tagged w/ politcal corruption
-
Shortly before six o’clock on the evening of December 19, 2008, a man standing outside his home in Lake Township, Ohio heard the whine of an engine in the sky above him.
Moments later two red lights broke through the low clouds, heading almost directly toward the ground. It was a light aircraft, and for a second, as it descended below the tree line, the man thought it would climb back up. Instead, there was a terrible thud, and the sky turned orange. When the fire crews arrived, they found the burning wreckage of a Piper Saratoga strewn across a vacant lot. The plane had narrowly missed a house, but the explosion was so intense that the home’s plastic siding was on fire. So was the grass. The pilot had been thrown from the plane and died instantly. Body parts and pieces of twisted metal were scattered everywhere. A prayer book lay open on the ground, its pages on fire.
The crash would have remained a private tragedy confined to the pages of the local press and the hearts of the pilot’s widow and four children, but within days the blogosphere was abuzz with rumors and conspiracy theories: The plane, it was said, had been sabotaged and the pilot murdered to cover up the GOP’s alleged theft of the Ohio vote in the 2004 presidential election. At the center of this plot was the Saratoga’s pilot, a prodigiously gifted IT expert named Michael Connell, whose altar boy charm and technical brilliance had made him the computer whiz of choice for the Republican Party. Left-wing Web sites openly referred to Connell as “Bush’s vote rigger” and claimed that his fingerprints were on all the most controversial elections in recent history. There were dark whispers of electronic pulses or sniper fire being used to bring down the plane—a black ops attack designed to keep him from testifying against his former cronies. Right-wing bloggers and talk show hosts derided such claims as the twisted delusions of liberal nut jobs and tinfoil hatters. The mainstream press sat on its hands.
But while the rumors, innuendos, and allegations continue to swirl through the ether, evidence has recently emerged that suggests the Ohio vote may have been hacked, and that Connell was involved.
More...Shortly before six o’clock on the evening of December 19, 2008, a man standing... more
-
-
This is story is about the American Government pushing our illegal Government of Hawai'i to pass laws and are in the interest of the Bush Administration's to the earth. I must say that even though it is protected monuments how can you allow something that is against Hawai'i Law and allow it a different part of our same home? Other forms of deterrents must exists, but Bush must have been another must haves. No Respect to our Ancestors and the natural course of nature thanks to the intervention of these governments who. Unreal.
A policy specialist who was laid off from the state Department of Land and Natural Resources last month maintains he was illegally fired because he repeatedly raised concerns about the agency not complying with the same environmental law that sank Hawaii Superferry.
David Weingartner says, in a whistleblower lawsuit filed yesterday, that the department's Division of Aquatic Resources failed to comply with the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act as it approved nearly 100 permits since December 2006 for research and other work in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
That's the same law the Hawai'i Supreme Court said the Lingle administration misapplied in the Superferry case, eventually leading to the interisland carrier shutting down in March.
The approved permits for the marine sanctuary covered a wide range of proposed activities, including the use of so-called bang sticks, a type of firearm, to kill Galapagos sharks preying on monk seal pups, according to Marti Townsend of Kahea, an environmental group that has raised concerns about the lack of state environmental reviews for monument work.
Department officials have "dismissed our concerns repeatedly with no regard for their obligation to protect the public trust," Townsend said. "They aren't even doing the bare minimum."
No legal challenges to the lack of state review have surfaced.
Weingartner, who was hired in February to review permit requests, said in his complaint that he repeatedly told his supervisor and the division's administrator that the requirements of HEPA were not being met and expressed concern that the problem could lead to the shutdown of the entire monument permit process.
Instead of correcting the violations, Weingartner said, his bosses retaliated against him, leading to his dismissal at the end of June.
A DLNR spokeswoman said she could not comment because the agency had not seen the lawsuit, which was filed mid-afternoon.
One of Weingartner's bosses wrote in an April e-mail to him that the department considered the Hawai'i law duplicative if the permit review already included an assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to the lawsuit. The Hawai'i law would be used only "when absolutely required," the e-mail said.
Three agencies jointly oversee the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands monument, one of the largest marine conservation areas in the world. Two of those agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have been doing their job ensuring that the permitted activities comply with NEPA, Weingartner said through his attorney, Dennis King.
But for DLNR "to basically just do a tag-along (with the federal agencies) doesn't meet the state's obligations," King said.
Hawai'i's law differs from the national one in some key ways, including a requirement that the proposed work be assessed for possible impact on Native Hawaiian cultural practices, Townsend said.
Weingartner said he was told in early June that he was being laid off for "cash flow" reasons, even though his position was paid for with federal funds and he volunteered to be furloughed to keep his job, according to the lawsuit.
Some of the monument permits that were approved last year included authorization to use electromagnetic devices, magnets and underwater speaker systems to keep Galapagos sharks from monk seals and to anchor steel rods onto the oceanThis is story is about the American Government pushing our illegal Government of... more
-
-
Kepano
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
NYT editorial: Pure Overreach
With a little-noticed order last week, we fear the Supreme Court has set the stage for dismantling the longstanding ban on corporate spending in elections for president and Congress. If those restrictions are overturned, it would be a disaster for democracy.
The justices considered a case this term about an election-year documentary made by opponents of Hillary Clinton. The issue was whether the film could air in the 60 days before an election, a period during which the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law imposes particularly strict limits on election-related communication.
The case would have been easy to resolve on narrow grounds. Instead, the court declared that on Sept. 9 it would hear arguments on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce — an important campaign finance precedent from 1990 — and parts of a more recent case should be overruled.
Austin upheld a law prohibiting corporations from spending their money to elect particular candidates. The Supreme Court rightly pointed out that corporations, as opposed to individuals, benefit from special laws, including tax advantages, that assist them in accumulating large amounts of money. The ban on their spending is needed to prevent the political process from being overwhelmed and corrupted. The Supreme Court has upheld the restriction repeatedly.
The court’s new order is also deeply troubling procedurally. The question of overruling Austin was so much not a part of the Hillary Clinton film case that the parties now have to brief it — submit fully researched arguments to the court — for the first time. This is pure judicial overreach.
The feverish pace is also disturbing. The court has ordered that the arguments take place even before the new term starts. The parties, and interested citizens who want to submit friend-of-the-court briefs, will have only a short time to parse enormously complicated issues.
The most troubling part of the court’s action is the brave new world of politics it could usher in. Auto companies that receive multibillion-dollar bailouts could spend vast sums to re-elect the same officials who hand them the money. If Exxon Mobil or Wal-Mart wants something from a member of Congress, it could threaten to spend as much as it takes to defeat him or her in the next election.
It is a nightmare vision, but based on how the justices have come down in past cases, there may well be five votes for it to prevail.NYT editorial: Pure Overreach
With a little-noticed order last week, we fear the... more
-
-
