Montanan Found Dead in Singapore
A Montanan found dead in Singapore. Authorities in the Southeast Asian nation assert that he committed suicide, and are continuing an investigation with the assistance of the FBI. Now, the parents of the man from Marion, Montana say they have access to a hard drive detailing a questionable proposal between his former firm and the Chinese.
CNN has this:
Shane Todd of Montana was working abroad in Singapore on the latest cell phone and radar technology, coveted by global corporations.
In his last months, Todd expressed stress about his work and even fear for his life, his family said. He wondered if his work might be illegal or a risk to U.S. national security, his parents said.
After his death, Todd’s parents found that his hard drive contained a proposal between the Singapore outfit and a prominent Chinese telecom firm, Huawei, to build a powerful amplifier using gallium nitride technology.
Click here to read the full story, video can be seen here: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/03/01/erin-marquez-mysterious-death-segment.cnn.html
From The New York Times:
Among the discrepancies alleged by the family: Mr. Todd’s mother doesn’t believe her son wrote a suicide note, one of several allegedly found in his home, since information in it was wrong, she said. The bathroom where Singaporean investigators said he died didn’t show the holes in the wall and other things they said were used in his suicide, the Todds said, after inspecting the site shortly after his death. A pathologist hired by the parents in the United States after their son’s body was flown back said it showed signs of struggle, and ruled the death a homicide. A computer expert they hired said someone looked at some of Mr. Todd’s files in an external computer hard drive found in his apartment, days after his death, and tried to delete one.
Jerry Seper had this with The Washington Times:
A U.S. intelligence official who asked not to be identified said Huawei has been of recent concern to the U.S. over its sharing of telecommunications equipment with the Chinese government and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. In October 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei had become Iran’s leading provider of telecommunications equipment, including monitoring technologies that could be used for surveillance.
In October, a House intelligence subcommittee released a report that listed Huawei as a “national security threat” because of its suspected ties to various Chinese governmental agencies. The report suggested that the firm be barred from doing business with the U.S. government.
Juan Williams on Lib Media: They Will ‘Shut You Down, Stab You & Kill You, Fire You’ if You Speak Out
TWG: Sure is refreshing to see a lefty speaking out against his leaders. As much as I disagree with Williams on just about everything, I have to admit this has given me a MUCH different opinion of him. He’s speaking out when he KNOWS they will try to crush him for it. That’s admirable coming from anyone. Unheard of with the lefties.
Juan Williams on Lib Media: They Will ‘Shut You Down, Stab You & Kill You, Fire You’ if You Speak Out
Feb. 24, 2013 6:10pm Erica Ritz
Fox News contributor and former NPR host Juan Williams opened up to the Daily Caller recently about his experience working at both left and right-leaning media outlets.
“I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded about hearing the other side…” he said. “But in fact, what I have learned is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down, stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not telling the story in the way they want it told.”
TWG: Folks, if there was any question as to the allegiance of hypocritical, lying snake oil salesman al gore, let it be put to rest. Glenn Beck wanted to bid on this cable station owned by gore and was refused the opportunity to even place a bid. Gore said he wanted it to go to like-minded people, so he sold it to ISLAMIC JIHADISTS! This is a previous VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, people! Close pal of the clintons and other high profile politicians and a board member of APPLE. (Another reason I refuse to buy Apple products.)
Report: Glenn Beck tried to buy Current TV, Al Gore went with Al-Jazeera
Al-Jazeera wasn’t the only media company with its sights set on former Vice President Al Gore’s little-watched Current TV.
Glenn Beck’s Blaze Media approached the struggling cable news network last year, the Wall Street Journal reports, but was rebuffed because “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.”
Instead, Gore went with the Emir of Qatar-funded Arab news channel Al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera has been criticized for having a pro-Islamist bent, and accused of working with members of Al Qaeda. One of its journalists was arrested in Israel in 2011 on suspicion of being an agent of the Palestinian group Hamas. Dave Marash, a former “Nightline” reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington, said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.
The network is subsidized by the ruling family of oil rich Qatar, which some critics have said smacks of hypocrisy, given Gore’s beliefs that global warming is due in large part to mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Gore won the Oscar in 2006 for his documentary film about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Gore netted $100 million with his 20 percent stake in Current TV when it was sold for a reported $500 million on Wednesday.
Al-Jazeera plans to euthanize the seven-year-old network and turn it into Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now. More than half of its content will be U.S. news, and the network will have its headquarters in New York, according to a rep.
Emails to Glenn Beck’s rep were not immediately returned.
Joel Z. Hyatt (born Joel Hyatt Zylberberg, 1950) is a prominent businessman and former attorney and American politician of the Democratic party. He is the founder of Hyatt Legal Services, and was featured in the law firm’s television commercials speaking the slogan, “I’m Joel Hyatt and you have my word on it.”
Hyatt co-founded Hyatt Legal Services in 1977 as a low-cost legal service and later founded Hyatt Legal Plans, which became the country’s largest provider of employer-sponsored group legal services. Hyatt Legal Plans was acquired by MetLife in 1997.
Hyatt was a founding member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Circle and was a member of that group from 1981 to 1986. He was the Democratic National Committee’s assistant treasurer from 1981 to 1983.
He is the son-in-law of former U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum and in 1994, when Metzenbaum decided to retire from the Senate, Hyatt ran to replace him. Hyatt won the Democratic nomination, but lost to then Ohio Lt. Gov. R. Michael DeWine in the general election.
Hyatt served as National Finance Chair for the Democratic party in 2000, and is a business partner of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore In 2004, Hyatt and Gore purchased Newsworld International, a cable news channel, programmed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which aired news programming from around the world. On August 1, 2005, Gore and Hyatt relaunched the network as Current TV, a young adult-programmed news and information service which pioneered the concept of user generated content on cable TV.
Hyatt taught entrepreneurship at Stanford University Graduate School of Business from 1998 to 2003. He is a member of the board of trustees of Morehouse College and of The Brookings Institution. Hyatt was elected to the board of directors of Hewlett-Packard Company in May 2007.
In 1990, Hyatt Legal Services paid a $157,000 judgment for illegally firing an attorney in their Philadelphia offices, Clarence B. Cain, because of his AIDS diagnosis. This case became the basis for the 1993 Tom Hanks film Philadelphia.
A political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the Fast and Furious scandal was ordered to be shut down by the Obama campaign’s ‘Truth Team’, according to private investigator Douglas Hagmann, who was told by ISP GoDaddy his site contained information that was “maliciously harmful to individuals in the government.”…(Con’t)
Oath Keepers Joins the Fight Against SOPA – Blackout of Oathkeepers.org Jan. 18
On January 18th, 2012, from 8am to 8pm Eastern, the Oath Keepers website will go dark to protest the looming SOPA (House) and PIPA (Senate) Bills. We are joining with many other websites across the internet who are also going dark in protest.
On Jan 24th, Congress will vote to pass internet censorship in the Senate, even though the vast majority of Americans are opposed. We need to kill the bill – PIPA in the Senate and SOPA in the House – to protect our rights to free speech, privacy, and prosperity.
Our First Amendment protected right of free speech is now directly under assault by a berserk U.S. Congress and White House. Our voluntary black-out is being done in conjunction with countless other websites to help the public understand the serious dangers in SOPA and related bills awaiting passage in Congress right now.
SOPA and PIPA are to the First Amendment what the NDAA military detention and trial provisions are to the Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments – allowing for the “black bagging” and “disappearing” of websites on a mere accusation alone. If such laws are enacted, the following may as well be posted by the government when they shut sites down:
“NOTICE: THIS SITE HAS BEEN DECLARED AN UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENT SITE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR ONE OF ITS CORPORATE PARTNERS. THIS SITE HAS BEEN BLACK BAGGED AND DISAPPEARED IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY, AND IS NOW INTERNED IN GITMO.
Your attempting to access and associate with this site has been noted, your IP address has been recorded, and you too are now being evaluated as a possible candidate for unlawful belligerent designation. Have a nice day.”
That is the kind of Orwellian world the internet will have become, under SOPA/PIPA or other such nonsense.
The First Amendment is first for a reason.
Without it, peaceful redress, correction, and removal of oath breaking officials becomes impossible, leaving you with only the Second Amendment to secure your rights. The internet is our most powerful weapon of free speech, which is exactly why the powers that be want to shut it down. With a free internet, they no longer have a monopoly on the exchange of ideas and the spreading of information, and that scares the hell out of them. So, we can expect them to do all they can to find a way to shut the internet down or to tightly control it.
Thus, the same “bi-partisan” pack of traitors and useful idiots who passed the NDAA now want to kill the internet. We must defend it with as much dedication as we would defend our right to bear arms.
Over the weekend, the Obama administration issued a statement on the blacklist bills, saying it would oppose PIPA and SOPA as written, and said that it “will not support” any bill “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet” (whatever that means – surely the people pushing this will not admit it does those things). But remember, Obama said he would veto the NDAA, and then turned around and signed it. By dong so, he joined in on the treason of Congress. Obviously, if he cannot be trusted to keep his oath when it comes to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments (or the Article Three, Section 3 Treason Clause), he should not be trusted to protect the First Amendment either. Do not rely on such promises from Obama or from any of your congress-critters. And even if they “table” these bills for now, you can bet they will try to cram them through under some other name, or buried within some other bill (like the NDAA). Keep the heat on them all and get the word out.
This will be an ongoing fight, until all of these oath breakers are removed from office. Read more about this issue at EFF.ORG
And spread the word! We must defend all of the Bill of Rights, for all Americans. Period.
Founder of Oath Keepers
PS – our members forum will still be online during this blackout, and you can discuss SOPA/PIPA there.
Support Operation Sleeping Giant, Join Oath Keepers and get involved.
Operation Sleeping Giant
Join Oath Keepers http://www.oathkeepers.org
Oath Keepers is growing FAST, but like General Patton, we are outpacing our own supply lines. Your donations are “fuel” for our advance! If you would like to support the Oath Keepers vital mission to teach the current serving about their oath and about the Constitution so they will stand firm and do what is right, and our second mission to remind veterans of their oath and obligations.:
Please visit http://www.oathkeepers.org
If you would like to mail a donation:
Make checks payable to: OathKeepers
5130 S. Fort Apache suite 215
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Obama’s Czar Cass Sunstein… Just WHO Is This Radical, Anti-American Extremist Sitting In Our White House?
In the world of Obama there can be no dissent or criticism of the “messiah” squatting in our White House, and any attempts to impugn the Obama plans for “change” must be demolished. So if negativity comes from the internet , then of course the blogosphere must be added to litany of government control and censorship.
The Obama appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a rather formidable nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein has powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” should give everyone serious pause for concern. Considering Sunstein’s position, the powers with which Sunstein is endowed are very, very, troubling.
The Wall Street Journal reported that “the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job is crucial as the administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.””
Sunstein is another Obama “Czar” but is really the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who is in charge of public cyberspace believes that – “Whether you’re a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service – you should be held responsible even for what your comments say.”
Currently you’re immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Just who is this radical, anti-American law professor with a long time association with Obama?
Below is a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein.
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007. Yet countless Americans politicians, in recent years, have acknowledged that they respect the
individual right to bear arms, at least in general terms. Their views are a product of the energetic efforts of meaning entrepreneurs – some from the National Rifle Association, who have press a particular view of the Second Amendment. ”
“The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.”
Hunting & Animal Rights
“We ought to ban hunting”
“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”
“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”
“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”
“…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”
“The site’s of one point of view agree to provide links to sites of the other point of view. So if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site. And vice versa, just to make it easy for people to access to competing views.
Or maybe a popup on your screen that would show you an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view.
If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, it would be great and if we can’t get voluntary arrangements maybe Congress should hold hearings about mandates.”
Sunstein verbally shuffles around and throws out the “aw shucks” smokescreen: “If we could do this voluntarily…”
“Sometimes, the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated…”
– Cass Sunstein
BUT, as usual, a Cass Sunstein argument devolves to: If the people won’t do what’s good for themselves voluntarily, government will have to nudge them in the right direction–using the force of the government, of course.
Readers have a simple formula for determining loss of freedom: when a government official talks of “doing something for your–or the public’s–own good, it means you’re about to lose part of your freedom.
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
Second Bill of Rights
“My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.”
“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust “government intervention” and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”
“For better or worse, the Constitution’s framers gave no thought to including social and economic guarantees in the bill of rights.”
“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives…”
40 years ago, Cass Sunstein would have been labeled an “anti-American, anti-freedom crackpot.” Now, however, he’s slithering around OUR WHITE HOUSE, making laws We, The People will have to obey or become criminals.
Here’s one of Sunstein’s wet dreams, cooked up back in 2009, by Czar Sunstein’s henchmen slithering around in the Spokane, Washington area. Proposition 4 would have been the perfect launch for Czar Sunstein’s diabolical schemes. It’s got his hoof prints all over it. Fortunately, the Liberty-Loving people of Spokane and the surrounding areas were paying attention to this nightmare. They rose up and said “HELL NO!”, stopping what would have been a HUGE power grab.
It writes into Spokane’s City Charter ten different “rights” – a wish list including almost everything from mandating the City guarantee health care, to restricting an employer’s right to communicate with their employees, to a mandate for low income housing for all.
Some of its more extreme provisions include:
· Mandates that the City guarantee access to “affordable health care” for everyone.
· Requires the City ensures enough low income housing stock to “meet the needs of the low-income community”.
· Gives the ecosystems the “right to exist and flourish”. This is including but not limited to all groundwater, surface water, aquifer and river systems; gives anyone the right to bring legal action on behalf of the ecosystems.
· Mandates “prevailing wage” and a 15% apprenticeship quota not only on all Spokane City projects but all private construction projects over $2 million.
· Requires employers to be “neutral” during any union organizing; forbids employers from holding any “non-work related” meetings during work hours.
· Gives virtually anyone the right to file a lawsuit to enforce the mandates and requires that courts remedy violations up to and including restoration of damaged ecosystems; grants plaintiffs (not defendants) attorney’s fees and costs; strips corporations of any legal standing.
· Gives the unelected neighborhood councils veto power over developments at the request of as little as 15% of voters in a neighborhood.
How did such an extreme measure make it to the ballot?
The measure started out as an initiative to voters. The group behind the initiative, “Envision Spokane” obtained enough signatures to force the City Council to put it on the ballot. Unfortunately amendments to the City Charter require only 2,800 signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
What is likely to happen if Proposition Four passes?
· It will destroy jobs and stifle the local economy. Small businesses will be driven out of Spokane. New businesses most certainly will not locate here. Clearly city residents will lose hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.
· It will spur hundreds of frivolous lawsuits, clogging courts, and costing taxpayers and small businesses millions in legal fees.
· City taxpayers could be required to spend millions to provide health care for city residents.
· The cost of construction for both taxpayers and private parties will soar.
· There would be a “gag order” placed upon employers’ communications with their employees.
· A handful of unelected people will be given the right to determine the future of neighborhoods, including Downtown Spokane.
Who will pay for all of this? How will it affect City services?
Taxpayers will pay. The truth is, if the Charter amendment passes, tax dollars that would have gone for parks, senior services, libraries, police protection and other vital services will instead be spent on frivolous lawsuits and bureaucracy.
Will it bankrupt the City?
Following everything in Proposition Four would bankrupt the city. Health care alone would cost tens of millions of dollars. Yet much of Proposition Four is clearly unconstitutional or a violation of other state and federal laws, so the immediate effect will be millions of dollars in legal fees.
Proposition Four is also likely to stifle economic activity throughout the city. New construction projects will stop, businesses will move away, property values will sag. This will reduce the amount of tax revenue coming into the city, at just the time Proposition Four demands sharply increased spending.
The result: a broken city budget.
Why do you say Proposition Four is unconstitutional?
The sponsors of Proposition Four admit that some provisions, including granting “rights” to ecosystems and taking them away from corporations conflict with federal law. Proposition Four also attempts to regulate banking, but that is already done by federal and state authorities who will not cede responsibility to a city. The result: lawsuits and confusion at city hall.
Will Proposition Four clean up the river and aquifer?
No, and the truth is that Envision Spokane’s negative claims about the river are simply false. Overall, the quality of water in the aquifer and Spokane River is good. There are many efforts already underway to improve it, with forceful enforcement action by both the state Department of Ecology and federal Environmental Protection Agency. Our water comes from an area comprising two states and dozens of municipal governments. It cannot be regulated or improved by the City of Spokane acting alone.
Will Proposition Four create jobs?
No. Proposition Four will cost city residents thousands of jobs. It would be a virtual building moratorium. It would impose harsh, unrealistic new costs on many businesses, forcing them out of the City. It would stifle financial activity and require cutbacks in City employment and services. The one group that is sure to get work – the lawyers who will be fighting in court for years over Proposition 4.
Who is behind Proposition Four?
An organization called “Envision Spokane”, a coalition of activists, unions, social groups and others, each with its own special interest. While it purports to be locally driven, the truth is the initiative is really the brainchild of the group’s “consultant”, the Pennsylvania-based, “Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund”. The head of the fund, Tom Linzey, is an environmental lawyer with an extreme political agenda, which he apparently intends to impose upon any community that will acquiesce.
Why should people and businesses outside the City of Spokane even care about this issue?
It’s clear that if this is successful in Spokane, then the group behind it intends to take it everywhere. Communities across Washington State and the Nation will be next. Tom Linzey — the man behind this proposal, is also the head of the Pennsylvania-based, “Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.” His record is clear: if he does not like the results of our elected, democratic process, then he wants the ability to impose his wishes on everyone else by filing expensive lawsuits. This type of city charter gives him the standing he needs to start these lawsuits.
The following unintended consequences would result if the Envision Spokane charter amendments (Proposition 4) were approved by voters.:
1. The City would have to raise taxes to cover costs for the City to defend itself in the many resulting lawsuits.
2. Massive job losses could occur due to businesses relocating to other cities.
3. New businesses choosing not to locate in our City will result in lost opportunities for economic development and increased job opportunities for our citizens.
4. This proposal takes rights away from citizens and grants them to inanimate objects such as soil and trees.
5. Most of the amendments contained within the measure are clear violations of the United States Constitution. These pieces will most certainly be challenged in court. The remaining language has intentionally been drafted in vague terms and cannot be implemented without being first defined by a court of law. This will cost the city hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to defend itself in court.
6. The healthcare provision contained within this proposal would cost millions of dollars to implement and sustain. The result would be cuts to services such as fire and police, and could completely bankrupt the City.
7. The Bill of Rights will grant a 15 percent minority of citizens in a neighborhood council district the right to block any new development, such as a home, church, hospital, or even a fire station.
8. The initiative will increase the cost of housing in Spokane and force everyday heroes like teachers and police officers to search outside the city limits for affordable housing.
9. Spokane’s elected officials should lead a civil debate on these issues, not an international political organization.
10. The Envision Spokane Community Bill of Rights is a power-grab by a minority of residents and out-of-state political activists seeking a launching pad for such measures. They attempted it in Spokane, and you can believe they’re busy working diligently to impose this diabolical scheme elsewhere.
Keep a CLOSE eye on your legislators. You can bet they will try this again.
Here is the platform for Proposition 4:
Proposition 4 – Spokane, WA, COMMUNITY BILL OF RIGHTS
FIRST – RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO A LOCALLY-BASED ECONOMY.
Residents have the right to a locally-based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities. The right shall include the right to have local monies reinvested locally by lending institutions, and the right to equal access to capital, credit, contracts, incentives, and services for businesses owned by Spokane residents.
SECOND – RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE.
Residents have the right to affordable preventive healthcare. For residents otherwise unable to access such care, the City shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area healthcare providers to create affordable fee-for-service programs within eighteen (18) months following adoption of this Charter provision.
THIRD – RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE AND SAFE HOUSING.
Residents have the right to affordable housing, the right to a safely maintained dwelling, and the right to be free from housing discrimination. The City shall ensure the availability of low-income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low-income housing community. People and families may only be denied renting or buying of a dwelling for non-discriminatory reasons and may only be evicted from their residence for non-discriminatory causes.
FOURTH – RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
Residents have the right to access affordable and renewable energy sources.
FIFTH – THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO EXIST AND FLOURISH.
Ecosystems, including but not limited to, all groundwater systems, surfacewater systems, and aquifers have the right to exist and flourish. River systems have the right to flow and have water quality necessary to provide habitat for native plants and animals, and to provide clean drinking water. Aquifers have the right to sustainable recharge, flow, and water quality.
SIXTH – RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
Residents have the right, through their neighborhood councils, to determine the future of their neighborhoods, which shall include the right to adopt enforceable neighborhood plans, and the right to have growth-related public infrastructure costs funded by new development as provided by an impact fees Ordinance. The City of Spokane shall provide sufficient funding to neighborhood councils for the creation, adoption, and enforcement of neighborhood plans. Such plans shall respect and promote the rights delineated by this Charter.Residents may also determine the future of their neighborhoods by rejecting proposed land development projects, in accordance with the provisions of this Charter.
SEVENTH – WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PAID THE PREVAILING WAGE, AND THE RIGHT TO WORK AS APPRENTICES, ON CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
Workers have the right to be paid the prevailing wage on all private construction projects exceeding two million dollars in construction costs (as annually adjusted for inflation), and all public and publicly subsidized construction projects, within the City of Spokane. Workers have the right to work as apprentices on all private construction projects exceeding two million dollars in construction costs (as annually adjusted for inflation), and all public and publicly subsidized construction projects, through programs approved under the Washington State Apprenticeship Training Program, and each contractor and subcontractor building those projects shall be required to use apprentices for a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total hours worked on each project.
EIGHTH – WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EMPLOYER NEUTRALITY WHEN UNIONIZING, AND THE RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS WITHIN THE WORKPLACE.
Workers have the right to employer neutrality when unionizing, and the right to be free from captive audience meetings, or other mandatory, non-work related meetings, in the workplace.
NINTH – RESIDENTS, WORKERS, NEIGHBORHOODS, NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS, AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE COMMUNITY BILL OF RIGHTS.
All rights recognized by the Community Bill of Rights are fundamental, inalienable, and self-executing. The City of Spokane, or any person, neighborhood, or neighborhood council aggrieved by a violation of their rights, or any person seeking to enforce the rights of ecosystems, may enforce these rights. Enforcement actions shall be filed as civil actions in a court of competent jurisdiction, against any person, government, or entity violating these rights, and sufficient legal and equitable relief shall be awarded to remedy the violation, including restoration of a damaged ecosystem. In any action to enforce any Charter right, the court may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys fee and expert fees. Corporations and other business entities shall not be deemed to possess any legal rights, privileges, powers, or protections which would enable those entities to avoid the enforcement of these rights, or which would enable them to nullify these rights. If any part or provision of these Charter provisions, or the application of these Charter provisions to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of these Charter provisions, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect.
§74.5 (New). Rights of Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Councils
A. The City of Spokane shall notify neighborhood councils of any proposals for commercial, industrial, or multi-unit residential land developments to be located within neighborhoods represented by those councils. That notice shall be given not more than five business days from the submission of a project permit application to the City by the developers of those proposals, and shall include notice to neighborhood councils representing neighborhoods adjacent to the neighborhood in which the land development is proposed to occur.
B. A neighborhood council may veto a land development project if requested to veto that project by a number of neighborhood registered voters equal to or greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general municipal election within that neighborhood. After being petitioned, if the neighborhood council determines that the land development project may adversely affect the neighborhood, and that the project is incompatible with either the neighborhoods planning, the Citys Comprehensive Plan, or the City Charter, the council may veto the project. Such action by the neighborhood council shall stop all site development associated with the project, such action shall be binding upon the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane shall defend such action against any legal challenges.
C. A neighborhood council shall veto a land development project if requested to veto that project by a number of neighborhood registered voters greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general municipal election within that neighborhood. Petitioners must find that the land development project may adversely affect the neighborhood, and that the project is incompatible with either the neighborhoods planning, the Citys Comprehensive Plan, or the City Charter. Such action by the neighborhood council shall stop all site development associated with the project, such action shall be binding upon the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane shall defend such action against any legal challenges.
[This is NOT a "test". It's a demonstration of power. There is NO REASON to do this, and especially not in the middle of the afternoon in the middle of the week. If it were a "test", they would be doing it at 2:00A.M. Not 2:00P.M. This is scheduled on 11/9/11, or as the Europeans and our military would note, it's 9/11/11.......
They are circumventing our Constitution here, handing Exexutive Branch duties over to UNELECTED, FACELESS BUREAUCRATS!!! If it doesn't come back on in a VERY short period of time, it is time to button down the hatches and get ready for one HELL of a war. This horrid regime is up to something EVIL here.]
If you have ever wondered about the government’s ability to control the civilian airwaves, you will have your answer on November 9th.
On that day, federal authorities are going to shut off all television and radio communications simultaneously at 2:00PM EST to complete the first ever test of the national Emergency Alert System (EAS).
This isn’t a wild conspiracy theory. The upcoming test is posted on the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau website.
Only the President has the authority to activate EAS at the national level, and he has delegated that authority to the Director of FEMA. The test will be conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS).
In essence, the authority to seize control of all television and civilian communication has been asserted by the executive branch and handed to a government agency……(Con’t)