FP&L – No “Choice” of Meters for 36,000 Floridians

By now many of you that refused the installation of FP&L’s smart meters have received a “Dear Customer” letter telling you that you have a choice of meters. The letter goes on to say that if you don’t take their smart meter that you will be charged $95 upfront and $13/month to retain your old meter. If you haven’t received such letter, you will shortly.

On January 7, 2014 the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) approved this deal. Although, it is being contested by two separate citizen petitions (one of which I am leading), the rules state that FP&L can continue as planned with the stipulation that fees collected are “subject to refund”. That is, if the FPSC Order is overturned, they must return the fees charged to the customers.

Why the fees? Well you resistors are “cost causers”. It is a long-standing principle that is invoked at will when they want to get you to comply with the game plan. In 1987/1988 they invoked the same principle when they transferred the ownership of meter enclosures and associated cost burdens (maintenance/replacement) to you the customer. The order (PSC Order # 18893) stated that:

“Since self-contained meter enclosures are not a part of the utility function, but simply house the meter itself, their costs should be borne by the customer when the structure is initially wired for electric service or when it must be replaced due to obsolescence or wear. The burden of maintaining and repairing the enclosures’ must likewise rest with the customer.”

As we all know by now, a smart meter is not “simply a meter” but contains lots of additional components that are part of the utility function. It establishes a wireless Neighborhood Network and sends messages back and forth amongst neighbor meters, remotely disconnects services and monitors your usage. In the future they will turn on the second transmitter to establish your Home Area Network to connect with your Home Energy Controller or Smart Thermostat and will give your smart refrigerator the ability to text you. It collects more data than is needed to bill you for your current plan. But why fuss over details!

If you don’t enroll in their plan, they will slap a smart meter on your home. If you think you got that covered (i.e. you already caged/locked your meter or have restricted access to your meter) think again. You will be automatically enrolled and charged the fee.

The process to fight this will be long and painful. If you don’t want a smart meter you need to:

Retain your analog meter. Once they take it, you will never see it again. (Remember you will get an undefined “non-communicating” meter in the future.) You may want to send a certified letter to FP&L stating that you do not consent and that you are enrolling under duress.

File a formal compliant with the FPSC.  Here is the complaint page http://www.floridapsc.com/consumers/complaints/index2.aspx

Write/call your Florida State Senators/Representatives. They are in session right now. Make your voices heard. Senate – http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/Find, House: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/representatives.aspx

Contact the Energy committees that oversee the FPSC. House Energy & Utilities Subcommittee – http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Committees/committeesdetail.aspx?TermId=85&CommitteeId=2724 and Senate Communications, Energy, and Public Utilities  http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/CU/

Contact Gov. Scott – http://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/

For those who still believe smart meters save money, ask FP&L how much net operation and maintenance savings are in the current rates you pay.

What they said in the 2009 rate case:

2009 rate case schedule

What they reported in the 2012 rate case:

2012 rate case schedule

The lack of cost savings was confirmed by the Office of Public Counsel who said on October 12, 2012 “However, to OPC’s knowledge, no studies, analyses, or quantification of the benefits or cost savings from the implementation of smart meters exist at this time. OPC is still waiting on the promised cost savings benefits of smart meters to be realized and shared with the customers.” http://www.floridapsc.com/utilities/electricgas/smartmeter/09_20_2012/WorkshopComments/OPC.pdf

Think smart meters prevent outages? Check out Northeast Utilities initial comments in a recent Massachusetts Department of Utilities investigation – “Meters do not reduce the number of outages” (page 4) http://haltmasmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NSTAR_R12-76-Comments-7986-POSTED01172014_HIGHLIGHTED.pdf

And finally, how many of you run home from work or golf and check your FP&L energy dashboard each night? Apparently not many. The last annual report from FP&L showed that as of the end of 2012 with over 4 million meter installed, only about 15% accessed the dashboard about 2 times.

Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17

This is a powerful and emotional two hour discussion and Q@A with the parents of Aaron Carson Vaughn, a member of the elite SEAL Team VI special forces who was part of a mission in Afghanistan called Extortion 17.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/kJ5zrwBbRvY[/youtube]

 

In a brand new book, a tragic truth is revealed about the Obama Administration’s unrequited devotion from our most selfless of heroes. Aaron Carson Vaughn is honored by his heartbroken Dad in Betrayed, The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s Father. The book chronicles the events that led to the death of Aaron Carson Vaughn and was authored by Billy Vaughn, with co-authors Monica Morrill and Cari Blake.

The book details the events of August 6, 2011 in Afghanistan surrounding the shooting down of an American Chinook helicopter that held the evocative name of “Extortion 17.”A high-value Al-Qaeda leader was pinned down in a village by U.S. Army Rangers. Three hours into the intense ground engagement, Extortion 17 was tasked to carry seventeen SEALs into the battle with the onerous task of capturing the Al-Qaeda leader alive.

The Chinook was operated by a crew of five from the National Guard and carried an additional 22 Navy personnel in support of the elite SEAL team. One Afghan interpreter was also on board and, just before taking off, seven Afghan commandos were curiously assigned to the final flight of Extortion 17.

As the Chinook approached its destination, the enemy could be seen running into a building with a tower that gave them an advantageous shooting position. The two Apache escort helicopters had all the visibility and firepower to resolve the battle before Extortion 17 delivered the SEAL team. But the Apaches were denied permission to attack.

Under the Obama Administration’s new rules of engagement, no strike could be made on that building without assurance that no civilians were inside. The enemy knows these rules, which is why they run into buildings where civilians may be located.

Under the protection of Obama rules, the enemy set up on the tower of the building and shot down Extortion 17 using three rocket-propelled grenades. The Chinook fell to the ground in a tremendous explosion, killing all 30 people on board.

The parents of those SEAL Team members who died were gathered for a briefing and were given hundreds of pages of information from the investigation of the event. Betrayed includes many pages of that original material; material that raised enough unsettling questions that Billy Vaughn wrote a book.

One question asked at the briefing was why, even in the minutes following the shoot-down of Extortion 17, America’s massive firepower was withheld. Three-star Admiral Robert Harward explained to the parents that a drone strike wasn’t used because, “we need to win their hearts and minds.”

196 Pro-Common Core Groups paid for by Gates Foundation

Recent news articles have focused on groups testifying and rallying FOR Common Core, specifically a veteran group, “Mission: Readiness.”  After research, this turns out to be a front group, paid by the Gates Foundation and the same Cabal that supports Common Core for obvious financial gain.

Mission: Readiness is one of “Five missions with One Voice” as the web site states:

http://www.councilfora strongamerica.org/members-in-action

It wouldn’t look good for Microsoft/the Gates Foundation to be defending itself when the benefit of Common Core so clearly inure to them.  This is pay for play if there ever was…Crony capitalism at its worst. Creating front groups to obfuscate who really promotes Common Core is just one tactic used to slip this abomination of Common Core under the radar.

Directly paying off organization which should have safeguarded the kids and public is another.  Over$300 million in payments were made to the National PTA, Fordham Foundation, Jeb Bush’s Foundations, US Chamber of Commerce, Michigan State University, Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education, ConnectEDU, Inc., NEA Foundation for the Improvement of Education (to support Common Core implementation in Kentucky), Center for American Progress (Soros front group), Alliance for Excellent Education, Inc., National Congress of Parents and Teachers, Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Kentucky Department of Education, Committee for Economic Development are all named as recipients of money from the Gates Foundation with the stated purposes listed as supporting Common Core, the gravy train for tech companies and Pearson, PLC.  This is from the Gates Foundation web site:  http://www.gatesfoundation.org/search

Just type in grants Common Core which yielded 196 results. These are all Common Core grants:

American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation
Benchmark Education Company
Council for a Strong America- (five front groups above mentioned)
New Venture Fund
Americas Promise-The Alliance for Youth
Louisiana Department of Education
DePaul University
George Washington University
Aspen Institute
Scholastic Inc.
Battelle For Kids
The Achievement Network
University of Florida
University of Michigan
Education Commission of the States
The College-Ready Promise
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc.
Arkansas Public School Resource Center, Inc.
Regents University of CA Los Angeles
BetterLesson, Inc.
Center for Applied Linguistics
Forsyth County Schools
School District of Philadelphia
Albuquerque Public Schools
Pennsylvania Dept. of Ed.
Council of the Great City Schools
Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education
Council of Chief State School Officers
Georgia Department of Education
Student Achievement Partners, Inc.
University of the State of New York
James B. Hunt Jr.  Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy Foundation, Inc.
Education Commission of the States
Foundation for Excellence in Education
NEA Foundation for the Improvement of Education
The Fund for Transforming  Education in Kentucky, Inc.
Council of State Governments
Summit Public Schools
National Association of State Boards of Education
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Fund for Public Schools, Inc.
National Catholic Education Association
Motion Math, Inc.
NYU
Stanford University
And so many more …

Legislators involved in charter schools who stand to gain from their ties with Jeb Bush through the Foundation for Florida’s Future include Senator John Legg, Senate President Don Gaetz, Speaker Will Weatherford, Rep Erik Fresen, Rep Seth McKeel, and Senator Anitere Flores.  These legislators have a serious conflict of interest and should recuse themselves and allow the will of the people to supersede their personal gain.  They are now standing in the way of SB 1316 and HB25 being heard in the State Legislature.

The Republican Party of Florida issued a united strongly worded resolution opposing Common Core:

image005

For a larger view click on the image.

Yet Governor Scott and leadership legislators have looked the other way with the promise of money and support from the Jeb Bush/ Microsoft team.  March 13, there is an award banquet and fundraiser for Jeb Bush’s Foundation for in Tallahassee to poke a stick in the eye of Floridians.

My personal projection is that Governor Scott will be defeated unless he complies with the wishes of his base.  Rejection of his base will be his demise.  He must be reminded that this is NOT just an ISSUE for us, it is our children and our future.  We will NEVER sell out our kids.  There is NO greater issue than the future of our children.  Rip them from the bosom’s of their mothers at your peril!

RELATED STORIES:

Gates is Funding U.S. Department of Education Directly

Common Core-frustrated teacher’s resignation letter: ‘My profession … no longer exists’

What Freedom of the Press?

In a February 10 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who occupies one of the Republican seats on the commission, broke the news that the Obama administration was planning to place inquisitors in the newsrooms of television and radio stations across the nation.

Titled the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the FCC program proposed to send researchers into TV and radio newsrooms to interview reporters, editors, and station managers about how they decide which stories to cover… or not cover. As Pai described it, the stated purpose of the CIN was to “ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected,’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ along with ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to undeserved populations.’ ”

As a guideline for their research, the FCC planners selected eight major categories for their investigators to delve into:

  • Emergencies and risks – immediate and long term,
  • Health and welfare – local health information and group specific health information,
  • Education – the quality of local schools and choices available to parents,
  • Transportation – available alternatives, costs, and schedules,
  • Economic opportunities – job information, job training, and small business assistance,
  • The environment – air and water quality and access to recreation,
  • Civic information – the availability of civic institutions and opportunities to associate with others,
  • Political – information about candidates at all relevant levels of local governance, and relevant public policy initiatives affecting communities and neighborhoods.

In addition, the FCC identified two broad areas of critical information needs associated with each of these categories: 1) Those fundamental to individuals in everyday life, and 2) Those that affect larger groups and communities.

But this is all pretty boring stuff. If the FCC was interested in conducting a study on which topics and which stories were most likely to put TV viewers and radio listeners to sleep, it’s pretty clear they were really onto something. There have always been much more interesting stories to report.

Although everyone but the fascist thugs of the Obama administration and the brain-dead rank-and-file of the Democratic Party were immediately horrified at what the FCC proposed, for the first time in history conservatives and the lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union threw their arms around each other. The thought of someone marching into the newsrooms of television and radio stations and demanding to know how they conducted their business was roundly denounced by conservatives and honest liberals alike.

Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, cautioned: “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

Without doubt, Sekulow had the Obama administration in mind when he cautioned us against “repressive regimes?”

Commentary magazine equated the proposed FCC study to the dangers of, say, a federal shield law. The principal danger of a shield law is that, in order to legislate protections for a specific group… i.e. the “press”… it is first necessary to define that group. Therefore, the government would be placed in the position of deciding who is a journalist and who is not. As Commentary suggests, “The government could easily play favorites and have yet another accreditation – not unlike an FCC license – to hold over the heads of the press.” Given the Obama administration’s unprecedented use of the IRS to thwart its political opponents, is there any doubt that a shield law in their hands would be a very dangerous thing?

Commentary concluded that it is such rules that the FCC’s CIN calls to mind. It opens the door to increased government scrutiny of the press, with an implicit threat to a broadcaster’s license. It does so under the guise of “public service,” “quality control,” “fairness,” and other terms that usually hint the government is up to no good. Left unchallenged, the CIN would support the premise that “news judgment is the FCC’s business.”

The FCC quickly issued a statement saying that Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler was in agreement that “survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required.” An FCC spokesman added that “any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false.” 

However, what is most noticeable about all of the moral indignation directed at the FCC’s CIN program, whether from the left or from the right, is that it is all premised on the notion that we actually have a free press in the United States when, in fact, we do not. Few conservatives, the most “under-served population” of all, would deny that because of many decades of leftish propagandizing by the mainstream media, any opportunity to get inside the newsrooms at the major networks to expose them for the charlatans they are would be far too tempting to ignore.

For example, in 2004, CBS newsman Dan Rather created a national stir when he charged that George W. Bush had been AWOL during a part of his service in the Texas Air National Guard. Unfortunately for Rather, the documents used to support his charge turned out to be forgeries. The documents, which Rather claimed were memos from one of Bush’s senior officers, contained superscript characters which

were not available on typewriters at the time. In truth, the documents that Rather hoped would ruin Bush’s reelection chances were created on a modern computer using Microsoft Word software, and artificially aged to make them appear authentic.

Nevertheless, the networks and major print media devoted hundreds of hours of airtime and countless lines of newsprint to the bogus story. It would have been interesting to learn how the networks decided to spend that much time and effort on the phony Bush AWOL story.

Conversely, just three years later, when it became evident that Sen. Barack Obama would be a viable Democratic candidate for the presidency, legal scholars complained that, because Obama failed to meet the basic requirements to be a “natural born Citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, he would be ineligible to serve. And although there was ample evidence to support the charge, the mainstream media all but ignored the story.

And when the Maricopa County, Arizona, Cold Case Posse, under the direction of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, provided irrefutable proof that the long form birth certificate uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011, was a poorly crafted forgery, that his draft registration card was a forged document, and that his Social Security number was stolen and would not pass a simple Social Security Administration E-verify test, the left-leaning newsmen of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC looked the other way. They simply ignored the story.

It would be interesting to have editors, producers, and reporters at our major networks explain why a few days absence by George W. Bush from his Air National Guard duty station should be a major national news story, while the constitutional ineligibility and the forged documentation of the country’s first black president deserved nothing more than to be swept under the rug.

These are not isolated incidents; they happen every day of the week, on every conceivable kind of issue, foreign and domestic. The only constant is the fact that the reporting is almost always slanted in favor of liberal/socialist orthodoxy and against traditional conservative views.

Given that so much of the Obama administration invites favorable comparison to Hitler’s Third Reich, it was only to be expected that the FCC’s CIN study would quickly attract comparisons. Marilyn Assenheim, writing for the Patriot Update, suggests that, “What (Obama) is establishing is a redo of historical absolutism. The German National Socialist government could not have aspired to better.”

Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, reminds us that “Arbitrary power is ugly and vicious, regardless of what pious rhetoric goes with it. Freedom is not free. You have to fight for it or lose it.” “But,” he asks, “is our generation up to fighting for it?”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming has said: “I think Obama is learning. By the end of his presidency he’ll have gone from less than useless to achieving parity with uselessness… In America, we love rooting for the underdogs, so maybe a gigantic decline in our nation is just what we need to believe in ourselves again.”

Perhaps a close brush with fascist dictatorship will be enough to wake us all up to the realities of the terrible dangers that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi represent.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is of Press Freedom Monument, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines by Mark Gio Amoguis. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. The use of this image does not imply in anyway endorsement of the author or contents of this column.

RELATED COLUMN: Liberal Blogger & Journalist Shows How Most News Is Controlled For Political Purposes

U.S. drops to 46th in Press Freedom

It’s worse than that, too. Reporters Without Borders didn’t take into account the mainstream media’s voluntary self-censorship and refusal to report on the truth about Islam and jihad, its demonization and smearing of foes of jihad terror, and its cowardly capitulation to Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery, adopting what are essentially Sharia blasphemy laws for fear of offending Muslims or provoking a riot.

allen drury book coverIf the freedom of speech is ever fully extinguished in the United States, as it could be far more easily than most people think, the responsibility will lie to a tremendous degree with those who should have been its foremost guardians: the mainstream media.

Allen Drury’s bleak and dystopian 1973 Cold War novel Come Nineveh, Come Tyre envisioned a weak, wishful thinking-driven, fondly Leftist U.S. President, Ted Jason, as given to fantasy-based policymaking as the present incumbent, presiding over the bloodless surrender of the United States to the Soviet Union. The media adores President Jason, cheerleads for him energetically, defames and denigrates his foes relentlessly, and does everything it can to make him look good, right up until the point when a few of them realize that the freedom of speech is gone, and they have outlived their usefulness.

In one scene, the nation’s top TV news anchors, columnists, and newspaper publishers, having turned against the President and his program far too late, are arrested wholesale and committed to St. Elizabeth’s insane asylum in southwest Washington, “on complaint,” scream the headlines, “of Domestic Tranquility Board and Justice Department Special Branch.” The group of once-powerful media giants is herded past the asylum’s gate:

As it passed out of sight and the heavy gate began to close, one last anguished cry, so desperate and filled with pain that it would have moved the observer, had observer there been, came from the lips of [famed columnist] Walter Dobius.

“We did it!” he cried. “We did it! We d–”

But who he meant by “we,” and what it was that he thought “we” had done, was never to be divulged, for at that point he was summarily, and no doubt roughly, choked off. The gates clanged shut and no further sound escaped the walls of St. Elizabeth’s.

When the freedom of speech is finally gone in the United States, will Christiane Amanpour, or Bob Smietana, or Niraj Warikoo, or Kari Huus, or Alex Kane, or Max Blumenthal, or Michael Kruse, or Anne Barnard, or Scott Shane, or Mark Hicks, or any other of the nakedly biased “journalists” who have in recent years sided with Islamic supremacist enemies of free speech and abetted their defamation of foes of jihad terror and defenders of free speech, be lamenting, “We did it!” as the gate clangs shut on them? Or will they be eagerly jockeying for power among the new authoritarian elites? More likely the latter.

“Report: US Drops to 46th in Press Freedom,” by Taheshah Moise for Breitbart, February 12 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

According to Reporters Without Borders, America dropped 13 spots on the World Press Freedom Index 2014, designed to rank 180 countries in terms of the freedoms journalists enjoy and the regulations placed on them by government authorities.

The Index, published Feb. 11, shows that America now ranks number 46, below countries like South Africa and France. The Index has been published annually since 2002, but the 2014 ranking for America marks one of the most significant declines ever reported.

According to Christophe Deloire, the Reporters Without Borders Secretary General, the World Freedom Index is based on seven criteria: the level of abuses, the extent of pluralism, media independence, the environment and self-censorship, the legislative framework, transparency and infrastructure.

Investigative journalist James Risen believes the Index rightly shows the drop in American journalists’ freedoms due to crackdowns on reporters and whistleblowers and the efforts of the Obama administration and the National Security Agency to limit the amount of information America has concerning the “War on Terror” and other subjects.

“I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States modern history,” James Risen said.

Risen, who has reported for the New York Times since 1998, said he has personally felt some of the backlash of the guarded Obama administration and has seen some of his colleagues suffer repercussions as well.

Rather than pursue journalists, the Obama administration has focused on their sources—the two most scrutinized whistleblowers being Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

“We have an administration that came in claiming that it was going to be the most transparent in history when in fact it is one of the most secretive in history, and certainly the most aggressive anti-press administration in modern American history,” Risen said….

EDITORS NOTE: The map featured in this column is courtesy of Reporters Without Borders.

RELATED COLUMN: Communism, Socialism, and Christianity: One of These Does Not Belong

AGENDA 21 REVEALED: ICLEI, Comprehensive Planning, Smart Growth, Green, Regionalism

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The “21” in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st Century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/JuoPqxAfnd8[/youtube]

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[15] In January 2011, Commissioner Richard Rothschild of Carroll County, Maryland became the first elected official in the United States to successfully remove a U.S. jurisdiction from the ICLEI and Agenda 21.[16][unreliable source?] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.”

Those who follow Glenn Beck might be aware that Tuesday marks the release of his latest book, “Agenda 21,” the suspenseful and perhaps sobering tale of a futuristic America in which a UN-led program spawned an authoritarian state where individuals are stripped of all personal rights and freedoms.

Oddly, Beck’s novel is not simply a work of fiction, but based on an actual program created by the United Nations by the very same name — “Agenda 21″ — which, according to the UN’s own website, is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups, in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” “agenda 21” conspiracy “glenn beck” research un “united nations” fact plan agenda depopulation earth green Sustainability freedom liberty environment environmental “new world order” international global fema drill u.s. “united states” usa america europe illuminati elite mafia planning world earth media 2013 2014 future banking bank society finance wealth “third world” fear invasion action corporate guilty education “middle class” developer dollar usd suburbs forces camp camping prepare food storage 829speedy bush constitution independence one world government homeland security civil unrest emergency military base alex jones glenn beck blaze infowars gerald celente farrakhan lindsey williams david icke

In so many words, the United Nations seeks to co-opt, via individual governments, and eventually, a “one-world government,” privately held land under the auspices of ensuring its “sustainability.” Worse still, the UN’s Agenda 21 has even laid out plans for “depopulation” or rather, “population control.” If it sounds like something out of George Orwell’s 1984, that is because Agenda 21′s tenets are eerily in line with the demented alternate reality Orwell himself had imagined while scribing the pages of his famed novel.

“Sustainable development” is the catch-phrase Beck urged his Monday evening viewers to be leery of.

Where one can live and what land should be designated for would, under fully-realized Agenda 21 plan, be controlled by the United Nations and a future one-world government. Consider the following section from the UN website on Agenda 21′s plan for “promoting sustainable human settlement development.” Emphasis added: The overall human settlement objective is to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rural poor. Such improvement should be based on technical cooperation activities, partnerships among the public, private and community sectors and participation in the decision-making process by community groups and special interest groups such as women, indigenous people, the elderly and the disabled. These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies. In developing these strategies, countries will need to set priorities among the eight programme areas in this chapter in accordance with their national plans and objectives, taking fully into account their social and cultural capabilities. Furthermore, countries should make appropriate provision to monitor the impact of their strategies on marginalized and disenfranchised groups, with particular reference to the needs of women.

Reporters Hit a White House Stone Wall

Obama’s promise to lead an open and transparent administration has become an “albatross” according to a Dec 24, 2013 Politico.com analysis by Josh Gerstein. As Obama’s fifth year in office wraps up, much of the Washington and nation’s press corps is very unhappy.

With the exception of those who depend on Fox, ABC radio, the Wall Street Journal, and other conservative outlets, too many of the consumers of news are blissfully unaware of the liberal, rubber stamp product they are receiving. It is the complete betrayal of those whom the press is supposed to serve.

They did not report the truth about Obamacare. They have not reported the truth about Obama’s failed foreign affairs policies, including the attack on Benghazi. They have largely ignored other scandals. Obama’s new economic “inequality” lies are right out of the Communist Manifesto. The result, however, was his reelection in 2012 and millions of cancelled health plans.

All administrations have sought to control the information—the message—that reaches the public, but the Obama administration has gone to greater lengths than previous ones. In particular, its public affairs offices (PAOs) have become obstacles to press access.

Writing in the Dec 17th edition of Editor & Publisher, the newspaper trade magazine, Jim Dickinson said, “Over two hours at the National Press Club a few months ago, the truth finally hit me. Journalism has done it to itself, the ‘it’ being the surrender of our First Amendment-protected responsibility to tell the people what their government is really, actually doing—as opposed to what the government tells us it wants the people to know.”

The panel to which Dickerson was referring was entitled “Government Public Affairs Offices: More Hindrance Than Help?” He wrote that “Public affairs offices increasingly require that reporters conduct all interviews through the press office. U.S. Departments and agencies often mandate that their employees only talk to reporters through official channels and with communications staff present.”

Not only do government employees know that this means their job can be on the line, but as I noted in October, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act signed into law in November 2012 in reality puts whistleblowers at risk of going to jail.

Reporters find that the leaks from whistleblowers and routine information from government employees are drying up. Ironically, the actions of former NSA employee Edward Snowden and U.S. Army corporal Bradley Manning exposed more information than the administration wanted anyone to know. Manning went to jail and Snowden has found asylum in Russia. Both said they acted in the public interest; a public being told that the NSA’s acquisition of data on every phone call is being done to protect them.

The problem is manifest in efforts under the Freedom of Information Act to secure feedback from government agencies. Politico’s Gerstein pointed out the availability of government records under FOIA often results in requests routinely lingering for years “and often end up producing a ream of blacked-out text.” News is expected to be timely and delaying access to public records negates that.

What has been and is reported these days are the lies for which the Obama administration has become famous.

The administration has called the scandals of the first term “phony” and a recent Sixty Minutes interview with Susan Rice, now the national security advisor to Obama, dismissed the Benghazi cover-up as “false.” It was Rice who went on five Sunday news shows to spread the lies about the attack—on the anniversary of 9/11—having been caused by a video no one had ever seen. That earned her a promotion!

The daily White House press briefing has become increasingly heated and, when the President gave a press conference before leaving on a Christmas vacation, he was asked if 2013 had been the worst year to date for him. He obliquely acknowledged what everyone knows, but denied he pays any attention to polls, something every President of the modern era has always done.

The mainstream press has learned that, in return for having published the White House “party line” throughout its first term, that it would tap their phones and accuse a Fox News reporter of being an “accomplice” for releasing information it wanted to keep secret.

Its use of public information offices to thwart or control what news is released, its increased use of “official” White House photos, its widespread failure to respond to Freedom of Information requests, and its use of social media and organizations allied with the White House to advertise and spread its message all add up to a highly manipulative effort to influence the public.

The good news is that the Internet has become a major source of news and analysis available to everyone. As traditional print newspapers suffer decline due to the loss of advertising revenue and the younger generation’s preference for electronic access to the news, the scope of news has expanded to sources beyond government control.

A secretive and deceptive Obama administration is suffering from an abundance and availability of the TRUTH. Too bad that too many journalists have not been active contributors.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Exposed: Florida’s “shadow government” – unelected boards and committees

When Floridians go to the voting booth they elect representatives who are expected to make decisions on their behalf.

However, over time the decision making in Florida has been relegated to unelected boards and committees. These boards have grown in number, in membership and are becoming more costly to maintain. Boards and committees have become more powerful, touching every aspect of life in the state. Some have found that board findings/recommendations are rubber stamped by elected officials.

Jackie Schutz, from the office of Governor Rick Scott, told WDW – FL that he and his predecessors, appoint approximately 3,000 members to 750 boards or committees. The exact number of boards/committees and actual count of members is not known by the Governor’s office. The cost to operate these boards is also unknown, as they are funded by various government agencies and bureaus.

Schultz states, “Most appointing authorities are given in each individual statute, such as 471.007 for Board of Professional Engineers.” WDW – FL tried repeatedly to get an accounting of the exact numbers and costs. The information if provided will be included as an update to this column.

A list of some of the boards and committees may be found here. Some of these boards include: Board of Athlete AgentsBarbers’ Board, Board of Cosmetology, Board of Employee Leasing CompaniesPublic Employees Relations Commission and the Talent Agencies Licensing Board.

Tad Mackie, from Sarasota, FL worries that, “Many of these state level boards are really NGOs and represent special interest groups who are essentially lobbyists appointed by our governor and legislature.”

These boards and committees exist at every level of government. Cities, counties and school boards all have committees and in some cases sub-committees and boards.

Seminole County, FL lists 15 advisory boards. Pinellas County lists 13 advisory boards with 102 members. Lake County has 19 advisory boards. St. Johns County has 20 advisory boards. Using  an average of 15 county level advisory boards for Florida’s 67 counties the total number of boards/committees is approximately 1005. Using an average of 5 members per board that equates to approximately 5,025 board members.

The city of Sarasota, FL lists 22 boards including: The Employee Retirement Account Committee (5 members), Nuisance Abatement Board (7 members), Public Art Committee (6 members) and the powerful Planning Board (5 members). Each board requires staff support, creates rules and requires citizens to appear before them before appearing at a City Commission meeting. In some cases a committee will expend allocated funds and report directly to the City Commission.

The Sarasota City Administrator is required to do an annual report on the purpose, membership  and cost of each board. The 2012 annual report on boards and committees shows the city in FY 2011/2012 spent approximately $1.1 million supporting its 22 boards/committees (includes salaries, legal fees and operating costs).

Florida has 283 cities, 108 towns and 19 villages. If we use an average cost of $800,000 per municipality the total cost to taxpayers is approximately $32.8 million. Using an average of 15 boards/committees at the municipality level we have about 6,105 boards/committees.

If you add it up the number of boards/committees at the city, county and state levels it amounts to 7,860. Using five members on each board that is about 39,300 appointees. This figure does not include the number of staff needed to support them.

Some fear that these unelected boards and committee have become a “shadow government” in Florida.

NOTE: WDW – FL did not look at Florida’s 67 public school districts, 5 water management districts or other special taxing authorities like those in Pinellas County for the purpose of this column.

Benefit Corporations: The new government-industrial complex

President Eisenhower warned America about a growing military-industrial complex stating, “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Whenever and wherever government and industry partner Americans face “the acquisition of unwarranted influence”.

Most recently we saw how appointed officials working in partnership with a corporation can directly impact every Floridian. Robert Trigaux, Tampa Bay Times Business Columnist, in “At the PSC, a confederacy of yes men — and women” wrote:

The first thing we do is pass a truth-in-government law that changes the name of the Florida Public Service Commission [PSC] to the Florida Utility Suckup Club.

The PSC hearing held in Tallahassee this past week was beyond embarrassing. It was billed as a review and vote on a proposed settlement with Duke Energy Florida to finalize who gets stuck paying for the $5 billion wasted by the company on the broken Crystal River and the proposed-then-canceled Levy County nuclear power plants.

The vote: 4 to 1 in favor of the settlement agreement. Duke Energy’s Florida customers — victims would be a better word — will pay a whopping 64 percent, or $3.2 billion. Duke shareholders will pay just 20 percent, or $1 billion. The rest will be covered by an insurance policy.

This is a terrible precedent.

Trigaux and Floridians should be prepared for ever more “terrible” precedents.

Since Eisenhower’s speech in 1961 Florida has seen a government industrial complex with growing influence — economic, political, even spiritual — felt in every city, county and in Tallahassee. This greatest threat to one-man-one-vote and local control of government goes by many names: globalization, regionalism, sustainability and a new form of corporation called simply “B” Corp or “Benefit Corporation”.

According to the BenefitCorp.net website, “Certified B Corporations are leading a global movement to redefine success in business…Business, the most powerful man-made force on the planet, must create value for society, not just shareholders…Over 600 businesses have already joined our community, encouraging all companies to compete not just to be the best in the world, but to be the best for the world. As a result of our collective success, individuals and communities will enjoy greater economic opportunity, society will address its most challenging environmental problems, and more people will find fulfillment by bringing their whole selves to work.”

Esquire magazine is quoted on the B Corp website, “B Corps might turn out to be like civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women – eccentric, unpopular ideas that took hold and changed the world.” B Corps want to fundamentally change American business.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have passed Benefit Corporation legislation. There is a move to pass Benefit Corporation legislation in Florida. The model Benefit Corporation legislations states, “This chapter authorizes the organization of a form of business corporation that offers entrepreneurs and investors the option to build, and invest in, businesses that operate with a corporate purpose broader than maximizing shareholder value and a responsibility to consider the impact of its decisions on all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Enforcement of those duties comes not from governmental oversight, but rather from new provisions on transparency and accountability included in this chapter.”

This fundamental change has been embraced by the Florida Chamber of Commerce in the form or regionalization. In July 2012, Dale A. Brill, Ph.D., wrote on the Florida Chamber website, “Let’s get the bad news out of the way: Too many participants in the private and public economic development arena are missing the considerable opportunity represented by regionalism when they insist on going it alone—even when there is insufficient economic density to make a real difference despite the best of intentions.”

Brill notes, “Let’s start with three straight-forward explanations of regionalism that you already know to be true but may not recognize as one in the same: ‘There is strength in numbers.’ ‘The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.’ ‘I get by with a little help from my friends.’ … Regionalism’s genesis can be traced to the increasing role played by coordinated investments as catalysts for economic development.”

Brill uses Harvard professor Michael Porter’s definition of economic regions, “Economic regionalism exists where geographically contiguous regions coordinate economic development activities tied to a comprehensive economic development strategy.  Economic regionalism focuses on the collaboration of organizations, governments, and businesses across multiple jurisdictions. These stakeholders work to manage the economic opportunities and constraints created by the geographic and social characteristics of a region.”

Regionalism, sustainability and “B” Corps are part of the idea of globalization. Everything feeds into a system that move power – economic, political, even spiritual – away from the city and county into regions that can have grave consequences that Florida is just experiencing with Duke Power – Florida.

Milton Friedman wrote, “Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.” What we are seeing is the government and businesses working in concert to protect each other at the expense of consumers. The Duke Power – Florida is a case in point.

As Trigaux wrote, “There are a few voices expressing opposition. But they are faint and few…I fear for Florida.”

EDITORS NOTE:

Florida League of Cities in addition to individual municipalities, leagues and organizations of local community authorities have also endorsed the Earth Charter. ICLEI – The Local Governments for Sustainability endorsed the Earth Charter – Sustainable Development in the year 2000. The Florida League of Cities, which is a voluntary municipal league comprised of 404 of Florida’s 408 municipalities and six charter counties, endorsed the Earth Charter in 2001. In the same year, the Earth Charter was also endorsed by the US Conference of Mayors, the official nonpartisan organization of the nation’s 1,183 cities with populations over 30,000.

The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) serves as the national voice for regionalism. NARC advocates for and provides services to its member councils of government and metropolitan planning organizations.

RELATED: 

What is a corporation?

Benefit Corporations: The Demise of Free Enterprise

VIDEO: Florida Chamber of Commerce – The Importance of Regionalism to Florida’s Future

Regionalism and Fair Housing Enforcement

Walter Tejada Elected to National Association of Regional Councils to promote Regionalism

Community Progress Blog – The BUILD Act of 2013: How EPA brownfield funds can create more sustainable communities by Kate O’Brien, Groundwork USA

Exclusive Interview with Candidate Richard DeNapoli (FL-Dist. 74)

WDW sat down with Richard DeNapoli, candidate for FL-District 74. As the 2014 election cycle heats up it is important for voters to know the candidates. WDW will continue to interview candidates and elected officials to educate voters.

DeNapoli served as a prosecutor in Orange County, Florida for a short time after law school, prosecuting third degree felonies, before returning to South Florida to care for his grandmother when his grandfather passed away in June 2003.

In addition to being a Licensed Attorney, Realtor, Mortgage Broker and Notary, DeNapoli is also a Certified Financial Planner. He worked as a Trust and Investment Officer for five years at Northern Trust on a team with $1.8 Billion assets under management providing services to high net worth individuals. Prior to joining Northern Trust, DeNapoli had a successful law practice.

What sets DeNapoli apart is his work in Broward County, FL to insure voters rights are protected.

In November 2011 DeNapoli sent an open letter to Dr. Brenda C. Snipes, the Supervisor of Elections in Broward County, about early voting locations. DeNapoli, the then Chair of the Broward Republican Executive Committee (BREC), found that all of the Broward County early voting locations were in heavily Democratic areas. DeNapoli in his letter noted, “Research in numerous scholarly journals has shown that the greater the distance from a voting site, the greater exists the likelihood of non voting. The incidence of early voting is highly sensitive to the location of the early voting location.” Due to his efforts one of seventeen early voting locations was placed in a heavily Republican location.

But DeNapoli was not finished.

In May 2012 DeNapoli and BREC officials, “[C]onducted a search of the Social Security Death Index (“SSDI”) for Broward County for the 2011 calendar year as obtained through www.GeneaologyBank.com.  The search was conducted from May 13-19, 2012.  The results revealed that 9,960 Broward County residents had passed away during the 2011 calendar year.  BREC officials then checked 2,100 of these names without regard to party registration against the Broward SOE’s website: 481 deceased individuals cross referenced by name, birth date, city or zip code were still listed as “active” voters according to the Broward SOE. This is 23 percent of the deceased persons examined.” The featured photo above is of DeNapoli holding the stack of dead voter registrations in Broward. Photo courtesy of the BREC.

It is always interesting and notable to see any political party or politician scrub the voter roles of dead people – Republicans and Democrats alike.

Danita Kilcullen, TEA Party Fort Lauderdale, sent this comment to WDW – FL, “Richard DeNapoli was a fantastic Chairman of the Broward Republican Executive Committee.  He brought tens and tens of new memberships and put his own money where his mouth is. Especially memorable was the evening when CAIR’s South Florida Leader, Nasar Hamze, after months of heckling and creating chaos at Allen West’s Town Hall meetings, decided he would join BREC.  What Richard did to prevent this was maverick and read much like a Perry Mason courtroom drama.  When he tells you he’ll fight for you, that is exactly what he does.”

To learn more about Richard DeNapoli click here.

EDITORS NOTE: WDW will be keeping an eye on those running for public office in Florida. Stay tuned.

Anti-semitism in America: 2004-2011

As the Million Muslim March is scheduled for 9/11/2013, the Center for Security Policy has released a comprehensive study titled, “Anti-Semitism and Other Bias Crimes in America: 2004-2011 Comparisons.” The premise of the march is that Muslims are being discriminated against. That is addressed in this study, with the FBI data on hate crimes painting a much different picture.

The Center created an online database, with over 17,365 reports for localities showing hate crimes from 2004-2011, as well as 44 reports for US nationwide reports and 5 comprehensive nationwide reports for each broad category of victim groups (bias groups), also from 2004-2011. Read the full report here.

The CSP website states, “In its March 2011 Occasional Paper entitled, “Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims – Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization,” the Center for Security Policy (CSP) used official annual data published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to debunk the common fallacy spread by “Islamophobia” proponents that Muslims have been the target of an increasing wave of “hate crimes” in the years following the attacks of 11 September 2001. In fact, as the FBI data show, the number of religious bias crimes (or “hate crimes”) against Muslims post-9/11 is actually significantly lower than such crimes against Jews.”

From 2000 through 2009, the Center found that, according to the FBI statistics, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by about six to one.

Subsequent FBI statistics for 2010 and 2011 show a ratio of Jewish to Muslim victims of about five to one. The study’s presentation of hard data on such “religious bias crimes” (only reinforced by the additional data from the two more recent years) exposed the political agenda of certain highly vocal Muslim lobbying groups, many linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and leftwing activists, which persist in promoting the false narrative of America’s alleged “Islamophobia.” In fact, there is no “rising trend” in hate crimes against Muslim Americans and allegations to the contrary are demonstrably counterfactual as well as “corrosive to community relationships at every level of American society, and a potential threat to national security,” as Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney pointed out. 

With that 2011 study as a baseline, the Center for Security Policy expanded the earlier analysis for a second phase of analysis.

Methodology

This second phase of the study has two components:

First, the Center created an online database, with over 17,365 reports for localities showing hate crimes from 2004-2011, as well as 44 reports for US nationwide reports and 5 comprehensive nationwide reports for each broad category of victim groups (bias groups), also from 2004-2011.  The Center has put this database into the public domain in order to provide longitudinal data showing trends to all groups representing historical or potential victim categories, as well as to all localities from the federal to state to city or even university reporting agency level.  Only when the public can see the actual data – and trends – in hate crimes for a significant period of time, in this case from 2004-2011, can they assess the seriousness of the problem and the context to develop policies, if needed, to address it.   The categories of reports in the online database include:

  • 44 Comprehensive Reports: US nationwide data from 2004 – 2011 for incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders;
  • 5 Comprehensive Reports: US nationwide data for individual bias victim groups, across all types of offenses, from 2004-2011;
  • 17,365 Summary Reports: Locality information for all states, cities, universities, county law enforcement agencies, tribal law enforcement agencies and other entities such as railroads that report hate crimes using the Uniform Crime Reporting protocol to the FBI, from 2004-2011, compared in each local report two other tables: the state’s total for bias categories and agency types.  These localities’ data are provided by the FBI at a summary level (religion, race), not at the detailed level of bias crimes against specific religions (anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic) or specific races (anti-Black, anti-White).

The second component of this analysis is provided in this report, with a selection of graphs showing the findings presented in the online database.  All comparisons were based on the data provided by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data for hate crimes from 2004-2011.

Read more.

Warning: That Jacksonville or Tampa city employee you deal with may be a criminal

In 2008, the Jacksonville City Council adopted an ordinance reforming both its hiring procedures and its contractor bidding policies. In July 2009, the City’s Human Resources Department released the revised standard. In 2010 Jacksonville revised its screening summary for city employees and contractors.

The directive states that department heads will “not inquire about or consider criminal background check information in making a hiring decision.” Instead, “criminal information disclosure is required as part of the post-offer new hire process.”

The application instructions even encourage people with a criminal record to apply for city jobs.

The criminal background check screening is centralized in the City of Jacksonville Human Resources Department. Moreover, the screening process requires taking into account the specific duties of the job, the age of the offense, and rehabilitation. Denied applicants may appeal to Human Resources. Contractors are required to tally job opportunities for people with criminal records and report back to the City.

On January 14, 2013 Bob Buckhorn, the Mayor of Tampa, signed the ban the box ordinance approved by the City Council which covers city employees. Advocates in Tampa continue to work on expanding the ordinance to include city contractors. The Tampa Ordinance 2013-3 may be viewed by clicking here. The Tampa ban the box program is administered by Sharon Streater HOPE lead organizer, from the Direct Action & Research Training Center.

This effort is part of the Ban the Box project and National Employment Law Project. The ordinance only applies to the City Jacksonville employees. As of April 2013 there are fifty cities in twenty-one states that have implemented some form of Ban the Box ordinances. California, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut and Massachusetts have statewide Ban the Box legislation.

For a larger view click on the map.

According to its website, “Ban the Box is a nationwide effort to remove criminal history inquiry; i.e. ‘the box’ from employer job applications. All employers have the right to know an applicant’s conviction history but the inquiry should be deferred until later in the interview process and not utilized as an automatic bar to employment at the application stage.” [Emphasis mine]

WDW – FL contacted both the City of Tampa and Jacksonville to determine how many people with criminal records have been hired as city employees and in the case of Jacksonville by contractors. According to Sharon Streater who administers the program for Tampa she has no data as the program is new. However, Streater did state that the disclaimer in the city announcements for job openings saying those with criminal records need not apply has been deleted.

The City of Jacksonville Civil Service and Personnel Rules and Regulations (revised in 2010) states:

The following are examples of extraordinary situations in which an employee may be immediately suspended without pay:

1. Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the job.
2. Use of alcohol or illegal drugs on the job or during the employee’s work day, to include breaks and lunch period.
3. Commission of an act which constitutes a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude under the criminal laws of the State of Florida or Federal Government. [Emphasis added]

The question: Are those Jacksonville public employees and contractors with criminal records given access to sensitive citizen information?

As Milton Friedman wrote, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

Tipping the public sector job market to favor convicted criminals is problematic at the least and dangerous at the worst.

But, voters, like in the case of Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, re-elect criminals from time to time but that is another story. BTW Washington, D.C. passed a ban the box ordinance in 2010.

EDITORS NOTE: WDW – FL contacted the City of Jacksonville and is awaiting a reply on how many city employees and contract employees have been hired since 2008 who have a criminal background. When that information is made available this column will be updated.

Florida leads the way in the use of cost-benefit analysis to support policymaking

Pew Charitable Trusts in partnership with the MacArthur Foundation issued the States’ Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis: Improving Taxpayers Results (Results First) study in July.

The Results First study overview states, “In this age of fiscal stress for state governments, it is more important than ever that policy leaders direct public resources to the most cost-effective programs and policies while curbing spending on those programs that have proved ineffective. But to do this well, policy makers need reliable approaches that can help them assess budget choices and identify the best investments for taxpayers.”

Given the dire fiscal situation in Detroit and looming Congressional battles over the budget, a continuing resolution to fund the federal government and raising the debt ceiling votes, Results First study is a document all elected officials should read and reflect upon.

Results First’s research answers three critical questions: Are states conducting cost-benefit analyses? Do they use the results when making policy and budget decisions? And what challenges do states face in conducting and using these studies?

The analysis includes a systematic search and assessment of state cost benefit studies released between January 2008 and December 2011.

The top states [in alphabetical order]—Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin—each generally released more studies than mixed or trailing states, systematically assessed the costs and benefits of multiple program alternatives, and used results to inform policy or budget decisions. Two of these states, New York and Washington, were leaders on all three criteria.

Results First found:

  • Ten states led the way nationally in the production, scope, and use of cost-benefit analysis to support data-driven policymaking. These states were among the leaders in at least two of the three study criteria and trailed in none.
  • 11 states—California, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, and Washington—led the way in the production of cost-benefit analyses, releasing at least 11 studies each, or an average of three or more per year.

Results First highlighted as an example of effective cost-benefit analysis that, “In 2003, the Florida Legislature directed its Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to assess whether it would be cost-effective to create an alternative therapy-based program to serve nonviolent juvenile offenders in the community rather than in residential commitment facilities. The office’s report concluded that, based on national research on similar programs, implementing two pilots of a program called Redirection would save the state an estimated $1.7 million in the first year of operation.”

Results First notes that between 2008-2011, 50 states and the District of Columbia issued 348 cost-benefit studies, but their output varied widely. Florida issued 11 cost-benefit studies.

Barry Goldwater

Former US Senator and Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater wrote in The Conscience of a Conservative (1960):

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.

I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom.

My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.

And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Prophetic words indeed.

Two Florida families affected by Congressional probe of “Extortion 17”

Before there was Benghazi there was Extortion 17. Extortion 17 was the fatal mission launched on August 6, 2011 killing 17 Navy SEALS, 5 SEAL support personnel, 5 Army National Guard/Army Reserve helicopter pilots/crew and three Air Force special operations command members. Their deaths are the greatest single loss of life ever suffered by the U.S. Special Operations community in the 24-year history of the U.S. Special Operations Command.

The second anniversary of Extortion 17 is August 6, 2013.

Floridians Billy and Karen Vaughn and Scott Bill both lost their sons on Extortion 17. The Vaughns have become the face of Extortion 17 and have sought to learn the truth about what happened to their son Aaron. For their efforts the Vaughns have been put upon by several active duty Navy officers and some in the the SEAL community.

Like Benghazi, the official retort  is “nothing to see here, move on”. The Vaughns and other families are not moving on.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)

According to The Hill, “Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on National Security, told The Hill, “We’re going to dive into this.” Chaffetz said he met with the victims’ families about a month ago in what he described as an “emotional” gathering. He is poised to send questions to the Pentagon and may hold hearings on the matter.

 Jeffrey T. Kuhner from The Washington Times asks, “Did the Obama administration put a target on the backs of members of Navy SEAL Team 6? This is the question that parents of slain SEALs are now asking — and rightly so. Forget Benghazi, the IRS, Eric H. Holder Jr. and the National Security Agency spying on U.S. citizens. Important as these scandals are, what happened to SEAL Team 6 could very well dwarf them. Our government betrayed America’s finest warriors.”

“Navy SEAL Team 6 became a household name for their role in killing Osama bin Laden. On May 1, 2011, the country rightly celebrated the death of bin Laden. The Obama administration, however, wanted to do more. It sought to claim full credit for the assassination, deciding to spike the football. On May 3, at an event in Washington, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did the unthinkable: He publicly revealed the identity of the special-operations unit responsible for bin Laden’s killing. His reckless action put at risk the lives of every member of SEAL Team 6. The Taliban and other jihadists eager to avenge bin Laden now knew which unit to target. Stunned and shocked, SEAL members immediately realized they were going to be hunted by al Qaeda sympathizers,” notes Kuhner.

According to documents released by the Pentagon, Taliban fighters were assembling at the Extortion 17 landing site in what appeared to be a pre-planned ambush. On August 8, 2011 the Global Post reported, “The Taliban laid an elaborate trap for U.S. special forces last week when they shot down a Chinook helicopter during a night raid in Afghanistan, killing 38 troops including 30 Americans, an Afghan official said Monday.”

World Net Daily reports, “Among their many suspicions, the families question the sudden replacement of seven Afghan commandos on board the helicopter just before take-off. The seven who died in the attack are not the seven listed in the flight manifest. The families say, to this day, none of them know who those dead Afghans were. That leads the families to wonder if the original commandos may have tipped off the Taliban as to who was on board.”

The families of Aaron C. Vaughn and Brian R. Bill will hopefully get the truth about what happened. At least two Florida families may finally get answers and find closure.

EDITORS NOTE:

Brian Bill before his death appeared in the movie “Act of Valor“. Billy Vaughn has co-authored a book “Betrayed: Exposing the High Cost of the War on Terror“, which will be release in August.

Integrity Index: Florida Fails Watchdog Test

Florida is among the majority of states that are failing miserably when it comes to enacting laws that enable regular citizens to fight corruption by attending public meetings, reviewing government documents and raising questions without fear of retribution, according to a national study released by the Better Government Association, a Chicago-based non-partisan watchdog organization.

The Integrity Index, a comprehensive report issued by the Better Government Association (BGA) and sponsored by Alper Services LLC, analyzes laws from all 50 states in four key categories: Open Meetings, Freedom of Information, Whistleblower Protection and Conflict of Interest.

Florida ranks 38th on the Integrity Index and in the bottom ten in both whistleblower protection and open meetings laws.

“The Integrity Index measures the level of commitment each state has made—or, more often, hasn’t made—to the enactment of laws that helps citizens access their government and its documents, and hold elected officials accountable, which is the framework of integrity and the first step in combating political corruption,” said Andy Shaw, President and CEO of the BGA. “Our findings show that current laws in most states are woefully inadequate, locking citizens out or forcing them to jump through unnecessary hoops as they attempt to exercise their fundamental democratic right to keep an eye on government.”

Overall Findings

In measuring ethics laws and government conduct in all 50 states, the Integrity Index determined the overall national average is an unacceptable 55 percent, with all states receiving scores categorized as mediocre or poor and not a single state cracking 70 percent. The low marks suggest the states are vastly underperforming at enacting tough transparency, accessibility and accountability laws, and much more needs to be done to inspire public trust and confidence.

The report notes that several of the states receiving high marks—particularly Rhode Island, New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana—aren’t commonly viewed as paragons of good government. Those states likely rank higher today because years of corruption and embarrassing scandals led to the adoption of stricter safeguards and more comprehensive sunshine laws. The BGA report also cautions not to assume that just because tougher laws are on the books, public officials are following them or states are enforcing them.

By contrast, many of the states with the weakest overall laws have not experienced widespread abuse and have steered clear of high-visibility scandals, so they may have not been prompted to enact stricter ethics measures and wide-sweeping reforms.

Final Integrity Index Rankings
Top 10 States Bottom 10 States
State Rank Total Score State Rank Total Score
Rhode Island 1 69.77% Montana 50 28.06%
New Jersey 2 69.18% Wyoming 49 36.46%
Illinois 3 68.49% Michigan 48 39.07%
Nebraska 4 68.14% South Dakota 47 39.82%
California 5 67.29% Idaho 46 43.46%
Louisiana 6 64.86% Alabama 45 43.93%
Texas 7 64.71% Tennessee 44 47.05%
Washington 8 62.73% Vermont 43 47.39%
Kentucky 9 62.20% South Carolina 42 47.96%
Arkansas 10 60.99% Delaware 41 49.13%

For more information about the Integrity Index and to find out where your state ranked in each category, visit www.bettergov.org.

About the Better Government Association:

The BGA works for integrity, transparency and accountability in government by exposing corruption and inefficiency; identifying and advocating effective public policy; and engaging and mobilizing the electorate to achieve authentic and responsible reform.