Though Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834–1902), the first Baron Acton) is often attributed with originating that phrase in an 1887 letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, the idea itself was not new to him, and was known to have been expressed in 1770 by in a speech to the UK House of Lords by William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham, who was British Prime Minister 1766–1778.
Our nation’s Founders understood that principle quite well, as evidenced by the systems of oversight, and the establishment of three separate, co-equal branches of government which they established via the Constitution – which was ratified June 21, 1788.
Absolute power, in a market sense, is about money and corrupting influence that almost always accompanies unchecked concentrated power. In this era, we see it commonly as a desire to abolish rules, regulations, and laws designed to protect the people.
That’s but one underlying reason why the GOP wants to abolish “ObamaCare” – so that power (and money) may be concentrated in the hands of the already-powerful.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Here are a few thoughts and three points about so-called “fetal heartbeat” bills enacted by AL & a handful of other states:
1.) Our U.S. Constitution does NOT support the notion that a fetus is a person because – and as the Catholic Church has long taught – life begins at birth, NOT conception. AND, the Scripture clearly states that the Almighty breathed the “breath of life” at which point “the man became a living being” into Adam. So we see clearly from that religious text in Judaic scripture (the Genesis account) that breathing is equated with life, not conception.
For if life began at conception, then “personhood” and citizenship is imbued at that moment (of conception).
An example of the current (2000’s) CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad).
What that effectively means, is that a fetus conceived overseas (to an immigrant couple, for example, who later became naturalized American citizens before giving birth), the conceived fetus would be a citizen of wherever it was conceived… EVEN IF the child was delivered/born in the U.S.A. Clearly, that is contrary to Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, May 2, 2019
Editor’s Note: This article was originally written 11 May 2015, though unpublished. The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), is/was a “free-trade” pact among the nations of Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and United States signed on 4 February 2016, though it was NOT ratified, and thus, did NOT take effect. All 12 members nations signed the TPP 4 February 2016.
However, because it was NOT ratified by all signatories before 4 February 2018, it will become effective ONLY after ratification when at least 6 nations with a combined GDP of more than 85% of the GDP of all signatories have signed.
Further, because the United States withdrew from the TPP, it also significantly and adversely affected it. The TPP agreement will become active only after all signatories have ratified it within two years of signing.
—//—
President Obama recently criticized Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) for her clarion call warning of the potential damage the Trans-Pacific Partnership could do to United States’ economy.
Sen. Warren has said that “This is hardly a hypothetical possibility: We are already deep into negotiations with the European Union on a trade agreement and big banks on both sides of the Atlantic are gearing up to use that agreement to water down financial regulations.”
The President countered saying, “This is pure speculation. She and I both taught law school, and you know, one of the things you do as a law professor is you spin out hypotheticals. And this is all hypothetical, speculative.”
President Obama further dismissed her criticisms out of hand saying, “she’s absolutely wrong,” about the concerns she and others have raised, and appeared to throw down the gauntlet for open, frank discussion of the still-secret trade pact which would include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.
The President gives the USTR broad power to keep secret information about the trade policies it advances and negotiates.
United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said, “More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing.”
A Senate bill – S. 3225 – which would require the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to disclose all its TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) documents to every member of Congress was introduced May 23, 2012 by Sen. Wyden, who is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness. In that capacity, his office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations.
Speaking from the Senate floor, Sen. Wyden said the purpose of the bill was “to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the American people take into account the interests of all the American people, not just a privileged few. Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress, not less.”Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, April 14, 2019
Think about it… a massive global industry and multi-cultural international enterprise with tens, hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of employees, producers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and customers with ZERO Government regulation of any type, on anyone for any reason – no taxes, no regulatory oversight, nor requirements of any kind whatsoever, where a willing buyer and a willing seller meet each other.
And yet, the government seeks to eradicate it (even though their “efforts” have done exactly the opposite), by strengthening Read the rest of this entry »
But, that’s progress, and “progress” is a dirty word to many – especially to Southerners – whose loathsome contempt of, and resistance to change is as ignobly infamous as their Lost Cause (of the Confederacy) following defeat in our nation’s Civil War.
Curtis Flowers was tried for the SAME crime SIX times in Mississippi. If that doesn’t violate the intent of the “Double Jeopardy” clause of the Constitution, I don’t know what does. (Image from Mississippi Department of Corrections.)
Synopsis: A Mississippi Death Row inmate was prosecuted SIX times for the SAME crime by a prosecutor with a history of racial bias in jury selection.
The case was SO egregious, that the sole, long-silent Southerner, and only Black SCOTUS Justice, Clarence Thomas, who has for many years maintained literal silence on the bench, asked a question – the last question he asked was THREE YEARS AGO.
The case the Justices heard Wednesday, 20 March 2019, involved the conduct of Montgomery County District Attorney Doug Evans, in the tiny town of Winona, Mississippi, and his relentless pursuit of a conviction of Curtis Flowers.
With a population well under 5000, Winona is practically a village, and of the modestly-sized tiny town, NPR wrote that it’s a place “where everybody knows everybody.”
Curtis Giovanni Flowers is a black man who had NO prior arrests or convictions before he was arrested and accused of a quadruple murder in the town.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Hooray for Alabama!
Their legislature can always be counted upon to do the right thing… only after they’ve exhausted every other possibility.
Alabama State Representative April Weaver, a Republican from House District 49, representing parts of Bibb, Chilton, and Shelby counties, has introduced HB44, which “would allow the Board of Nursing to enter into the Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact as a means of providing uniformity in licensing requirements and interstate practice throughout party states. This bill would also amend existing law to make technical corrections relating to the multistate licensure of nurses.”
For those unfamiliar with the eNLC, think of it like a Driver License.
Your license to drive is valid in 49 other states. And if you’re driving in another state and are given a traffic citation by any Law Enforcement Officer for a moving violation such as Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, February 18, 2019
Results of a large-scale, 16-year anonymized research project found that states with Medical Marijuana Laws (MMLs) and decriminalization statutes, underage cannabis consumption declines, especially among minority youth.
One concern some have regarding legalization of cannabis – whether for Medical (MMJ), or Adult Recreational Use (ARU) – is whether or not it will adversely affect youth. Specifically, a question often asked is, “will legalizing cannabis increase underage consumption?”
Lead Researcher Dr Rebekah Levine Coley said that, “Some people have argued that decriminalizing or legalizing medical marijuana could increase cannabis use amongst young people, either by making it easier for them to access, or by making it seem less harmful.”
“However, we saw the opposite effect,” said Dr Coley, and noted that results of the 16-year-long study show that in states where MMJ is legal, rates of underage consumption of cannabis have declined.
Those findings occurred even after accounting for other variables, including policies on Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, January 16, 2019
NPR, along with a few other news reporting agencies, has today published a story detailing how the Sackler family – with an estimated net worth of $13 Billion and listed by Forbes as the 19th wealthiest family in the United States – whose privately-held Purdue Pharma falsified, neglected, and purposely withheld information, and aggressively peddled their habit-forming narcotic medication branded as “OxyContin” to physicians, hospitals, and medical colleges as an acceptable, even benign medication for pain relief, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Purdue Pharma President Richard Sackler, and wife Beverly are the biggest narco-traffickers in the United States.
In a 274 page filing, the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, carefully detailed how the Sackler family carefully and deliberately manipulated, and crafted opportunities with Massachusetts’ legislators, regulators, and others, to sell increasing volumes of the narcotic medicine.
The documents state that in a 2-15-2011 email, after one week of prescriptions doubled the company’s profit forecasts, Richard Sackler wrote to the sales staff that “I had hoped for better results.”
But here’s where an otherwise LEGAL pharmaceutical firm became complicit with international narco-traffickers and street-level drug pushers, rapidly escalated America’s Opioid Crisis, and in the process became equals with terrorists like al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, January 8, 2019
The Liar in Chief won’t tell his subjects these inconvenient official truths.
—//—
“While cross-border migrants often make headlines, the largest number of illegal migrants settling in the US each year is those who stay in the country after their visas expire.
“According to the most recent reports by the Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Migration Studies, a non-partisan think-tank, the number who overstayed their visas has outnumbered those who crossed the border illegally every year since 2007.
“Canadians make up the largest group of these illegal migrants, followed by Mexicans.”
A major reason drugs have such a negative public image, Hart asserts, is racism. He notes that after the Civil War, some Chinese railroad construction workers smoked opium and, sometimes, established “opium dens” to do so. Over time, more and more white Americans visited these dens to smoke opium too. That in turn led to broader, bigoted social fear among whites, like, for example, the sentiments captured in H.H. Kane’s 1882 report:
