C4L Meeting in West Plains

Posted: September 15, 2014 in Meetings

You are invited to meet with the Howell County Campaign for Liberty Group Thursday at 7:00pm. Mike Cunningham, our State Senator, will speak.  We meet at Chen’s Garden, 1705 Gibson, in West Plains.  Come at 6:00pm to eat and visit.

This month’s agenda:

 

  • 7:00-          report on meetings of interest around the state
    • 7:30 – Mike Cunningham will speak

Mike Cunningham, our State Senator will report on this year’s regular and veto legislative sessions and answer questions.

I have Doug Enhart, who is running for the 8th District U.S. Representative office scheduled to speak at our October meeting.

We will have reports to bring us up to date in the following areas:

            – New water control plans  (see http://prcnews.org/ and search for “ Missouri DNR to Run New Blueway Style Watershed Management Plan“)

-         COS update

-     Doug Enyart signs & campaign

-     Candidates for next election (sheriff, county commissioners, etc.)

-         Other -

I have copies of the General Assembly Roster 2013 which has contact information for our state and federal elected officials. Copies will be available at this meeting.  I also have copies of the current Missouri Roster.  It has contact info for county officials around the state.  Copies of the US and MO constitutions and  Howell County Campaign for Liberty Group business cards will be available as well.  Copies of the 5000 year leap and Agenda 21 material will also be available.

 

See you Thursday.

Important Event in Ozark

Posted: September 13, 2014 in Uncategorized

From Dr. Mary Byrne:

 

Attention SW Missourians and those of you who know voters in SWMO:
WHAT: Conservatives Protect Our Local Schools Press conference is holding a press conference in SWMO to kick off a get out the vote campaign to defeat Amendment 3 on the November ballot.
 
WHEN: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 @ 10:00 am
 
WHERE: Ozark Courthouse, 102 W Brick, Ozark MO 65721
WHY: Amendment 3 is an insidious initiative to turn local control of classrooms to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. It would constitutionally protect a badly designed teacher evaluation plan embedded in the Common Core State Standards Initiative and described in Missouri’s No Child Left Behind Waiver application.
BE INFORMED: I have attached two documents.
(1) a Word file that breaks down the language of Amendment 3 to expose its negative effects. The table shows the initiative petition language and the real meaning of the language. If Amendment 3 is passed, local school boards will lose their authority and discretion over criteria for retaining, promoting, demoting, dismissing, removing, discharging and setting compensation for certified staff — that’s right, teachers are re-categorized as staff, which is another agenda I will not dwell on here.; and
(2) an e-mail from within DESE that was sunshined earlier this year and exposes changes Commissioner Nicastro made to the fiscal note worksheet for Amendment 3 that hides the significant costs and risk of lawsuits to local districts if it passes. Commissioner Nicastro’s collaboration with initiative proponents was reported in newspapers throughout the state:
You may have read that proponents of Amendment 3 have folded their tent and will not actively promote the issue, but proponents are counting on a low voter turnout of conservatives because only one down ballot statewide position is up for election.

State representatives from the SWMO area will be present to show demonstrate their opposition to Amendment 3.
Please contact as many people in SWMO as possible to turn out for this press conference and show proponents of Amendment 3, SWMO is protecting local control of our schools.

 

This sounds like a great event to learn more if you need to, or to direct people to who are unconvinced of the dangers of Common Core.

From Judy Sofka of MOPP:

Confused by all the talk about the Common Core in education? You’re not alone. Join FRC live Tuesdayevening via webcast as experts and leaders come together to discuss the coming overhaul in testing and curriculum that is part of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The entire program will be available to view free online at frc.org/commoncore.
Program guests include:
  • Host Tony PerkinsPresident, Family Research Council
  • Co-Host Sarah Perry, Senior Fellow, Family Research Council
  • Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.)
  • Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
  • Dr. Sandra StotskyProfessor, University of Arkansas
  • Jane Robbins, Esq.American Principles Project
  • Dr. Neal McCluskeyCATO Institute
  • Will Estrada, Esq.Home School Legal Defense Association
Please don’t miss what our guests have to say about these educational standards and learn how you can reverse Common Core state-by-state.
We want to hear from you! Please send your questions to commoncore@frc.org, or Tweet them to @frcdc, using the hashtag #ccquestions. We’ll answer as many of your questions as possible during the webcast.
Sincerely,
Your friends at Family Research Council

 

 

 

If it’s online, it’s vulnerable. There’s only safer, not completely safe.

See the article below, link is by clicking the title:

Hacker breached HealthCare.gov

 

 

Shutterstock

A hacker broke into part of the HealthCare.gov insurance enrollment website in July and uploaded malicious software, according to federal officials.

Investigators found no evidence that consumers’ personal data was taken in the breach, federal officials said. The hacker appears only to have accessed a server used to test code for HealthCare.gov. The Department of Health and Human Services discovered the attack last week.

An HHS official said the attack appears to mark the first successful intrusion into the website, where millions of Americans bought insurance starting last year under the Affordable Care Act. It raised concerns among federal officials because of how easily the intruder gained access and how much damage could have occurred.

“Our review indicates that the server did not contain consumer personal information; data was not transmitted outside the agency, and the website was not specifically targeted,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in a written statement. “We have taken measures to further strengthen security.”

The attack comes as the federal government and insurance companies prepare for open enrollment, which begins Nov. 15. It is likely to be seized on by Republican lawmakers, who oppose the law, in fall campaigns as another sign of the health law’s flaws. HealthCare.gov suffered from crippling technology problems when it launched in October, though the government has since improved the site.

Taken with recent data thefts from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Home Depot Inc., and celebrities’ iPhones, the HealthCare.gov hack further underscores that large organizations haven’t yet mastered how to secure the troves of data they collect from consumers.

An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.

 

Lind’s Court Date Cancelled

Posted: September 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

Mike and Mary Lind were scheduled for court on September 8th in Ozark County Courthouse, but the Special Prosecuting Attorney suddenly dismissed charges.

This is good news for the Linds, but stay tuned for updates as it seems like it may resurface yet again.

My comments on the following article are very simple. No way, no how. Not now, not later, NOT going to comply! If any of the population deems this acceptable, they should just go check in to the nearest prison and stop the charade of being “free”. Your thoughts, as always, are welcome and encouraged.

DOT Proposes Mandating Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, published last week an “advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” on “vehicle-to-vehicle communications.”

What NHTSA is proposing could begin a transformation in the American transportation system that makes our lives better and freer — or gives government more power over where we go and when.

In announcing its proposed rulemaking, NHTSA is stressing its intention to protect the “privacy” of American drivers.

“This document initiates rulemaking that would propose to create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS No. 150, to require vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability for light vehicles,” says NHTSA’s dryly-worded notice.

What do vehicle-to-vehicle communications entail?

NHTSA has crafted a nice phrase to describe the information cars would broadcast. It is the “Basic Safety Message.”

“An integrated V2V system is connected to proprietary data busses and can provide highly accurate information using in-vehicle information to generate the Basic Safety Message,” says NHTSA’s technical report on “Readiness of V2V for Application.”

“The integrated system both broadcasts and receives BSMs,” says the report. “In addition, it can process the content of received messages to provide advisories and/or warnings to the driver of the vehicle in which it is installed.”

The “Basic Safety Message” will be broadcast by the vehicle’s dedicated short-range communications system. According to NHTSA, this system will need to transmit certain specific information.

“For example,” says the technical report, “when a DSRC unit sends out a BSM, the BSM needs to: Contain the relevant elements and describe them accurately (e.g., vehicle speed; GPS position; vehicle heading; DSRC message ID, etc.).”

What NHTSA envisions mandating will not control people’s cars but create a uniform communication system built into all vehicles that will give automobile manufacturers the opportunity to equip their products with warning systems that alert drivers to potential accidents — such as one that might be caused by cross traffic at a blind intersection.

“NHTSA currently does not plan to propose to require specific V2V-based safety applications,” says the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. “Rather, we plan to propose to require that new vehicles be equipped with DSRC devices, which will enable a variety of applications that may provide various safety-critical warnings to drivers.”

But NHTSA does not envision that the use of this type of technology will stop there.

The agency has published a “Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles.” This statement describes V2V as part of a “continuum” leading to fully automated vehicles.

“Accordingly, three distinct but related streams of technological change and development are occurring simultaneously: (1) in-vehicle crash avoidance systems that provide warnings and/or limited automated control of safety functions; (2) V2V communications that support various crash avoidance applications; and (3) self-driving vehicles,” said NHTSA’s statement of policy.

“NHTSA finds that it is helpful to think of these emerging technologies as part of a continuum of vehicle control automation,” said the policy statement. “The continuum, discussed below, runs from vehicles with no active control systems all the way to full automation and self-driving.

“While the agency is conducting research along the entire automation continuum, our emphasis initially is on determining whether those crash avoidance and mitigation technologies that are currently available (or soon to be available) are not only safe, but effective,” said the statement. “However, because these same technologies are the building blocks for what may one day lead to a driverless vehicle, we have also begun research focused on safety principles that may apply to even higher levels of automation, such as driver behavior in the context of highly automated vehicle safety systems.”

In its technical report on V2V, published last week, NHTSA said: “At the outset, readers should understand some very important points about the V2V system as currently contemplated by NHTSA. The system will not collect or store any data identifying individuals or individual vehicles, nor will it enable the government to do so.”

“There is no data in the safety messages exchanged by vehicles or collected by the V2V system that could be used by law enforcement or private entities to personally identify a speeding or erratic driver,” the report said. “The system — operated by private entities — will not enable tracking through space and time of vehicles linked to specific owners or drivers.”

“Our research to date suggests that drivers may be concerned about the possibility that the government or a private entity could use V2V communications to track their daily activities and whereabouts,” said the report. “However, as designed, NHTSA is confident that the V2V system both achieves the agency’s safety goals and protects consumer privacy appropriately.”

Like any other instrument, the new automobile technology the federal government is now planning to mandate can be used for good or ill. Certainly, automated automobile warning systems based on accurate data broadcast by other people’s cars and roadway infrastructure can save lives.

But as vehicles become fully automated, as they surely will, and the people in them no longer have absolute control over the vehicle’s movements, a key question will be: Who does?

In typical executive branch fashion, it looks like we will be signed on to something that our elected officials don’t actually agree to on “our behalf”.

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

“There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.”

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.

“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.

The strategy comes as scientists warn that the earth is already experiencing the first signs of human-caused global warming — more severe drought and stronger wildfires, rising sea levels and more devastating storms — and the United Nations heads toward what many say is the body’s last chance to avert more catastrophic results in the coming century.

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month, delegates will gather at a sideline meeting on climate change to try to make progress toward the deal next year in Paris. A December meeting is planned in Lima, Peru, to draft the agreement.

In seeking to go around Congress to push his international climate change agenda, Mr. Obama is echoing his domestic climate strategy. In June, he bypassed Congress and used his executive authority to order a far-reaching regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to curb their carbon emissions. That regulation, which would not be not final until next year, already faces legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed on behalf of a dozen states.

But unilateral action by the world’s largest economy will not be enough to curb the rise of carbon pollution across the globe. That will be possible only if the world’s largest economies, including India and China, agree to enact similar cuts.

The Obama administration’s international climate strategy is likely to infuriate Republican lawmakers who already say the president is abusing his executive authority by pushing through major policies without congressional approval.

“Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, said in a statement.

A deal that would not need to be ratified by the United States or any other nation is also drawing fire from the world’s poorest countries. In African and low-lying island nations — places that scientists say are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change — officials fear that any agreement made outside the structure of a traditional United Nations treaty will not bind rich countries to spend billions of dollars to help developing nations deal with the forces of climate change.

Poor countries look to rich countries to help build dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas levels, or to provide food aid during pervasive droughts.

“Without an international agreement that binds us, it’s impossible for us to address the threats of climate change,” said Richard Muyungi, a climate negotiator for Tanzania. “We are not as capable as the U.S. of facing this problem, and historically we don’t have as much responsibility. What we need is just one thing: Let the U.S. ratify the agreement. If they ratify the agreement, it will trigger action across the world.”

Observers of United Nations climate negotiations, which have gone on for more than two decades without achieving a global deal to legally bind the world’s biggest polluters to carbon cuts, say that if written carefully such an agreement could be a creative and pragmatic way to at least level off the world’s rapidly rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

About a dozen countries are responsible for nearly 70 percent of the world’s carbon pollution, chiefly from cars and coal-fired power plants.

At a 2009 climate meeting in Copenhagen, world leaders tried but failed to forge a new legally binding treaty to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Instead, they agreed only to a series of voluntary pledges to cut carbon emissions through 2020.

The Obama administration’s climate change negotiators are desperate to avoid repeating the failure of Kyoto, the United Nations’ first effort at a legally binding global climate change treaty. Nations around the world signed on to the deal, which would have required the world’s richest economies to cut their carbon emissions, but the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, ensuring that the world’s largest historic carbon polluter was not bound by the agreement.

Seventeen years later, the Senate obstacle remains. Even though Democrats currently control the chamber, the Senate has been unable to reach agreement to ratify relatively noncontroversial United Nations treaties. In 2012, for example, Republican senators blocked ratification of a United Nations treaty on equal rights for the disabled, even though the treaty was modeled after an American law and had been negotiated by a Republican president, George W. Bush.

This fall, Senate Republicans are poised to pick up more seats, and possibly to retake control of the chamber. Mr. McConnell, who has been one of the fiercest opponents of Mr. Obama’s climate change policy, comes from a coal-heavy state that could be an economic loser in any climate-change protocol that targets coal-fired power plants, the world’s largest source of carbon pollution.