Rick Scott, all of the Media are now on to you live of TV!
Published on 10:11 PM
Fact Check Scotts first attack ad against Nelson
Christopher heath on eyewitness news May 18th 2018, on Rick Scott’s republican-PAC!
About senator Bill Nelson.
Christopher heath picks apart the Republican Pac new ad
All of the people in the Republican Pac Ad are
‘Paid Actors’ not ‘Floridians’!
Senator Bill Nelson does cross party-line when it is good for Florida and the Country!
Video: Who has done more for Puerto Rico, Senator Bill Nelson or Governor Rick Scott?
In April, investigative reporter Christopher Heath exposed connections between Gov. Rick Scott’s staff and the construction of a gas pipeline that will run from Alabama through central Florida.
9 Investigates governor’s investment in gas pipeline to Florida – wftv.com
9 Investigates investment Scott’s gas pipeline to Florida
Fact-checking Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s U.S. Senate announcement speech
A political way around half-truths and downright lying!
Elections complaint filed against Rick Scott PAC
Rick Scott’s PAC targets Florida constituent
The PAC defended Scott’s record on job creation, which Jennings called into question. “Almost everybody [has a great job],” the ad says. “Except those who are sitting around coffee shops, demanding public assistance, surfing the internet and cursing at customers who come in.”
The ad also said Jennings is a “former government official” who “refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance” and “calls herself an anarchist.”
Jennings later posted on Facebook again bashing the governor for using his backers to crush to questions of a concerned citizen.
“Hold on to your seats y’all….this just got crazy,” she wrote Friday. “The Governor’s PAC appears to have put out a video about me. So, if you call out the Governor you get the power of his PAC coming after you. Anyone sees a problem with this power equation?”
Fact–Check Scott’s 1st attack ad against Nelson
PolitiFact Florida: Gov. Rick Scott attack mischaracterizes vote Sen. Bill Nelson took in 2015
Rick Scott, all of the Media are now on to you live of TV!
Palestine is not a country and never was.
One could say the same about Israel.
However, the Israelites did make a country out of the land.
I believe and so do many, that Israel can do much better with another president!
The battle for this land has been going on for hundreds of years and will continue until the ‘End of Time’!
Read on and form your own opinion?
The history of Palestine is the study of the past in the region of Palestine, generally defined as a geographic region in the Southern Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River
(where Israel and Palestine are today), and various adjoining lands.
Situated at a strategic point between Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity,
the region has a long and tumultuous history as a crossroads for religion, culture, commerce, and politics.
The Palestine region or parts of it have been controlled by numerous different peoples and regional powers, including
the Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines,
different dynasties of the Early Muslim period
(Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, Late Muslim dynasties (Ayyubids, Mamluks, Ottoman Turks)
The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, or the First Arab–Israeli War, was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states over the control of Palestine, forming the second stage of the 1948 Palestine war.
The Suez Crisis,
the Second Arab–Israeli War,
also named the Tripartite Aggression (in the Arab world) and Operation Kadesh or Sinai War (in Israel), was an invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel,
the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War,
Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967 by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria.
Who owns the land (Israel), in question?
On the Gregorian calendar
the one you might have on your wall) the year was 1488 BC.
On the Hebrew calendar,
sometimes called the biblical calendar, the year was 2559 AM
Fort Trumbull’s Little Pink House
One of my last fights for the little guy, against Big Business, Crooked Politicians and their money!
I had to leave the cold weather for health reasons.
The battle actually started in the late 1990s, Fort Trumbull residents noticed real estate agents poking around their streets.
Neighbors suspected something was in the works, and in December 1999 the news hit: the city of New London planned to acquire all 90 acres of Fort Trumbull and turn the land over to private developers.
Spurred by the imminent opening of Pfizer Global Research and Development’s $300 million headquarters next door, the city envisioned a
“waterfront urban village”
of offices, luxury condominiums, and a four-star hotel with river views.
About 80 property owners, many of them elderly, voluntarily sold their homes when the city came knocking.
The remaining seven, including the Derys, refused. In response, the city-chartered New London Development Corp.
(NLDC) seized the remaining houses through a process called eminent domain, which allows governments to buy property from unwilling owners.
‘Little Pink House’ movie revives eminent domain fight that put New London on national stage.
The Fort Trumbull peninsula in New London is seen from the air April 25, 2014.
(Sean D. Elliot/The Day)
The “Little Pink House” was not the beginning of the Fort Trumbull disaster, nor is it the last.
This was a group of poor older citizen’s with little to no money, fight to save their homes from Greed!
The “Little Pink House” that became the focus of the eminent domain fights over the Fort Trumbull redevelopment effort.
In late 1997 Gov. John Rowland, a Republican, decided to make major investments in the state’s cities, including New London.
Rowland and his chief of staff, Peter Ellef, brought in local lawyer-lobbyist Jay Levin, a former legislator and skilled political operative.
Levin solved Rowland’s problem by reviving the New London Development Corporation, a private, nonprofit entity established in the 1970s to aid the city with development planning.
“At the time, it looked like a wondrous gift to the city, Pfizer with its $300 million.
Plans for a hotel.
No one could raise any money to do anything down there and here Governor (John) Rowland was offering $90 million — none of which made sense.”
New London citizens lost $70 million, the poor lost their homes.
The only reason the
‘Guy in the White house’
is the ‘Guy in the White house’
‘all of the media’
kept him in the news for good or for bad, for the most part the bad, and that the media kept him in the news 24/7 for a year and a half before the election!
No one in the media or citizens of this country seem to want to hear the
for the country and the citizens that a real president was going to do for the United States of America?
It worked for a Crooked, Mafia loving, ‘Male Chauvinist, Nazi loving, Money Hungry, Racist, so Mr. Scott thinks,
“Why Not Me!
Term limits for Congress are (probably) never, ever going to happen.
In other words,
proposing term limits for Congress is a popular thing to say on the campaign trail.
But it’s not such a popular thing to advocate for once you’re actually in Congress.
And of all the reasons Trump’s term-limit proposal won’t happen, this is probably the most salient:
Congress doesn’t want it.
Including Governor Rick Scott!!!!!!
(1)- The Supreme Court says passing term-limit laws is unconstitutional.
the Supreme Court decided in a 5 to 4 vote that states or Congress can’t just make a law limiting the number of terms members of Congress can serve.
The decision essentially wiped off the books term-limit laws that 23 states had for their congressional delegations. (The decision didn’t affect term limits for state legislatures, and there are 15 states that impose them.)
The court said that for term limits to be constitutional, we’d have to amend the Constitution.
And actually, changing the Constitution is exactly what Trump proposed Tuesday:
“If I’m elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
They’ve been talking about that for years,”
Trump said in a speech in Colorado championing his new package of ethics reforms.
“Decades of failure in Washington and decades of special interest dealing must and will come to an end.”
But there’s a problem with that idea, too.
(2)- Constitutional amendments are really, really, really hard to pass.
Presidential candidates routinely call for constitutional amendments, but rarely with success.
For one, changing the Constitution requires one of the hardest things to do in politics. It requires an agreement by a two-thirds supermajority of Congress and then to be ratified by three-fourths of states, or 38 out of 50.
Only 27 proposals out of countless ideas in our country’s 240-year history have climbed that steep hill.
This isn’t the first time Trump has proposed one this campaign cycle alone. Back when he and other GOP presidential hopefuls floated the idea of changing the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship,
I dove into the circumstances
surrounding those 27 changes to our Constitution.
I found that the United States is often only spurred to change it under extenuating circumstances, such as political crises, war and death.
(3)- Many political scientists think term limits are a bad idea.
There is evidence that term limits create more competitive elections, said Josh Chafetz, a law professor and congressional expert with Cornell University. But he said most political scientists would agree that term limits don’t make sense in a body that deals with as many complex issues as Congress.
In fact, paradoxically, term limits could increase the power of those who can stay around the Hill for as long as they want: lobbyists.
“If members are restricted to only serving a few terms,”
Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert with the Brookings Institution told The Fix in an email,
“the logic goes, they have neither the time nor the incentive to develop the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs.
If members don’t have that expertise themselves, they’re more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise.”
(4)- Congress would probably never agree to it
(and never has).
Trump is right; imposing term limits on Congress isn’t a new idea. Politicians — especially those on the right — have been floating the idea for years as a way to crack down on corruption.
The thinking goes that once a lawmaker spends too much time in Washington, he or she becomes part of Washington and incapable of effectively serving people outside of it.
So let’s put a limit on how long they can be in Washington.
But once those pro-term-limit lawmakers get into office, very, very few of them have actually tried to put their words into action.
Back in 1995,
when the Supreme Court ruled term limits unconstitutional,
the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on four versions of term limits.
But three of those proposals
as the New York Times reported at the time, even failed to get a bare majority.
There really hasn’t been a major push for term limits since.
The Paul Ryan Story:
From Flimflam to Fascism
By Paul Krugman
April 12, 2018
Why did Paul Ryan choose not to run for re-election? What will be the consequences? Your guess is as good as mine — literally. I can speculate based on what I read in the papers, but so can you.
On the other hand, I do have some insight into how Ryan — who has always been an obvious con man, to anyone willing to see — came to become speaker of the House. And that’s a story that reflects badly not just on Ryan himself, not just on his party, but also on self-proclaimed centrists and the news media, who boosted his career through their malfeasance. Furthermore, the forces that brought Ryan to a position of power are the same forces that have brought America to the edge of a constitutional crisis.
About Ryan: Incredibly, I’m seeing some news reports about his exit that portray him as a serious policy wonk and fiscal hawk who, sadly, found himself unable to fulfill his mission in the Trump era. Unbelievable. Look, the single animating principle of everything Ryan did and proposed was to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted. Can anyone name a single instance in which his supposed concern about the deficit made him willing to impose any burden on the wealthy, in which his supposed compassion made him willing to improve the lives of the poor? Remember, he voted against the Simpson-Bowles debt commission proposal not because of its real flaws, but because it would raise taxes and fail to repeal Obamacare. And his “deficit reduction” proposals were always frauds. The revenue loss from tax cuts always exceeded any explicit spending cuts, so the pretense of fiscal responsibility came entirely from “magic asterisks”: extra revenue from closing unspecified loopholes, reduced spending from cutting unspecified programs. I called him a flimflam man back in 2010, and nothing he has done since has called that judgment into question.
So how did such an obvious con artist get a reputation for seriousness and fiscal probity? Basically, he was the beneficiary of ideological affirmative action.
Even now, in this age of Trump, there are a substantial number of opinion leaders — especially, but not only, in the news media — whose careers, whose professional brands, rest on the notion that they stand above the political fray. For such people, asserting that both sides have a point, that there are serious, honest people on both left and right, practically defines their identity.
Yet the reality of 21st-century U.S. politics is one of asymmetric polarization in many dimensions. One of these dimensions is intellectual: While there are some serious, honest conservative thinkers, they have no influence on the modern Republican Party. What’s a centrist to do? The answer, all too often, has involved what we might call motivated gullibility. Centrists who couldn’t find real examples of serious, honest conservatives lavished praise on politicians who played that role on TV. Paul Ryan wasn’t actually very good at faking it; true fiscal experts ridiculed his “mystery meat” budgets. But never mind: The narrative required that the character Ryan played exist, so everyone pretended that he was the genuine article.
Flimflam – Noun 1.nonsensical or insincere talk.
“I suppose that you suspect me of pseudointellectual
Verb 1. swindle (someone) with a confidence game.
“the tribe was flimflammed out of its land”
Pseudointellectual – Someone who pretends to be more intelligent than they are.
Definition of fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality
The Paul Ryan Story:
From Flimflam to Fascism
By Paul Krugman
April 12, 2018
What is the fuss all about with Facebook?
Your personal private information that’s what!
How Hillary and the ‘Citizens of the Unites States’ got
(rudely violated to say the least),
by the Russians/Facebook/Donald Trump campaign!
What is Cambridge Analytica?
Cambridge Analytica is a British political consulting firm which combines data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process.
It was started in 2013 as an offshoot of
SCL Group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCL_Group
In a blog post,
Facebook’s Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer said
the company believes data from up to 87 million people was
the consulting firm who received data on users and their networks from a researcher who developed an app that captured the information. Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica, the researcher and a former employee from the platform in March.
What is Global Science Research?
The InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) (link is external)
last week released
Doing Global Science: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise (link is external),
a “new publication that offers guidance on conducting research responsibly in a research environment that is increasingly international and multidisciplinary.” https://www.unh.edu/research/blog/2016/02/new-resource-conducting-global-science-responsibly
What ever happened to the rests of the founders of the original face book?
Facebook was launched on February 4, 2004, by Mark Zuckerberg, along with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes.
The founders initially limited the website’s membership to Harvard students. Later they expanded it to higher education institutions in the Boston area, the Ivy League schools, and Stanford University.
What happened in the Cambridge Analytica scandal and what steps Facebook is taking to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are the two main actors in an
enormous data privacy scandal
that touches on the Trump campaign,
millions of Facebook users and even two presidential elections in Kenya.
It’s complicated, so here’s a breakdown.
Why are Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in the news?
In a nutshell,
because the personal data of 50 million people was pulled from Facebook by a company contracted by Cambridge Analytica
and used for … we’re not sure exactly what.
(Facebook later said the number may have been even higher: up to 87 million users.)
The third-party firm, Global Science Research, used a clicky personality quiz
to get people to interact with the app,
used a loophole to pull all the behind-the-scenes data
of that user, and also the same data relating to all their friends — typically 200-300 other people per user.
Time will tell my friends
Time will tell.
Security for EPA chief comes at a steep cost to taxpayers
Regardless of our political affiliation my friends!
WE need to rid this country of the greedy, selfish, infestation in our government, while we still have a government and a country!
Just one of many that need to be on our chopping block!
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt’s concern with his safety came at a steep cost to taxpayers as his swollen security detail blew through overtime budgets and at times diverted officers away from investigating environmental crimes.
Altogether, the agency spent millions of dollars for a 20-member full-time detail that is more than three times the size of his predecessor’s part-time security contingent.
Pruitt apparently did not consider that upgrade vital to his safety when taxpayers weren’t footing the bill for his ticket.
But on weekend trips home for Sooners football games, when taxpayers weren’t paying for his ticket, the EPA official said Pruitt flew coach.
The prior head of Pruitt’s security detail, Eric Weese, was demoted last year after he refused Pruitt’s demand to use the lights and sirens on his government-owned SUV to get him through Washington traffic to the airport and dinner reservations.
President Donald Trump offered a full-throated defense of Pruitt in a tweet Saturday night.
7 Misleading Things EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Said In His Interview With Time
In a rare mainstream media interview, the nation’s top environmental regulator blows some smoke.
Clean up air pollution
Pruitt often praises the improvements in U.S. air quality since the Clean Air Act was passed in the early 1970s.
But he also says Obama should have done more to meet existing standards before issuing newer, tighter limits on pollutants, such as a 2015 ozone standard that drew opposition from business groups.
In Pruitt’s own words
“One-hundred-twenty million people in this country live in areas that don’t meet air quality standards. That’s what the previous administration left us with,”
Pruitt told a Heritage Foundation event in October.
In line with his promise
• Plans to keep EPA’s existing standards for nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which cause respiratory problems and acid rain.
• Advanced or approved a higher number of state implementation plans for cutting pollution than the Obama administration did in its first eight months.
Not in line
• Missed a key deadline for implementing Obama’s 2015 ozone pollution limits and has not indicated when EPA will require polluted areas to take action. Instead formed an ozone task force.
• Moved to rescind Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced planet-warming carbon emissions and harmful air pollutants from coal plants.
• Plans to ease Obama’s auto pollution standards.
• Delayed the legal defense of Obama’s standards for mercury and air toxics from power plants.
• Halted an Obama-era order to prevent states from exempting power plants, refineries and chemical manufacturers from pollution standards when they are starting up, shutting down or malfunctioning.
• Defended a White House budget proposal that would cut money for state regulators who test air quality and carry out federal laws – despite his public vow to push for funding.
In Pruitt’s own words
In line with his promise
• Suggested a top-10 list of priority sites for the agency to aggressively address.
• Ordered all Superfund cleanup plans costing more than $50 million to get his personal approval.
• Issued a task force list of 42 recommendations for the Superfund program, including steps to speed up the assessment, review and decision processes.
• Ordered two companies to pay $115 million to clean up the San Jacinto Superfund site in Houston, one of two sites significantly damaged by flooding from Hurricane Harvey.
Not in line
• Signed off on a White House budget proposal that would strip $330 million from the $1.1 billion Superfund program and cut funding for the Justice Department to enforce cases.
• Has endorsed further staff and resource cuts that could make it more difficult to expedite cleanups.
Welcome to the Communist country of USA
Want is the definition of a Communist country?
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society.
Communist United States is controlled by one party (Republican), owning the White house, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Judicial courts!
Tomorrow, Monday February 19th 2018 is Presidents Day
A complete list of all 44 of the presidents of the United States of America.
1. George Washington (1789-1797)
John Adams (1789-1797)
2. John Adams (1797-1801)
Thomas Jefferson (1797-1801)
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
Aaron Burr (1801-1805)
George Clinton (1805-1809)
4. James Madison (1809-1817)
George Clinton (1809-1812)
Elbridge Gerry (1813-1814)
5. James Monroe (1817-1825)
Daniel D. Tompkins (1817-1825)
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
John C. Calhoun (1825-1829)
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
John C. Calhoun (1829-1832)
Martin Van Buren (1833-1837)
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
Richard M. Johnson (1837-1841)
9. William Henry Harrison (1841)
John Tyler (1841)
10. John Tyler (1841-1845)
11. James K. Polk (1845-1849)
George M. Dallas (1845-1849)
12. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Millard Fillmore (1849-1850)
13. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
14. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
William King (1853)
15. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
John C. Breckinridge (1857-1861)
16. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
Hannibal Hamlin (1861-1865)
Andrew Johnson (1865)
17. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
18. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Schuyler Colfax (1869-1873)
Henry Wilson (1873-1875)
19. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
William Wheeler (1877-1881)
20. James A. Garfield (1881)
Chester Arthur (1881)
21. Chester Arthur (1881-1885)
22. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889)
Thomas Hendricks (1885)
23. Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
Levi P. Morton (1889-1893)
24. Grover Cleveland (1893-1897)
Adlai E. Stevenson (1893-1897)
25. William McKinley (1897-1901)
Garret Hobart (1897-1899)
Theodore Roosevelt (1901)
26. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
Charles Fairbanks (1905-1909)
27. William Howard Taft (1909-1913)
James S. Sherman (1909-1912)
28. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
Thomas R. Marshall (1913-1921)
29. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
Calvin Coolidge (1921-1923)
30. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
Charles Dawes (1925-1929)
31. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
Charles Curtis (1929-1933)
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
John Nance Garner (1933-1941)
Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945)
Harry S. Truman (1945)
33. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
Alben Barkley (1949-1953)
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Richard Nixon (1953-1961)
35. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Lyndon B. Johnson (1961-1963)
36. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
Hubert Humphrey (1965-1969)
37. Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Spiro Agnew (1969-1973)
Gerald Ford (1973-1974)
38. Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Nelson Rockefeller (1974-1977)
39. Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Walter Mondale (1977-1981)
40. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
George Bush (1981-1989)
41. George Bush (1989-1993)
Dan Quayle (1989-1993)
42. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Al Gore (1993-2001)
43. George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Dick Cheney (2001-2009)
44. Barack Obama (2009-2017)
Joe Biden (2009-2017)
Number Forty Five is Pending The investigation of the White House clutter!
President Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton