Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (167960)	5/7/2014 3:30:31 PM
From: chartseer	Respond to of 224750

Tell us about the end of global warming! Please tell us what finally convinced you.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (167960)	5/7/2014 5:26:29 PM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Honey_Bee TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Judge halts secret probe of Wisconsin conservative groups, in win for WalkerThe "John Doe" investigation into conservatives is dead. At least for now. In a monumental victory for targeted conservatives in the secret Wisconsin investigation, Judge Rudolph Randa on Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction to stop the politically charged probe, ruling in favor of conservative activist Eric O'Keefe, his Wisconsin Club for Growth and "others." The probe had been looking into possible illegal coordination between conservative groups and Republican Gov. Scott Walker's recall election campaign, but came under fire for the opaque way it was conducted. O'Keefe and the club in February filed a civil rights lawsuit against Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, two of his assistant DAs, John Doe Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz, and a shadowy investigator contracted by the Government Accountability Board. "The Defendants must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation," wrote Randa, federal judge for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Randa further ordered that the plaintiffs in the civil rights case "and others" are "hereby relieved of any and every duty under Wisconsin law to cooperate further with Defendants' investigation." "Any attempt to obtain compliance by any Defendant or John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson is grounds for a contempt finding by this Court," he ordered in the 26-page ruling. Why? Because, according to the judge, the targets of a nearly three-year probe claiming illegal coordination did nothing wrong, and prosecutors have either disregarded the law or interpreted it incorrectly to fit their investigation. The prosecutors-turned-defendants had sought an emergency stay of the proceedings on Monday with the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Prosecutors have been operating under the theory that the club and 28 other conservative organizations illegally coordinated with Walker's campaign during the state's partisan recall elections of 2011 and 2012. It has since blown up into a five-county investigation through the cooperation of the Government Accountability Board, the state's election and campaign watchdog, according to Randa's filing.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (167960)	5/7/2014 10:58:04 PM
From: Carolyn	4 Recommendations Recommended By FJB R2O TideGlider TimF Respond to of 224750

Kenneth, are you in favor of this remarkable overreach? Description: Description: ih.constantcontact.com Action Alert: EPA Water Rule 2014 Is a farm pond "navigable?" What about a ditch? If EPA finalizes its new expansive Water Rule, virtually every area that gets wet or has flow during rainfall could be regulated. On February 21, 2014, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers released their long-awaited proposed rule to expand the Clean Water Act. AFBF has carefully analyzed the proposal. Simply put, EPA and the Corps are now attempting to regulate virtually all water, something Congress has explicitly chosen not to allow and which two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have rejected. For example, normal farming and conservation activities, such as fencing, brush management and pruning shrubs and trees, were exempted by Congress and have never required permits under the Clean Water Act. EPA and the Corps would now require farmers and ranchers to meet otherwise voluntary Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards for these everyday normal farming activities and voluntary conservation practices, or else face Clean Water Act liability. By linking the normal farming exemptions to NRCS standards, the rule would make voluntary conservation standards subject to EPA enforcement. This is unacceptable! AFBF President Bob Stallman recently said, "The American Farm Bureau Federation will dedicate itself to opposing this attempted end run around the limits set by Congress and the Supreme Court." Read the full statement by clicking here. Click here to read other stories on the EPA's Water Rule: * New York Times article on farmers' concerns about the proposed rule * Fox News story What can you do to help? Send a message to EPA and the Corps by the July 21, 2014 deadline. Guide to Writing Your Comments: A sample letter has been prepared below with a required beginning and ending. We ask that you add details around your personal situation - where is your farm or ranch generally located (County/State), what do you raise and how long have you and your family been there? Identical comments are not as influential as personalized letters, so your comments will have more effect if you can add details of the impact the proposed rule will have on your farm or ranch. Here are some important suggestions for your consideration. Please note that you do not have to include all of these points in your letter. * Talk specifically about some of the features of your farm-ditches, drainage ways, tilled fields and grassed waterways -that will likely be considered Waters of the U.S. under EPA's proposed rule. Your Key Message should be: The proposed rule significantly expands the scope of "navigable waters" subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. As I read the proposal it would allow the federal government to regulate most ditches, small and remote "waters" and ephemeral (seasonal) drains where water flows only when it rains. Many of these areas are not even wet most of the time and look more like land than like "waters." * Express your concerns about how your farm or ranch may be affected if the EPA is allowed to claim jurisdiction over ditches and washes on your land. Clean Water Act jurisdiction could result in severe restrictions on your farming or ranching-or even prohibit farming or ranching activities in or near ditches, washes or isolated "wetlands"-no matter the cost or the practical impact on you, your family and your farm or ranch. Your Key Message here should be: Because of the proposed rule, farmers, ranchers and other landowners will face roadblocks to ordinary land-use activities-like fencing, spraying for weeds or insects, discing or even pulling weeds. The need to establish buffer zones around grassed waterways, ephemeral washes and farm ditches could make farmlands a maze of intersecting "no farm zones" that could make farming impractical. * Explain any problems you or your neighbors have had dealing with wetlands or waters. If you personally have had problems with the narrow "normal farming" exemption, share your experience. Have you tried to build a farm pond and been told "no?" Have you tried to plant tree crops in areas where you farmed corn and been told "no?" Have you been told not to use certain tillage practices? Have you been told that you cannot use your prior converted croplands for some reason? Your personal experiences or those of your neighbors are important and your Key Messages should include: The farming and ranching exemptions in current law are important, but they have been very narrowly applied by the agencies-and they will not protect farmers and ranchers from the proposed "waters" rule. * Explain why those claiming that farmers and ranchers should have no concerns because they are "exempted" from the rule are wrong. It is important to convey that the "normal farming and ranching" exemption only applies to a specific type of Clean Water Act permit for "dredge and fill" materials. There is no farm or ranch exemption from Clean Water Act permit requirements for "pollutants" like fertilizer, herbicide or pest control products. Under the proposed rule, many common and necessary practices like weed control and fertilizer spreading will be prohibited in or near so-called "waters" unless you have a Clean Water Act permit. Second, EPA's new guidance on the "dredge and fill" exemption actually narrows an exemption that already existed, by tying it to mandatory compliance with what used to be voluntary NRCS standards. Third, EPA and the Corps of Engineers have interpreted the "normal" to mean only long-standing operations in place since the 1970s-not newer or expanded farming or ranching. Your Key Message should be: EPA's so-called exemptions will not protect farmers and ranchers from the proposed "waters" rule. If farmlands are regulated as "waters," farming and ranching will be difficult, if not impossible. It is critical that EPA and the Corps hear from you on the harmful impacts of this rule. Please use this opportunity to have your voice heard. Please use the following format for your letter. As stated above, it is important that you personalize the letter with information from your own experiences or observations. MESSAGE TO EPA: Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880 RE: Comments on the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Definition of 'Waters of the U.S.' Under the Clean Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880 To Whom it May Concern: I am a [farmer/rancher/etc.] in [location]. I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding "Definition of 'Waters of the U.S.' Under the Clean Water Act." The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of "navigable waters" subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote "waters"-many of which are not even wet or considered "waters" under any common understanding of that word. [SPACE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONAL COMMENTS FROM SENDER. If sender does not add comments, then the four paragraphs in this letter will be submitted to the docket.] The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land-even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It's one of the values I hold as a farmer or rancher. Farmers and ranchers like me will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the proposed rule.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (167960)	5/8/2014 6:42:48 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Respond to of 224750

CONFIRMED: Obamacare Numbers Are "Fake" 8 conservativetribune

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (167960)	5/8/2014 12:03:54 PM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

What time will you be apologizing to the thread members for your hysterical rantings and ravings about job losses during the sequester? That's so similar to your girlie hysterics on the phony global warming crap. Despite doomsday predictions, report finds only 1 layoff from sequester cuts Despite doomsday warnings from the White House and lawmakers on both sides that hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs as a result of the sequester, it turns out the budget cuts have only led to one job being lost among 23 federal agencies. Now Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is demanding answers as to why the Obama administration repeatedly warned taxpayers that the $85.3 billion in spending cuts, which went into effect in March 2013, would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. The findings were revealed in a government watchdog report. “Taxpayers expect us to root our predictions in fact, not ideology and spin,” Coburn said Wednesday in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell. In response, OMB spokesman Steve Posner said in a statement to FoxNews.com there is "no question" the sequestration has had an negative impact on Americans, pointing out the report also states that employees had their hours reduced and agencies were forced to curtail hiring as a result of the cuts, among other examples. The March report by the Government Accountability Office describes how 23 agencies and departments -- which appear to span most of the federal government -- complied with the cuts. Only one, the Department of Justice, decided to lay off a single employee in fiscal year 2013. A spokeswoman for the GAO told FoxNews.com the DOJ reported that the laid-off worker was from the the U.S. Parole Commission, but they had no other information about the employee. Virtually every other arm of the government turned to tactics like cutting overtime, reducing employee travel and putting workers on furlough to avoid actual firings. The report is a stark contrast from the dire predictions from the Obama administration and Democratic leadership, who blamed Republicans for the cuts. In a memo released before the sequester cuts went into effect, the White House claimed they “threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs.” In a speech at the White House that February, President Obama repeated those claims. "These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls," he said. "This is not an abstraction. People will lose their jobs." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upped the doomsday rhetoric in July, according to the Washington Post, saying on the Senate floor over a million jobs were already lost. “We have learned that the sequestration already has cut 1.6 million jobs. So we need job creation. We need to help the middle class by creating jobs,” he said. Republicans also warned about the potential job-killing effect of the cuts, with House Speaker John Boehner claiming in a February 2013 Wall Street Journal op-ed “thousands of jobs” would be threatened. Coburn said he wants Burwell, who has been nominated to lead the health department, to explain why the predictions were so drastically wrong. “While that’s good news for federal employees and other workers, it is devastating to the credibility of Washington politicians and administration officials who spent months – and millions of dollars – engaging in a coordinated multi-agency cabinet-level public relations campaign to scare the American people,” he said. Coburn noted two frequently cited government estimates by Goldman Sachs and the Congressional Budget Office, which predicted a loss of anywhere from 99,999 and 1,599,999 jobs, seem to have been way off base. Posner said that many figures in the GAO report make clear that "sequestration had significant negative effects on services for the public as well as agency operations and federal workers." He said in the future, it may get even worse. "GAO itself notes that many of the flexibilities used to mitigate the effects of sequestration in 2013 may not be available in future years, suggesting that the impacts would be even worse if sequestration is allowed to occur in future years," he said.