+menu-


  • Category Archives Above The Federal Law?
  • The Untouchables SES Senior Executives

    The Untouchables SES Senior Executives

    TRUMP AND HIS TRANSITIONAL TEAM ARE DRAINING PART OF THE WA DC.  SWAMP  OF 4000 ALLIGATORS…

    BUT, THAT NUMBER PALES TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 7000 ALLIGATORS (SES) UNTOUCHABLES,  IN  “CIVIL SERVICE”  “UNFIREABLE” AS CIVIL SERVICE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES) EMPLOYED AND  ALREADY EMBEDDED IN “CAREER POSITIONS”  IN THE WA DC SWAMP.

    SOMETHING WENT BLATANTLY AMOK IN THE US GOVERNMENT CIVIL SERVICE BETWEEN 1883-2016.

    NOW, WE HAVE  AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHO SHALL BE ACCOUNTABLE

    STEVE BANNON HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS TRUMP’S CHIEF STRATEGIST.

    STEVE SHALL FIND A STRATIGY TO REMOVE THE 7000 UNTOUCHABLES, “UNFIREABLE CIVIL SERVICE” (SES) SENIOR EXECUTIVES?

    ——————————————————————————–

    JUST ASKING  STEVE,

    AS TRUMP WOULD ASK AMERICA….

    HOW DID THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, 300 SENIOR EXECUTIVE (SES) IN THE VETERAN’S ADMINISTRATION, WORK OUT FOR OUR VETERANS?

    ————————————————————————-

    IT FELL TO A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS TO FLOG THE TRUTH OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION, AND IT TOOK MONTHS OF EFFORT:

    THE DEPARTMENT PUNISHED A TOTAL OF EIGHT OF ITS 280,000 EMPLOYEES FOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEATH OF 300,000 VETERANS.

    —————————————————————————-

    STEVE SHALL FIND A  STRATIGY TO REMOVE THE 7000 UNTOUCHABLES, “UNFIREABLE CIVIL SERVICE” (SES) SENIOR EXECUTIVES EMPLOYED AND  ALREADY EMBEDDED IN “CAREER POSITIONS”  IN THE WA DC SWAMP.

    ————————————————————————————

    HISTORY ALWAYS MATTER 1883-2016

    —————————————————————————-

    1883 THE CIVIL SERVICE MERIT SYSTEM

    APPROVED ON JANUARY 16, 1883, THE PENDLETON ACT ESTABLISHED A MERIT-BASED SYSTEM OF SELECTING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND SUPERVISING THEIR WORK. THE ACT ALSO MADE IT UNLAWFUL TO FIRE OR DEMOTE FOR POLITICAL REASONS EMPLOYEES WHO WERE COVERED BY THE LAW.

    ——————————————————————

    SOMETHING WENT BLATANTLY AMOK IN THE US GOVERNMENT CIVIL SERVICE BETWEEN 1883-2016.

    BY DEFINITION NOV 14, 2016 NOW, WE HAVE TWO GROUPS

    TWO EXCEPTIONS OF THOSE SPECIFICALLY” EXEMPTED BY LAW”

    ————————————————————————

    The United States Civil Service System can be said to be classified into two general types, the Competitive service AND THE EXCEPTED SERVICE. The Competitive service entails all of the civil service jobs and POSITIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH,

     FOR THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE SPECIFICALLY” EXEMPTED BY LAW”,

     THOSE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE,

    AND, THOSE CONSIDERED TO BE IN SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES)

     In this particular civil service system, all applicants are considered to be in competition with other applicants under the  1883  MERIT SYSTEM JANUARY 16, 1883, THE PENDLETON ACT.

    NOW, WE HAVE  AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHO SHALL BE ACCOUNTABLE

    STEVE BANNON HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS TRUMP’S CHIEF STRATEGIST.

    STEVE SHALL FIND A STRATEGY FOR  REMOVING SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES)  “SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY LAW”

    THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S GOVERNMENT AGENDA FOR THIS BEHIND OUR BACKS, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS UNTOUCHABLE, UNFIREABLE,  7000 SES SENIOR EXECUTIVES, A CORRUPT, LAYER OF POWER AND GREED IN THE VETERAN’S ADMINISTRATION OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

    WHICH IMPAIRS THE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO SUPERVISE THE EXECUTION OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE LAWS

     “Section 707 thus vests a federal employee with the final authority —

    UNREVIEWABLE BY ANY POLITICALLY ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

     to determine whether to uphold the removal of a [Department of Veterans Affairs],

    WHICH INCLUDES THE POWER TO OVERRULE THE DECISION OF A CABINET-LEVEL OFFICER,”

    she wrote. “That scheme, WHICH IMPAIRS THE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO SUPERVISE THE EXECUTION OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE LAWS, is inconsistent with the Appointments Clause.”

    INDEED, SOMETHING WENT BLATANTLY AMOK IN THE US GOVERNMENT CIVIL SERVICE BETWEEN 1883-2016.

    Trump says 300,000 veterans died waiting VA care | PolitiFact Virginia

    www.politifact.com/virginia/…/trump-says-300000veteransdies-waiting-va-care/

    Nov 9, 2015 – Donald Trump came to the U.S. Navy stronghold of Norfolk on Halloween … On the VA: “Over 300,000 veterans have died waiting for care”

    TRUMP VOWED TO PROTECT OUR AMERICAN VETERAN’S, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE AT LEAST 300  OF THESE CORRUPT UNTOUCHABLES STILL IN “CAREER POSITIONS”  IN  THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    ————————————————————-

    FACT CHECK ANYONE…

     VA IG Confirms Worst Fears: 300000 Vets Really Did Die While …

    dailycaller.com/…/va-ig-confirms-worst-fears-300000vets-really-did-die-while-waiti…

    Sep 3, 2015 – Pedestrians walk past the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, May 10, 2013.

    ———————————————————————————-

    INDEED, WE THE PEOPLE ARE DELIGHTED THAT DURING THE GOVERNMENT TRANSITION TRUMP IS DRAINING THE WA DC SWAMP AND REWARDING POLITICAL FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS WITH 4000 POSITIONS.

     TO THE VICTOR GO THE SPOILS

    In 1828, the “spoils system,”  in which political friends and supporters were rewarded with Government positions, was in full force. The term “spoils system” was derived from the phrase “to the victor go the spoils.” In the years after Jackson’s Presidency, the flaws and abuses in this system were serious. Political appointees were required to spend more and more time and money on political activities. As the Federal bureaucracy grew, Presidents were increasingly hounded by job seekers. In Jackson’s time there were approximately 20,000 Federal employees. By 1884 there were over 130,000. Additionally, with the industrialization of America, Federal jobs became more specialized and required special and specific skills.

    The Pendleton Act transformed the nature of public service. Today many well-educated and well-trained professionals have found a rewarding career in Federal service. When the Pendleton Act went into effect, only 10 percent of the Government’s 132,000 employees were covered. Today (date unknown), more than 90 percent of the 2.7 million Federal employees are covered.

    ———————————————————————–

    SOMETHING WENT BLATANTLY AMOK IN THE US GOVERNMENT CIVIL SERVICE BETWEEN 1883-2016.

    HOW DID THE U.S. GOVERNMENT END UP  WITH 7000 (SES) UNFIREABLE UNTOUCHABLES CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES CHARGED WITH LEADING THE CONTINUING TRANSFORMATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT?

    WHO ARE THEY?

    USAJOBS – Senior Executives

    https://www.usajobs.gov/SeniorExecutives/

    THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES) IS COMPRISED OF THE MEN AND WOMEN CHARGED WITH LEADING THE CONTINUING TRANSFORMATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT. THIS DEDICATED CORPS OF EXECUTIVES SHARES A COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND A SET OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES GROUNDED IN THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEALS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

     THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES), POSITIONS INCLUDE POSITIONS CLASSIFIED ABOVE GS-15 THAT INCLUDE DUTIES INVOLVING ONE OR MORE OF THE FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA (EXECUTIVE OR MANAGERIAL)

    YEP, THEY ARE  THOSE SPECIFICALLY” EXEMPTED BY LAW”, IN SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES)

    ——————————————————————————————-

    WHO HIRED  THE 7000 (SES) SENIOR EXECUTIVES THAT HAVE ALREADY BUILT A FEDERAL CORPORATE CULTURE THAT DRIVES FOR RESULTS, SERVES CUSTOMERS, AND BUILDS SUCCESSFUL TEAMS AND COALITIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION.

    ———————————————————————————–

    SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES)

    Guide to Writing Executive Core Qualifications – FAPAC

    EXECUTIVE CORE QUALIFICATIONS (ECQS) ARE THE PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES). WHILE TECHNICAL JOB-SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS ARE IMPORTANT, THE ESSENCE OF THE SES IS THE ABILITY TO LEAD.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Executive Core Qualifications – Office of Personnel Management

    https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/…executive…/executivecorequalificatio

    OPM HAS IDENTIFIED FIVE EXECUTIVE CORE QUALIFICATIONS (ECQS). The executive core qualifications define the competencies needed TO BUILD A FEDERAL CORPORATE CULTURE THAT DRIVES FOR RESULTS, SERVES CUSTOMERS, AND BUILDS SUCCESSFUL TEAMS AND COALITIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION.

    ECQ 1: Leading Change · ‎ECQ 2: Leading People · ‎ECQ 3: Results Driven

    ———————————————————————————

    FINALLY THEY MENTION “THE HIRING MANAGERS” IN THAT SCHEME, WHICH IMPAIRS THE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO SUPERVISE THE EXECUTION OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE LAWS

    Preparing Your Federal ECQ’s – Job-Hunt.org

    https://www.job-hunt.org/federal…job…/ECQs-executivecorequalifications.shtml

    Below is a list of the 5 ECQs, along with a description of WHAT HIRING MANAGERS seek in each area. ECQ 1: Leading Change. Organizations are constantly in flux. ECQ 2: Leading People. Leaders in SES positions have responsibility for a large staff. ECQ 3: Results Driven. ECQ 4: Business Acumen. ECQ 5: Building Coalitions.

    ———————————————————————

    WHO ARE THE (SES) UNTOUCHABLES?

    USAJOBS – Senior Executives

    https://www.usajobs.gov/SeniorExecutives/

    THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES) IS COMPRISED OF THE MEN AND WOMEN CHARGED WITH LEADING THE CONTINUING TRANSFORMATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT. THIS DEDICATED CORPS OF EXECUTIVES SHARES A COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND A SET OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES GROUNDED IN THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEALS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    ———————————————————————–

    WHO ARE THESE (SES) UNTOUCHABLE INDIVIDUALS?

     USAJOBS Help Center | Senior Executives

    https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/unique…/senior-executives/

    The Senior Executive Service (SES) consists of executive positions, including managerial, supervisory, and policy positions classified above General Schedule …

    ————————————————————————————–

    SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES).

    Guide to Writing Executive Core Qualifications – FAPAC

    EXECUTIVE CORE QUALIFICATIONS (ECQS) ARE THE PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES). WHILE TECHNICAL JOB-SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS ARE IMPORTANT, THE ESSENCE OF THE SES IS THE ABILITY TO LEAD.

    ———————————————————————————-

    LOOKING FOR A JOB?

    executive director – USAJOBS – The Federal Government’s Official …

    https://www.usajobs.gov/Search?keyword=%22executive%20director%22

    Jobs 1 – 20 of 20 – The Executive Director provides executive level support…of a National Cemetery. The Executive … Full Time – Senior Executive Service (SES).

    —————————————————————————————-

    WE HAVE  AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHO SHALL BE ACCOUNTABLE

    STEVE BANNON HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS TRUMP’S CHIEF STRATEGIST.

    STEVE SHALL FIND A STRATEGY FOR  REMOVING SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES)  “SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY LAW”

    —————————————————–

    UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP

    NOBODY IS GOING TO BUILD ANYTHING OUTSIDE AND EXEMPT FROM THE LAW

    NOBODY IS GOING TO BE  BUYING OR SELLING OR SERVING CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE AND EXEMPT FROM THE LAW

    NOBODY IS GOING TO BE BUILDING COALITIONS OUTSIDE AND EXEMPT FROM THE LAW

    AND NOBODY IN A GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS GOING TO BE WRITING POLICY OUTSIDE OR  EXEMPT FROM THE LAW,  OUR PRESIDENT, CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

    WITH TRUMP AS OUR PRESIDENT, NEVER AGAIN SHALL ANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RECEIVE A BONUS FOR PUTTING 300,000 AMERICAN VETERAN’S INTO FLAG DRAPED COFFINS. period


  • The Foreign Corruption of the Clinton’s

    What Does “Anything of Value” Mean?
    Defined as a violation of The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
     page 14 of a 130 page document (link Below)
     —————————————–
    The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a critically important statute for combating CORRUPTION I.E. CRIMINAL- FRAUD  around the world.
    ———————————————-
     What Does
    “Anything of Value” Mean
    to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
     To the 311 million American Citizens affected by the Clinton’s corrupt foreign practices in the Clinton’s Pay to Play Foundation
    AND, the FBI criminal investigation into the  Hillary’s emails?
    —————————————————–

    What Does “Anything of Value” Mean to the Federal Bureau of Investigation? FBI Comey, reopened Hillary’s criminal email investigation., The  justification for reopening the  investigation? The Release of 650,000  Huma, Weiner and Hillary connected emails.

    ———————————————————–

    WHAT DOES
    “EVERYTHING OF VALUE” MEAN
    TO  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  AND TO  312 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS ?
    —————————————————————-
    What Does “ANYTHING OF VALUE” and “EVERYTHING OF VALUE” Mean?
    To the Clinton Pay to Play Foundation?
    ———————————————————-
    Defined as a violation of The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
     —————————–
    In enacting the FCPA, Congress recognized that bribes
    can come in many shapes and sizes—a broad range of unfair
    benefits—and so the statute prohibits the corrupt “offer,
    payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of
    any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of
    the giving of anything of value to” a foreign official.
     ———————————-
    An improper benefit can take many forms. While
    cases often involve payments of cash(sometimes in the
    guise of “consulting fees” or “commissions” given through
    intermediaries),others have involved travel expenses and
    expensive gifts. Like the domestic bribery statute, the FCPA
    does not contain a minimum threshold amount for corrupt
    gifts or payments.
     ————————————
    In addition, a number of FCPA enforcement actions
    have involved the corrupt payment of travel and entertainment expenses. Both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) where these types of expenditures occurred in conjunction with other conduct reflecting systemic bribery or other clear indicia of corrupt intent
     ————————————
    Charitable Contributions
    Companies often engage in charitable giving as part
    of legitimate local outreach. The FCPA does not prohibit
    charitable contributions or prevent corporations from acting
    as good corporate citizens.Companies, however, cannot use the pretense of charitable contributions as a way to funnel bribes to government officials.
    ————————————————————————-
    WHAT DOES “ANYTHING OF VALUE” MEAN?
    TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) LORETTA LYNCH, EXERCISE DISCRETION IN DECIDING WHICH CASES PROMOTE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AND JUSTIFY INVESTIGATION?
    ————————————-

    WHAT DOES “ANYTHING OF VALUE” AND “EVERYTHING OF VALUE” MEAN?

    TO DOJ LORETTA LYNCH IT MEANS PROTECTING THE FOREIGN  AND INTERNAL CORRUPTION OF  SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY, THE CLINTON’S,  THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DNC. period
    ————————————————————————

    This is the 130 page resource guide to Foreign corruption I.E. criminal-fraud

    A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

    https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2015/01/16/guide.pdf

    Jan 16, 2015 – criminal/fraud/fcpa and www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa.shtml. … Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a critically important statute for combating corruption around the … Department, Agency, or Instrumentality of a Foreign Government.

    ————————————————————————————
    Just asking? Just Saying…read it… You decide.
    Law Enforcement Partners in  Corruption? Crime? or Conflict?
    —————————————————————–

    Law Enforcement Partners (page 5 of 130)

    Foreign corruption I.E. criminal-fraud 
    DOJ’s  FCPA Unit regularly works WITH the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate potential FCPA violations.
    The FBI’s International Corruption Unit has primary responsibility for international corruption and fraud investigations and coordinates the FBI’s national FCPA enforcement program. The FBI also has a dedicated FCPA
    squad of FBI special agents (located in the Washington Field Office) that is responsible for investigating many, and providing support for all, of the FBI’s FCPA investigations.
    In addition, the Department of Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation regularly investigate potential FCPA violations.
    A number of other agencies are also involved in the fight against international
    corruption, including the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which has helped lead a number of FCPA investigation.
    ———————————————————————
    Foreign Corrupt Practices?
    If you see something, Say something….
    By E-Mail Report a FCPA Violation via Email to FCPA.Fraud@usdoj.gov
    —————————————————————————-

    Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | CRIMINAL-FRAUD | Department of …

    https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreigncorruptpracticesact

    Jul 20, 2016 – An Overview. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. (“FCPA”), was enacted for the purpose of …

    Contact us Regarding the FCPA By Mail Correspondence relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) may be sent to:U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Fraud Section
    ATTN: FCPA Coordinator Bond Building, 4th Floor 10th and Constitution Ave. NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001By Fax Facsimile – 202-514-7021By E-Mail Report a FCPA Violation via Email to FCPA.Fraud@usdoj.gov

    U.S.C. sections amended‎: ‎15 U.S.C. ch. 2b § 7…
    Enacted by‎: ‎the 95th United States Congress
    Titles amended‎: ‎15 U.S.C.: Commerce and Tra…
    Statutes at Large‎: ‎91 Stat. 1494
    ————————————————————-
    Want more?
    The FCPA Unit maintains a “Spotlight on FCPA”
    section on SEC’s website at
    http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/
    fcpa.shtml
    . The website, which is updated regularly, provides general information about the Act, links to all SEC enforcement actions involving the FCPA, including both federal court actions and administrative proceedings, and contains other useful information

  • FBI, Weiner, Justice, WikiLeaks and Veritas?

    Comey, Weiner, Justice, WikiLeaks and Veritas?

    FBI Found “Tens Of Thousands Of Emails” Belonging To Huma Abedin …

    www.zerohedge.com/…/fbi-found-tens-thousandsemails-belonging-huma…
    Zero Hedge

    19 hours ago – Of the more than 160 emails in the latest Judicial Watch release, some 110 emails … migrated to the open email account, which as we now know ended up in Anthony Weiner’s computer: …. Now he Comey to get you Clinton!

    ——————————————————-

    OCT 29, 2016  FBI DIRECTOR COMEY REVEALS, HILLARY AND DNC CRY FOUL, HOW DARE THE FBI REOPEN HILLARY’S EMAIL INVESTIGATION JUST DAYS BEFORE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

    ————————————————

    IF YOU ARE A 2016 UNDECIDED VOTER, THIS ONE’S FOR YOU.

    —————————————————

    REMEMBER THE BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACK ON  9 11 2012?

    WHEN ….  JUST 8 WEEKS BEFORE BARACK OBAMA WAS UP FOR  RE-ELECTION, THE WHITE HOUSE I.E. LIED AND LIED AND LIED ABOUT WHAT CAUSED THE BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACK.

    REPUBLICANS ACCUSED THE WHITE HOUSE OF COVERING UP TO PROTECT PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS.

     THE  911 LIES OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION I.E. IN 2012, VIA THE RIGGED PUBLIC MEDIA,  WORKED AND OBAMA WAS RE-ELECTED IN 2012.

    APRIL 2013 HILLARY BRAGS 

    in a private paid speech Hillary said, I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way I mean,

    POLITICS is like sausage being made. IT IS UNSAVORY,  AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN THAT WAY,

     AND, HILLARY SAID, BUT WE USUALLY END UP WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

    AND LYING’ HILLARY CAN PROVE IT

    OBAMA WAS RE-ELECTED IN 2012.

    —————————————————————-

    LIARS FOOLED STUPID VOTERS  FOR OBAMACARE IN 2010.

    LIARS FOOLED VOTERS ONCE AGAIN IN 2012 SHAME ON VOTERS

    IF LIARS FOOL VOTERS  AGAIN IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

    BLAME IT ON GRUBER’S  STUPID DEMOCRATIC VOTERS I.E.

    ————————————————————————–

    THE COMEY, WEINER CONNECTION

    Comey reveals Oct 29, 2016  Last night a leaked memo was revealed, indicating FBI director James Comey’s stated reasons for reopening the Clinton email probe upon discovering what now appear to be tens of thousands of Huma Abedin emails located on Anthony Weiner’s notebook.

    ——————————————————-

    HILLARY’S EMAILS,  JUSTICE AND CONGRESS?

    DOJ’s Loretta Lynch Tried To Squash Comey’s Letter To Congress

    Zero Hedge‎ – 1 day ago

    The day before the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, sent a letter to Congress announcing …

    ————————————————————————–

    HAVE TOO MANY COOKS SPOILED HILLARY’S “HOMEBREW” EMAIL SERVER?

    ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER ON LYING HILLARY’S CROOKED ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

    June 28, 2016 THE BLISTERING 800-PAGE HOUSE BENGHAZI COMMITTEE REPORT DOESN’T DIRECTLY BLAME HILLARY CLINTON, WHO WAS SECRETARY OF STATE AT THE TIME, 911 2012.

    FOUR MONTHS AGO…. THE HOUSE BENGHAZI COMMITTEE REPORT SAYS WHAT WENT WRONG MAY NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN

    BECAUSE OF A ‘SHAMEFUL’ DECISION BY HILLARY CLINTON NOT TO TURN OVER THE CONTENTS OF HER SECRET ‘HOMEBREW’ SERVER,

    WHOSE EXISTENCE ONLY CAME TO LIGHT BECAUSE OF THE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION.

    ———————————————————–

    LIARS FOOLED STUPID VOTERS  FOR OBAMACARE IN 2010.

    LIARS FOOLED VOTERS ONCE AGAIN IN 2012 SHAME ON VOTERS

    IF LIARS FOOL VOTERS  AGAIN IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

    BLAME IT ON GRUBER’S  STUPID DEMOCRATIC VOTERS I.E.

    AND, SHAME ON LYING’ HILLARY I.E. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

    FOR LYING’ TO THE AMERICAN VOTERS

    —————————————————————————————

    Back to my original question

    COMEY, WEINER, WIKILEAKS,  JUSTICE AND VERITAS?

    A LEAK TO THE MEDIA AND QUESTIONS OF A COVERUP

    ——————————————————————————

    Oct 29, 2016  FBI Comey revealed two core reasons for the action: a sense of obligation to lawmakers and a concern that word of the new email discovery would leak to the media and raise questions of a COVERUP.

    Oct 29, 2016  Really, FBI Comey  is concerned about “A LEAK TO THE MEDIA”? And, he is concerned about” QUESTIONS OF A COVERUP”?

     —————————————–

    #PodestaEmails23: WikiLeaks releases new mails from Clinton chair

    RT‎ – 4 hours ago

    … mails from Clinton chair. Published time: 30 Oct, 2016 13:08 Edited time: 30 Oct, 2016 15:11. Get short URL.

    ————————————————————–

    the Project Veritas video

    Published on Oct 28, 2016 PROJECT VERITAS ACTION HAS RELEASED THE SIXTH VIDEO IN A MULTI-PART SERIES THAT IS SENDING SHOCKWAVES THROUGH THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

    ———————————————————————————–

    HAVE TOO MANY COOKS SPOILED LYING’ HILLARY’S LOW ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE?

    AUG 13, 2013 After the fact and before The blistering,  June 28, 2016  800-page House Benghazi Committee report excoriates the Obama administration, finding that it lied about what caused the Benghazi attacks.

    YouTube Video Maker Blamed for Benghazi Attacks Breaks Silence …

    ▶ 6:24

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xitCdlo9IlQ

    AUG 13, 2013 – Uploaded by martysoffice

    On Tuesday, CNN host Jake Tapper interviewed Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker behind the …

    ——————————————————————————————-

    June 28, 2016 THE BLISTERING 800-PAGE HOUSE BENGHAZI COMMITTEE REPORT DOESN’T DIRECTLY BLAME CLINTON, WHO WAS SECRETARY OF STATE AT THE TIME.

    OCT 30 2016, BECAUSE OF  WIKILEAKS, THE DNC CONNECTIONS  AND PROJECT VERITAS VIDEOS,  AMERICAN VOTERS CAN NOW DOCUMENT  LYING’ CROOKED HILLARY CLINTON’S CONTEMPT FOR ALL AMERICAN VOTERS

    HILLARY’S “HOMEBREW” SERVER was only revealed because of the two year investigation by the House Benghazi Committee into the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

    June 28, 2016 House Benghazi Committee report says what went wrong may never be fully known BECAUSE OF A ‘SHAMEFUL’ DECISION BY HILLARY CLINTON NOT TO TURN OVER THE CONTENTS OF HER SECRET ‘HOMEBREW’ SERVER, whose existence only came to light because of the investigation.

    —————————————————————————

    GRUBER’S “STUPID OBAMACARE VOTERS” 

    Mar 22, 2010 – The House voted 219 to 212 to approve the measure, with every Republican voting no.

    LIBERAL LIARS FOOLED AMERICAN VOTERS ONCE AGAIN IN 2012 ELECTION SHAME ON VOTERS.

    AMERICAN VOTERS ARE NO LONGER STUPID, THEY ARE INFORMED.

    GRUBER’S “STUPID AMERICAN VOTERS” SHALL NOT BE FOOLED BY LIBERAL LIARS IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

    2013 LYING’ CROOKED HILLARY BRAGS…. BUT WE USUALLY END UP WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

    VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP HE  KNOWS EXACTLY WHERE  LYING’ CROOKED HILLARY  NEEDS TO BE.

    TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT NOV 8, 2016

    HILLARY FOR JAIL NOV 8, 2016

    2017 OBAMACARE REPEALED

     


  • C-Span July 12, 2016 AG Lynch Testified?

    C-Span July 12, 2016 AG Lynch Testified?

    10:07 am ET Approx. 2 hr. 26 min. House Judiciary Committee LIVE Justice Department Oversight Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified at an oversight hearing on Justice Department …

    SHE WOULD NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABOUT THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON’S USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL SERVERS WHILE SERVING AS SECRETARY OF STATE, SAYING THAT MAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING THE INQUIRY WOULD BE IMPROPER.

    ———————————————

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s  Dept. of  JUSTICE?

    One Nation Under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all?

    YOU WATCH…. you decide…..

    —————————————————–

    Justice Department Oversight, Part 1

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified at an oversight hearing on Justice Department Operations. She would not…

    Justice Department Oversight Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified at an oversight hearing on Justice Department Operations.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?412357-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-testifies-capitol-hill

    More Videos From

    HSE Judiciary – Justice Dept Oversight

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s  DEPT. OF  JUSTICE?

    One Nation Under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all

    YOU WATCH…. YOU DECIDE

    ———————————————————-

    People in this video

    More People

    Hosting Organization

    More Videos From

    HSE Judiciary – Justice Dept Oversight

    More information about

    Justice Department Oversight

    Related Video

    November 17, 2015

    Department of Justice Oversight

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified at an oversight hearing on Justice Department operations. Topics…

    July 8, 2016

    Attorney General Lynch on Dallas Police Killings

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch condemned the fatal shootings of five Dallas police officers and called on Americans to…

    June 24, 2016

    Criminal Justice Reform

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch & the secretaries for labor, housing & education talked about the challenges former…

    June 14, 2016

    Loretta Lynch Remarks at United State of Women Summit

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the White House United State of Women summit. Regarding the June 12 mass…

    ———————————————————-

    User Created Clips from This Video

    One Nation Under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all?

    July 12, 2016

    USE THESE LINKS TO WATCH VIDEOS

    Rep. Sensenbrenner Questions AG Loretta Lynch

      • 6 minutes
      • 25 views

    July 12, 2016

    fasdfa

      • 10 minutes
      • 20 views

    July 12, 2016

    Rep. Smith Questions AG Loretta Lynch

      • 4 minutes
      • 3 views

    July 12, 2016

    Lynch puts her foot in her mouth.

      • 4 minutes
      • 0 views

    The bottom line…

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s  DEPT. OF  JUSTICE?

    One Nation Under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all?

    YOU WATCH…. YOU DECIDE


  • C-SPAN Watch Mica’s Questions for Comey

    C-SPAN  Watch Rep. Mica’s Questions for Comey

    The rapid fire timeline…..

    Another chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere

    FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video

    C-Span‎ – 2 days ago

    Hillary Clinton Email Investigation, Part 1 FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on … length  04:38:10

    Inspectors general from the State Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) testified at a hearing on Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers…

    O1:19:45

    July 7, 2016

    Forward to 02:12:59 in the video  for Rep. John Mica’s questions

    ———————————————————————

    A SNIPPET OF BIASED CBS News…..  SELECTIVE REPORTING

    www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-hillary-clinton-email/

    12:19 p.m. In another tangential exchange, Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, questions whether Comey has seen the popular Broadway musical, Hamilton.

    “Have you seen the Broadway production Hamilton?” Mica asked.

    Comey replied: “Not yet. I’m hoping to.”

    Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida said the timing of Comey’s announcement was suspicious and compared the decisions “choreography” to the Broadway musical, “Hamilton.”

    The decision came just a week after former President Bill Clinton met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a few days after Clinton testified for 3 1/2 hours to the FBI.

    Clinton campaigned with President Barack Obama a few hours after Comey’s announcement.

    Mica said, “This is rapid fire. My folks have questions.”

    Mica said he was “not a conspiracy theorist,” but the timing raises questions.

    —————————————————————————————–

    WATCH THE VIDEO FOR THE REST OF THE STORY..

    FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video

    C-Span‎ – 2 days ago

    Hillary Clinton Email Investigation, Part 1 FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on …

    ———————————————————————

    Forward to 02:12:59 in the video  for Rep. John Mica’s questions, comments and requests

    What questions and comments from Rep. John Mica are missing from the media report in the five minutes between 12:19 p.m.ET  and 12:26 p.m. ET

    FBI Director James Comey did not attend the FBI’S  3½ hour interview Hillary Clinton on Saturday morning.

    Five or six unnamed FBI agents conducted the interview

    FBI Director James Comey did not speak directly with the five or six unnamed FBI agents

    FBI Director James Comey said the decision to not charge Hillary Clinton was unanimous.

    FBI Director James Comey says no one influenced his decision in any way.

    Hillary Clinton was not under oath for FBI 3½ hours interview

    The 3½ hours  FBI interview with Hillary Clinton was NOT recorded

    A 302 analysis of the 3½ hours  FBI interview, was written by the Five or six unnamed FBI agents.

    Did FBI Director James Comey read the 302 analysis of the 3½ hours  FBI interview

    FBI Director James Comey did not bring a copy of the 302 analysis of the 3½ hours  FBI interview to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee  for the Hillary Clinton Email Investigation

    Rep. John Mica requested a copy of the FBI 302 analysis of the 3½ hours,  FBI interview with Hillary Clinton, from FBI Director James Comey.

    ————————————————————————————

    12:26 p.m. Comey  gave a testy response over insinuations that he coordinated with Democrats on his recommendations and the timing of the FBI press conference.

    “I did not coordinate that with anyone,” he insisted. “I say that under oath, I stand by that.”

    —————————————————————————

    What questions and comments are missing from the media report? In the seven minutes between 12:26 p.m. ET and 12:33 p.m ET

    12:33 p.m. FBI Director James Comey is emphatically denying that he coordinates his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton with the White House or anyone else.

    ——————————————————————–

    Rep. John Mica’s, The congressman told Comey that “my folks at home think there is something fishy about this,”

    “My folks have questions.”

    How many questions were sent to GOP members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee  regarding the Hillary Clinton Email Investigation? one member said he had received 500 and another said 750?

    —————————————————————–

    Rep. John Mica’s said “The timing raises questions”

    —————————————————————————

    TIMING? WHAT TIMING? Date July 5, 2016. …

    WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday recommended no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, lifting an enormous legal cloud from her presidential campaign LESS THAN TWO HOURS BEFORE SHE BOARDED Air Force One FOR HER FIRST JOINT CAMPAIGN APPEARANCE WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA.

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS IS THE TIME LINE

    WATCH THE C-SPAN VIDEOS

    Part 1 is over four hours

    Part 2 is one hour and 45 minutes

    THE TIMELINE IS SIX (6) DAYS

    How many questions do you have?

    HSE Oversight – FBI Probe/Private Email

     

    Jun 30, 2016

    Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton meeting raises eyebrows – USA Today

    www.usatoday.com/story/news/…lynch-bill-clintonmeeting/86555274/

    USA Today

    Jun 30, 2016Lynch, who will ultimately determine the outcome of an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server while secretary of …

    ———————————————————————————————

    July 1, 2016  7:21 am

    Reporter: FBI ordered ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones’ during …

    hotair.com/…/2016/…/reporter-fbi-ordered-no-photos-no-pictures-no-cell-pho…

    Hot Air

    posted at 7:21 am on July 1, 2016 by Larry O’Connor … involving that secret meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    July 1, 2016

    Loretta Lynch to Accept FBI Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry

    www.nytimes.com/2016/…/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-serv…

    The New York Times

    Jul 1, 2016 – By REUTERS on Publish Date July 1, 2016. Photo by … Bill Clinton’s Meeting With Loretta Lynch Causes Stir in Both Parties JULY 1, 2016 …

    ———————————————————————————

    SAT JULY  2, 2016

    FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for more than 3 hours in email probe …

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/fbiinterviewsclinton…/2016/…

    The Washington Post

    6 days ago – FBI agents interviewed Hillary Clinton for 3½ hours Saturday morning — a signal that the investigation into her use of a private email account …

    ————————————————————————————–

    Updated 2:56 PM ET, Sun July 3, 2016

    Hillary Clinton questioned by FBI as part of email probe – CNNPolitics …

    www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/…/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/

    CNN 5 days ago – … with Bill Clinton · coons lynch clinton meeting cuomo intv newday_00000000.jpg ….

    In the news

    THE QUESTION NOW BECOMES HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE FOR THE FBI TO CONCLUDE ITS PROBE?

    ————————————————————————————-

    July 4th, 2016

    Hillary Clinton speaks out after FBI interview on email server – TODAY …

    www.today.com/…/hillary-clinton-speaks-out-after-fbiinterview-on-email-serv…

    Today

    July 4th, 2016  Hillary Clinton speaks out after FBI interview on email server. Hillary Clinton is gearing up for a big week, preparing to visit several critical …

    ——————————————————————————-

    July 5, 2016

    F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary …

    www.nytimes.com/2016/07/…/hillary-clintonfbi-email-comey.htm…

    The New York Times 3 days ago – F.B.I. Recommends No Charges for Clinton. The F.B.I. director … By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date July 5, 2016. Photo by Cliff …

    ———————————————————————————

    Date July 5, 2016. … TIMING? WHAT TIMING?

    WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday recommended no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, lifting an enormous legal cloud from her presidential campaign less than two hours before she boarded Air Force One for her first joint campaign appearance with President Obama.

    ————————————————————————-

    July 5, 2016

    Obama Joins Hillary Clinton on Stump, Saying She ‘Has Been Tested …

    www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/…/hillary-clintonobama.html

    The New York Times 3 days ago – By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date July 5, 2016. … Hillary Clinton and President Obama arrived in Charlotte, N.C., on Tuesday via Air Force One. ….

    Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida said the timing of Comey’s announcement was suspicious and compared the decisions “choreography” to the Broadway musical, “Hamilton.”

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Comey sharply rejects idea that FBI coordinated with others on Clinton probe

    By Louis Nelson

    07/07/16 12:54 PM EDT

    FBI Director James Comey took umbrage at a line of questioning from Rep. John Mica on Thursday amid a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the bureau’s recommendation not to press charges against Hillary Clinton.

    Mica (R-Fla.) kicked off his questions to Comey by telling the FBI director that he would have to explain the bureau’s decision to constituents at cafes he frequents in his home district. The congressman told Comey that “my folks at home think there is something fishy about this,” implying the possibility of some conspiracy among the Justice Department, FBI and the Clinton campaign to protect the presumptive Democratic nominee from indictment.

    At the conclusion of Mica’s questioning, Comey asked committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) whether he could address the Florida congressman’s concerns directly.

    “I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the cafe is, look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say,” Comey said to Mica at the conclusion of the congressman’s questioning. “I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination. There was an insinuation in what you were saying. … I don’t mean to get strong in responding, but I want to make sure I was definitive about that.”
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/james-comey-no-coordination-clinton-225232#ixzz4Dq3n9slp
    Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

    —————————————————————————

    Recently Added Entries | Clinton Email Investigation Timeline

    www.thompsontimeline.com/recently-added-entries/

    2 days ago – Lynch technically is the head of the FBI’s Clinton investigation, since she’s in … and comes after 15 months of investigation, at a cost of over $7 million. …. is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton.

    The bottom line….

    Date July 7, 2016. … TIMELINE? WHAT TIMELINE?

    WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday recommended no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, lifting an enormous legal cloud from her presidential campaign less than two hours before she boarded Air Force One for her first joint campaign appearance with President Obama.


  • Executive Orders Matter

    Executive Orders Matter
    page 3 “Things That Matter”
    OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …

    ————–
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514, CLIMATE CHANGE Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate

    ——————————————-
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    IT’S AS EASY AS ONE, TWO THREE…
    (1) FEDERAL Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.
    OBAMA’S RULE ASSIGNS CUSTOMIZED TARGETS TO EACH STATE
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (2) STATE Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE ACTUAL PRICE WON’T BE CLEAR UNTIL STATES DECIDE HOW THEY’LL REACH THEIR TARGETS
    THEN LEAVES IT UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE HOW TO MEET THEM.
    IF STATES REFUSE TO SUBMIT PLANS, THE EPA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN PLAN
    —————————————————————–
    Sustainable Washington STATE HISTORY

    Washington’s Planning Framework for Climate Change
    The GMA and Climate Change

    AND MCCARTHY SAID THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD RELEASE A MODEL FEDERAL PLAN THAT STATES COULD ADOPT RIGHT AWAY.
    ——————————————————————-
    (3) 2015 COUNTY Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY FINAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANDATE WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
    WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FINAL “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! (full text below)
    INDEED, NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    THEY, The “Partners” of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project, will let “US” “We the People” know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    They are pleased to present to somebody? with the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from “Adaptation International” and Washington Seagrant.
    PARTNERS of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,
    HOW COULD THE FINAL REPORT FROM “NORPCD” FAIL TO MENTION THIS $$$$ PARTNER?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” HELPED DEVELOP ECOLOGY”S $152,078 GRANT THAT WAS GRANTED TO NORPCD FOR CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY
    THE “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” SERVES AS A PARTNER ON (NOPRCD) THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOPRC&D)— PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA ($152,078)
    HELP PLAN FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE MOBILIZATION?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” IS SPONSORING OTHER EVENTS “” IN CONJUNCTION WITH 350.ORG AND OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE.
    AND OTHER (NOPRCD) PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”, WASHINGTON SEA GRANT.
    WHO IS “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”? Goggle doesn’t know?
    WOW, WORLDWIDE AND INTERNATIONAL OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    Like my Dad, George C. Rains Sr. said…
    EVERYTHING GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS FINALIZED BEFORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT IS ALLOWED.
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    —————————————————————————————–
    Complete text
    From: Cindy Jayne [mailto:cindyjaynept@gmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:56 AM
    To: Jake Bell; Sascha Petersen; Kate Dean; Ian Miller
    Subject: Final Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula Report

    Partners of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,

    We are pleased to present to you the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from Adaptation International and Washington Seagrant.
    Here is the list of appendices and supplementary Information, see link above to access any of these:
    • Appendix A: Comprehensive List of Adaptation Strategies
    • Appendix B: Adaptation Strategy Matrix
    • Appendix C: Sea Level Rise Probability Maps
    • Appendix D: Sea Level Rise Analysis Details
    • Appendix E: Monitoring Plan (available by end of October)
    • Appendix F: Focus Area Overview Maps
    • Supplementary Information A: List of Project Partners
    • Supplementary Information B: Climate Preparedness Outreach Powerpoint (available by end of October)
    • Supplementary Information C: Planning Language Examples for Climate Resiliency
    • Supplementary Information D: Workshop 1 Results
    • Supplementary Information E: Workshop 2 Results
    • Supplementary Information F: GIS Map Development
    Note that there are a few items being finalized as we wrap up this project by October 31, 2015. The Powerpoint Presentation (Supplementary Information B), which we have been using for a variety of presentations already, is in the process of being refined, and we will continue to refine it through the end of October. Also, the Monitoring Plan (Appendix E), which defines how and who will continue to track the progress of the implementation of the adaptation strategies, is in process and will be complete by end of October. And we are also working on an extra final product – a packaged up version of the Executive Summary that can be used as a standalone handout.
    We are currently in the process of giving presentations on the final results of this project to the municipalities and other organizations, and we have a few public presentations that are getting scheduled. One that is scheduled currently is a presentation to the Jefferson County Planning Commission, on November 4th. (The commission meeting starts at 6:30 pm, but the specific time slot has not yet been scheduled, you can check the agenda once it becomes available here.) We will let you know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    We will send you a final email by the end of October when these last pieces are complete, and to also enlist your help with helping move the identified climate adaptation strategies forward and to provide input on the status of the implementation of the adaptation strategies.

    Many thanks again for all your engaged and thoughtful participation and feedback throughout this project. It is very exciting to see this all come together, and to now have the report as a resource for the North Olympic Peninsula as we continue to work together to create a climate resilient future!

    Cindy Jayne
    Project Manager, NOPRCD
    cindyjaynept@gmail.com
    (360)344-2046
    —————————————————————————–
    The bottom line
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    We will let you know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    —————————————————————————————————
    AUG 2, 2015 SOME STATES STOPPED WORRYING.. AND, STARTED SUEING
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    full text below
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015

    snippets

    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES OR SLOWLY HOLLOWING OUT OUR ECONOMY,” BUSH SAID.

    OPPONENTS PLANNED TO SUE IMMEDIATELY, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    TWENTY TO 30 STATES WERE POISED TO JOIN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN SUING OVER THE RULE AS SOON AS IT’S FORMALLY PUBLISHED, SAID SCOTT SEGAL, A LOBBYIST WITH THE FIRM BRACEWELL AND GIULIANI WHO REPRESENTS UTILITIES.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (NOPRC&D)— Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula ($152,078)
    The NOPRC&D will conduct a detailed assessment of climate related vulnerabilities and develop A CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA. This work will focus on options for reducing risks from climate change by improving the resiliency of the local ecosystems in watersheds of JEFFERSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY. The process will engage stakeholders and planning agencies in generating data, priorities and strategies that will inform the creation of the adaptation plan. The plan will inform the comprehensive and strategic planning processes of the cities, counties, tribes, Public Utility Districts and ports within the North Olympic Peninsula.
    Partner Organizations: Adaptation International, Washington Sea Grant.
    —————————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Climate adaptation grant for North Olympic Peninsula
    OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION helped develop this grant , “Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Summary” and serves as a partner on it. We will encourage local elected bodies to implement the changes recommended in the report, which will be developed with reference to the best available science and in discussion with the community at large. Part of the responsibility of government is to look at emerging trends and plan for them, and no trend will be as important in this century as climate change.
    Help plan for global climate mobilization Sept. 26
    OCA is sponsoring this event in conjunction with 350.org and other climate-action organizations worldwide. This year’s climate talks in Paris will be crucial, and we need to join hands around the world to tell our leaders that it’s time to get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy, now!
    Power Through Paris Workshop
    Saturday, September 26, 12:00-2:00 PM
    Port Angeles Library, 2210 South Peabody Street, Port Angeles
    This event is public. Spread the word!
    2015 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, and momentum is growing to stop the climate crisis. Political and religious leaders are beginning to get the message, but we need to carry the message home, to the global gathering of governments at the Paris climate change talks later this year — and beyond. Climate action groups are organizing events across the world in November and December, and in order to make them compelling we need everyone to work together.
    The workshop, led by OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION, will help us share ideas, build energy, and lay out plans for “Power Through Paris”—including how to escalate through and after the Paris climate talks, regardless of their outcome.
    Event signup link:http://act.350.org/event/power-through-paris-workshops_attend/10996
    ——————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Local Climate Change Activities – Northwest Straits Marine …
    www.nwstraits.org/media/1309/jayne-localclimateactionactivities.pdf
    Jefferson County / Port Townsend Climate Action Committee. ▷ Local 2020 … organization (NOPRCD) / Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic. Peninsula … (NOPRCD.org) project, funded by WA Dept of Ecology and Commerce. ▷ Goal: To … their community, their state, and at a national level. ▷ They went to …
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic …
    l2020.org/climate…/planning-for-climate-change-on-the-north-olympic-…
    Feb 4, 2015 – PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA PROJECT … THE PROJECT IS FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND COMMERCE, … For further information on the project, contact info@noprcd.org.
    The North Olympic Development Council (NODC or “Council”) is a collaborative, innovative effort amongst member governments, educational & community organizations to advance economic, environmental & quality of life initiatives on the North Olympic Peninsula.
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).
    ——————————————————————————
    Council Members, Roles & Affiliations
    Officers
    Deborah Stinson, Port Townsend City Council – President
    Peter Quinn, Team Jefferson Economic Development Council-Vice President
    Bill Peach, Clallam County Commissioner- Treasurer
    Clea Rome, WSU Clallam County Extension- Secretary

    COUNCIL MEMBERS

    David Sullivan, Commissioner
    Jefferson County

    Bill Peach, Commissioner,
    Clallam County

    Larry Crockett
    Port of Port Townsend

    Laura DuBois
    City of Sequim

    Will Purser
    Clallam PUD

    Kenneth Collins
    Jefferson PUD

    Sissi Bruch
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

    Doug Sellon
    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Patrick Downey
    City of Port Angeles

    Linty Hopie
    Peninsula College

    Laura Lewis
    WSU Jefferson County Extension

    Colleen McAleer
    Port of Port Angeles

    Since 1992, the Council has managed projects in natural resource research, economic feasibility, market development, and regional planning.
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015 – Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which … said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and … “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in …
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.
    In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.
    Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.
    “They are wrong,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a “doomsday” scenario.
    Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.
    “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. “Not anymore.”
    The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.
    Immediately, Obama’s plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.
    “It’s a good plan, and as president, I’d defend it,” Clinton said.
    On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be “catastrophic,” while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule “irresponsible and overreaching.”
    “Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    Obama’s rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won’t comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.
    Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a “bridge fuel” whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.
    Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They’ll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.
    In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.
    Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it’s formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.
    The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts” to defend the rule.
    By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.
    “We’re positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change,” said Brian Deese, Obama’s senior adviser.
    Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.
    ————————————————————————————-

    read more here
    FedCenter – Climate Change Adaptation
    https://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/climate/
    Jump to Federal framework for adaptation planning and guiding … – CEQ based its adaptation planning requirements on a … In addition, climate change adaptation planning in an … SET A MANDATE • Understand How Climate Is …

    The new Climate Change Adaptation Program Area supports Federal agency climate adaptation planning. Please check in periodically for new information.
    • What is climate change adaptation & why do Federal agencies need to adapt?
    • Background on the Implementing Instructions for federal agency climate change adaptation
    • Federal framework for adaptation planning and guiding principles
    What is Climate Change Adaptation & Why is it Important?
    Climate change adaptation means adjusting to a changing climate to minimize negative effects and take advantage of new opportunities. Climate change directly affects a wide range of Federal services, operations, programs, assets, and our national security. Through adaptation planning, an agency can identify how climate change is likely to impact its ability to achieve its mission, operate, or meet its policy and program objectives. By integrating climate change adaptation strategies into its planning, the Federal Government can ensure that resources are invested wisely and Federal services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions.
    Background on the Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation
    Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate change on the agency’s mission and operations in both the short and long-term as part of the formal Strategic Sustainability Performance Planning process. In it’s October 2010 Progress Report, the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force recommended that CEQ issue climate change adaptation planning implementing instructions. The Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation Planning identify how agencies should respond to the adaptation requirements under the Executive Order.
    Federal Framework for Adaptation Planning, and Guiding Principles
    CEQ based its adaptation planning requirements on a six-step, flexible planning framework and eight Guiding Principles, as recommended by the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The planning framework is not meant to be prescriptive or to provide detailed recommendations for project-level adaptation, those detailed options will be developed over time by each agency with the help of a growing set of planning tools, illustrative case studies, and lessons learned. In addition, climate change adaptation planning in an iterative process; our knowledge of climate change is evolving, as is our understanding of different types of adaptive actions.
    Please click on the links below for more information on specific planning actions
    Planning Steps

    • Set a Mandate
    • Understand How Climate Is Changing
    • Apply to Mission and Operations

    OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514, CLIMATE CHANGE Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    IT’S AS EASY AS ONE, TWO THREE…
    (1) FEDERAL Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.
    OBAMA’S RULE ASSIGNS CUSTOMIZED TARGETS TO EACH STATE
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (2) STATE Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE ACTUAL PRICE WON’T BE CLEAR UNTIL STATES DECIDE HOW THEY’LL REACH THEIR TARGETS
    THEN LEAVES IT UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE HOW TO MEET THEM.
    IF STATES REFUSE TO SUBMIT PLANS, THE EPA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN PLAN
    —————————————————————–
    Sustainable Washington STATE HISTORY

    Washington’s Planning Framework for Climate Change
    The GMA and Climate Change

    AND MCCARTHY SAID THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD RELEASE A MODEL FEDERAL PLAN THAT STATES COULD ADOPT RIGHT AWAY.
    ——————————————————————-
    (3) 2015 COUNTY Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY FINAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANDATE WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
    WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FINAL “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! (full text below)
    INDEED, NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    THEY, The “Partners” of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project, will let “US” “We the People” know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    They are pleased to present to somebody? with the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from “Adaptation International” and Washington Seagrant.
    PARTNERS of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,
    HOW COULD THE FINAL REPORT FROM “NORPCD” FAIL TO MENTION THIS $$$$ PARTNER?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” HELPED DEVELOP ECOLOGY”S $152,078 GRANT THAT WAS GRANTED TO NORPCD FOR CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY
    THE “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” SERVES AS A PARTNER ON (NOPRCD) THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOPRC&D)— PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA ($152,078)
    HELP PLAN FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE MOBILIZATION?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” IS SPONSORING OTHER EVENTS “” IN CONJUNCTION WITH 350.ORG AND OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE.
    AND OTHER (NOPRCD) PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”, WASHINGTON SEA GRANT.
    WHO IS “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”? Goggle doesn’t know?
    WOW, WORLDWIDE AND INTERNATIONAL OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    Like my Dad, George C. Rains Sr. said…
    EVERYTHING GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS FINALIZED BEFORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT IS ALLOWED.
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    —————————————————————————————–
    Complete text
    From: Cindy Jayne [mailto:cindyjaynept@gmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:56 AM
    To: Jake Bell; Sascha Petersen; Kate Dean; Ian Miller
    Subject: Final Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula Report

    Partners of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,

    We are pleased to present to you the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from Adaptation International and Washington Seagrant.
    Here is the list of appendices and supplementary Information, see link above to access any of these:
    • Appendix A: Comprehensive List of Adaptation Strategies
    • Appendix B: Adaptation Strategy Matrix
    • Appendix C: Sea Level Rise Probability Maps
    • Appendix D: Sea Level Rise Analysis Details
    • Appendix E: Monitoring Plan (available by end of October)
    • Appendix F: Focus Area Overview Maps
    • Supplementary Information A: List of Project Partners
    • Supplementary Information B: Climate Preparedness Outreach Powerpoint (available by end of October)
    • Supplementary Information C: Planning Language Examples for Climate Resiliency
    • Supplementary Information D: Workshop 1 Results
    • Supplementary Information E: Workshop 2 Results
    • Supplementary Information F: GIS Map Development
    Note that there are a few items being finalized as we wrap up this project by October 31, 2015. The Powerpoint Presentation (Supplementary Information B), which we have been using for a variety of presentations already, is in the process of being refined, and we will continue to refine it through the end of October. Also, the Monitoring Plan (Appendix E), which defines how and who will continue to track the progress of the implementation of the adaptation strategies, is in process and will be complete by end of October. And we are also working on an extra final product – a packaged up version of the Executive Summary that can be used as a standalone handout.
    We are currently in the process of giving presentations on the final results of this project to the municipalities and other organizations, and we have a few public presentations that are getting scheduled. One that is scheduled currently is a presentation to the Jefferson County Planning Commission, on November 4th. (The commission meeting starts at 6:30 pm, but the specific time slot has not yet been scheduled, you can check the agenda once it becomes available here.) We will let you know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    We will send you a final email by the end of October when these last pieces are complete, and to also enlist your help with helping move the identified climate adaptation strategies forward and to provide input on the status of the implementation of the adaptation strategies.

    Many thanks again for all your engaged and thoughtful participation and feedback throughout this project. It is very exciting to see this all come together, and to now have the report as a resource for the North Olympic Peninsula as we continue to work together to create a climate resilient future!

    Cindy Jayne
    Project Manager, NOPRCD
    cindyjaynept@gmail.com
    (360)344-2046
    —————————————————————————–
    The bottom line
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    We will let you know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    —————————————————————————————————
    AUG 2, 2015 SOME STATES STOPPED WORRYING.. AND, STARTED SUEING
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    full text below
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015

    snippets

    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES OR SLOWLY HOLLOWING OUT OUR ECONOMY,” BUSH SAID.

    OPPONENTS PLANNED TO SUE IMMEDIATELY, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    TWENTY TO 30 STATES WERE POISED TO JOIN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN SUING OVER THE RULE AS SOON AS IT’S FORMALLY PUBLISHED, SAID SCOTT SEGAL, A LOBBYIST WITH THE FIRM BRACEWELL AND GIULIANI WHO REPRESENTS UTILITIES.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (NOPRC&D)— Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula ($152,078)
    The NOPRC&D will conduct a detailed assessment of climate related vulnerabilities and develop A CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA. This work will focus on options for reducing risks from climate change by improving the resiliency of the local ecosystems in watersheds of JEFFERSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY. The process will engage stakeholders and planning agencies in generating data, priorities and strategies that will inform the creation of the adaptation plan. The plan will inform the comprehensive and strategic planning processes of the cities, counties, tribes, Public Utility Districts and ports within the North Olympic Peninsula.
    Partner Organizations: Adaptation International, Washington Sea Grant.
    —————————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Climate adaptation grant for North Olympic Peninsula
    OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION helped develop this grant , “Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Summary” and serves as a partner on it. We will encourage local elected bodies to implement the changes recommended in the report, which will be developed with reference to the best available science and in discussion with the community at large. Part of the responsibility of government is to look at emerging trends and plan for them, and no trend will be as important in this century as climate change.
    Help plan for global climate mobilization Sept. 26
    OCA is sponsoring this event in conjunction with 350.org and other climate-action organizations worldwide. This year’s climate talks in Paris will be crucial, and we need to join hands around the world to tell our leaders that it’s time to get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy, now!
    Power Through Paris Workshop
    Saturday, September 26, 12:00-2:00 PM
    Port Angeles Library, 2210 South Peabody Street, Port Angeles
    This event is public. Spread the word!
    2015 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, and momentum is growing to stop the climate crisis. Political and religious leaders are beginning to get the message, but we need to carry the message home, to the global gathering of governments at the Paris climate change talks later this year — and beyond. Climate action groups are organizing events across the world in November and December, and in order to make them compelling we need everyone to work together.
    The workshop, led by OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION, will help us share ideas, build energy, and lay out plans for “Power Through Paris”—including how to escalate through and after the Paris climate talks, regardless of their outcome.
    Event signup link:http://act.350.org/event/power-through-paris-workshops_attend/10996
    ——————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Local Climate Change Activities – Northwest Straits Marine …
    www.nwstraits.org/media/1309/jayne-localclimateactionactivities.pdf
    Jefferson County / Port Townsend Climate Action Committee. ▷ Local 2020 … organization (NOPRCD) / Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic. Peninsula … (NOPRCD.org) project, funded by WA Dept of Ecology and Commerce. ▷ Goal: To … their community, their state, and at a national level. ▷ They went to …
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic …
    l2020.org/climate…/planning-for-climate-change-on-the-north-olympic-…
    Feb 4, 2015 – PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA PROJECT … THE PROJECT IS FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND COMMERCE, … For further information on the project, contact info@noprcd.org.
    The North Olympic Development Council (NODC or “Council”) is a collaborative, innovative effort amongst member governments, educational & community organizations to advance economic, environmental & quality of life initiatives on the North Olympic Peninsula.
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).
    ——————————————————————————
    Council Members, Roles & Affiliations
    Officers
    Deborah Stinson, Port Townsend City Council – President
    Peter Quinn, Team Jefferson Economic Development Council-Vice President
    Bill Peach, Clallam County Commissioner- Treasurer
    Clea Rome, WSU Clallam County Extension- Secretary

    COUNCIL MEMBERS

    David Sullivan, Commissioner
    Jefferson County

    Bill Peach, Commissioner,
    Clallam County

    Larry Crockett
    Port of Port Townsend

    Laura DuBois
    City of Sequim

    Will Purser
    Clallam PUD

    Kenneth Collins
    Jefferson PUD

    Sissi Bruch
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

    Doug Sellon
    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Patrick Downey
    City of Port Angeles

    Linty Hopie
    Peninsula College

    Laura Lewis
    WSU Jefferson County Extension

    Colleen McAleer
    Port of Port Angeles

    Since 1992, the Council has managed projects in natural resource research, economic feasibility, market development, and regional planning.
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015 – Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which … said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and … “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in …
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.
    In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.
    Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.
    “They are wrong,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a “doomsday” scenario.
    Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.
    “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. “Not anymore.”
    The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.
    Immediately, Obama’s plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.
    “It’s a good plan, and as president, I’d defend it,” Clinton said.
    On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be “catastrophic,” while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule “irresponsible and overreaching.”
    “Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    Obama’s rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won’t comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.
    Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a “bridge fuel” whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.
    Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They’ll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.
    In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.
    Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it’s formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.
    The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts” to defend the rule.
    By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.
    “We’re positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change,” said Brian Deese, Obama’s senior adviser.
    Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.
    ————————————————————————————-

    read more here
    FedCenter – Climate Change Adaptation
    https://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/climate/
    Jump to Federal framework for adaptation planning and guiding … – CEQ based its adaptation planning requirements on a … In addition, climate change adaptation planning in an … SET A MANDATE • Understand How Climate Is …

    The new Climate Change Adaptation Program Area supports Federal agency climate adaptation planning. Please check in periodically for new information.
    • What is climate change adaptation & why do Federal agencies need to adapt?
    • Background on the Implementing Instructions for federal agency climate change adaptation
    • Federal framework for adaptation planning and guiding principles
    What is Climate Change Adaptation & Why is it Important?
    Climate change adaptation means adjusting to a changing climate to minimize negative effects and take advantage of new opportunities. Climate change directly affects a wide range of Federal services, operations, programs, assets, and our national security. Through adaptation planning, an agency can identify how climate change is likely to impact its ability to achieve its mission, operate, or meet its policy and program objectives. By integrating climate change adaptation strategies into its planning, the Federal Government can ensure that resources are invested wisely and Federal services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions.
    Background on the Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation
    Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate change on the agency’s mission and operations in both the short and long-term as part of the formal Strategic Sustainability Performance Planning process. In it’s October 2010 Progress Report, the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force recommended that CEQ issue climate change adaptation planning implementing instructions. The Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation Planning identify how agencies should respond to the adaptation requirements under the Executive Order.
    Federal Framework for Adaptation Planning, and Guiding Principles
    CEQ based its adaptation planning requirements on a six-step, flexible planning framework and eight Guiding Principles, as recommended by the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The planning framework is not meant to be prescriptive or to provide detailed recommendations for project-level adaptation, those detailed options will be developed over time by each agency with the help of a growing set of planning tools, illustrative case studies, and lessons learned. In addition, climate change adaptation planning in an iterative process; our knowledge of climate change is evolving, as is our understanding of different types of adaptive actions.
    Please click on the links below for more information on specific planning actions
    Planning Steps

    • Set a Mandate
    • Understand How Climate Is Changing
    • Apply to Mission and Operations


  • WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    PLUS….  Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit  to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training in the Olympic National Forest?

    How in the world are Rep Kilmer and Senator Patty Murray going to pull this one off?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Dear elected public representatives and appointed administrative rulers, Federal, state, county and city (AKA Public Servants)

    This is the best OBJECTION, by Karen Sullivan, I have every read on the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project

    Described to me by District Ranger Dean Millett as no big deal…

    “JUST A COUPLE OF ROADS FOR A COUPLE OF PICKUPS”

    PS – Just so you know, SHE is only one person, SIMPLY A CONCERNED CITIZEN who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. HER email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and SHE cannot always answer every one, but SHE WILL  try. If we all lend our
    voices to Karen Sullivan  AND speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Complete  text by Karen Sullivan  November 14, 2014

    Below is a clear proposal from a former employee who maps out why the
    proposed activity is not legal.  From the document:

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    Attached both as a PDF file and pasted into the body of this message,
    please find a summary of the ways in which I believe federal law has been
    violated by the Navy and the Forest Service, in the so-called public
    process and documentation associated with the Navy’s proposed
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training program for the Olympic
    National Forest.

    The reason for this lengthy document ( nearly 6000 words) is that neither unanimous public
    opposition nor the 2,000+ public comments submitted to the Forest Service
    so far have been found by the decision-maker, District Ranger Dean Millett,
    to be “substantive.”  Evidently, emotional pleas, descriptions of probable
    harm to small businesses and simple principled objections are discounted.
    Therefore, in order to rectify that lack as perceived by the Forest
    Service, I have attempted to give more substantive reasons why the Navy’s
    Environmental Assessment is defective and deficient and should be withdrawn
    or completely revised, and the Special Use Permit refused.

    I hope we can bring the total to 3,000 comments or more. Please feel free
    to use the information in here, share it and encourage more people to
    comment. You can comment more than once. Just go to:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759
    and submit them.
    Best,
    Karen Sullivan

    PS – Just so you know, I’m only one person, simply a concerned citizen who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. My email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and I cannot always answer every one, but I’ll try. If we all lend our
    voices to speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    *Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit *
    *to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training *
    *in the Olympic National Forest*
    *Contents:*
    *1. Summary*
    *2. Violations of Federal NEPA Law*
    *3. Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan *
    *4. Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*
    *5. Fraudulent Noise Measurements*
    *6. No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*
    *7. Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*
    *8. Conclusion*

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    *Part 1*

    *Summary*
    The US Navy is proposing to take large swathes of Washington’s Olympic
    National Forest plus a large amount of airspace over Olympic National Park
    and the communities in the area, to run electronic warfare attack and
    detection testing and training, for 260 days per year, permanently, using
    at least 36 new supersonic attack jets and radiation emitters on the
    ground, in 15 locations. The Navy has refused to hold true public hearings
    in affected communities on the Olympic Peninsula, citing not enough money
    in their $11.5 million dollar budget. Each new jet costs between $68
    million and $77 million, depending on which figure is used, so the total
    equipment budget is approximately $2,785,500,000. No public notices were
    printed in any newspapers that directly serve the affected communities.

    *The issue boils down to:* Should the Forest Service issue a Special Use
    Permit to the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to run their
    electronic radiation-emitting truck-and-trailer combinations, which would
    entail numerous unannounced forest closures and other problems? In a
    Machivellian twist, Dean Millett, the Forest Service District Ranger who
    will be making the decision on whether or not to issue the permit, has been
    limited to a very narrow scope, considering only the impacts and effects
    from the truck-and-trailer rigs and nothing else. No jet noise, no jet
    emissions or fuel dumps, no hazards from air-based electronic attack
    weapons, no chronic radiation, no fire danger, or other concerns brought up
    by the public are being considered in issuing this permit. These other
    concerns have been labeled by Mr Millett as being “outside of his decision
    space.” Yet if he issues the permit for road use by the Navy’s emitters, it
    will trigger all of the other testing and training actions and their
    impacts, none of which were evaluated in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment of September 2014.  The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement of
    2010 is unavailable for public comment because the Navy removed it from
    their web site.

    *A military program of electronic warfare on public land* qualifies as a
    major federal action and is thus subject to a public process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. This process includes
    hearings in affected communities whenever there is environmental
    controversy. These hearings must be in accordance with NEPA guidelines,
    which safeguard the public’s right to be heard.  In addition, the
    scientific evidence to back up statements must be thorough, accurate, and
    available for public scrutiny. In this case, the public’s right to know and
    participate has been severely abridged and the Navy’s “science” and legal
    maneuverings for justifying all of these impacts to our communities are
    shakier than the San Andreas Fault.
    *If the permit is issued,* it will likely affect other National Forest
    lands as well, all of which have long been considered appropriate for
    “…military training when compatible with other uses and in conformity with
    applicable Forest Plans,” in a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. In the Ocala
    National Forest in Florida, for example, the Navy maintains a live bombing
    range located half a mile from one campground and two miles from another.
    This is probably not what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when he moved the
    Forest Service from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
    Agriculture.

    District Ranger Millett is expected to sign the permit despite almost
    unanimous public opposition, *unless the Forest Service receives formally
    and in writing what he called “substantive” comments by the end of the
    comment period on November 28*, *2014*. Mr Millett declined to define
    “substantive” when asked at a public informational meeting. Therefore, it
    is the aim of this document to provide readers with the best examples of
    substantive comments possible, short of legal advice from an attorney.

    *Public comments can be sent* to: dmillett@fs.fed.us, gtwahl@fs.fed.us, and
    inputted directly online at:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759

    *Part 2*

    *Violations of Federal NEPA Law*

    *1. Failure to notify the public:* The Navy has violated the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to adequately notify the
    public. One 8”X11” poster stuck on bulletin boards at a couple of post
    offices, combined with tiny notices placed in a few newspapers many miles
    away from those that directly serve affected communities, are a ludicrous
    excuse for notifying the entire population of the Olympic Peninsula.
    Congressman Derek Kilmer’s office sent the Navy a packet with contact
    information for all the local newspapers in affected communities, along
    with a request to prominently post public notices in those papers. Neither
    the Navy nor the Forest Service placed a single notice in any local papers
    serving Olympic Peninsula communities. This is a clear violation of the
    spirit and intent of NEPA as well, and a bad faith gesture to residents of
    the Olympic Peninsula.

    *Why did the Navy discard requests from a congressman and deliberately
    violate federal law in their public notification process?*

    *2.  Failure to record public comments: *Due to the high volume of
    complaints received, Rep. Kilmer asked the Navy to hold public meetings.
    Since then the Navy has made it repeatedly clear that were it not for
    Congressman Kilmer’s request for public meetings, there would be none on
    the Olympic Peninsula. Instead of holding hearings under NEPA, however, the
    Navy and Forest Service held “Informational Meetings.” The fact that none
    of the public’s comments were officially recorded at any of the meetings in
    Forks, Port Angeles and Pacific Beach has further upset people’s confidence
    in government and muddied the understanding of the NEPA process. Most are
    wondering why they aren’t getting a fair shake under normal NEPA procedure.
    CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the
    public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR
    1506.6(a)). “Informational meetings” fulfill neither NEPA requirements nor
    the public’s desire to comment, ask questions, and receive answers,
    especially when people are given one minute to speak and then interrupted
    frequently. The Navy has failed to conduct a proper NEPA process.

    *Why does the Navy refuse to hold hearings and record public comments?*

    * 3. Commenters are given no legal “standing:”* Since none of the hundreds
    of people who have attended the Navy’s informational meetings have had
    their comments recorded, none have any legal standing in the NEPA process,
    unless they submitted their comments again through other avenues that
    require knowing the email addresses of certain officials, or knowing where
    the Forest Service’s web-based NEPA page is. Had these been true public
    hearings, all of those people would now have legal standing, because many
    also held printed comments in their hands, ready to submit after they
    finished speaking. In the Port Angeles meeting, both the Navy and Forest
    Service dismissed the idea of recording comments despite being repeatedly
    challenged to by attendees. The public’s right to a full hearing is
    codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR, and in the State of
    Washington Revised Code, at RCW 42.30.

    *Why were commenters at public meetings given no legal standing in the NEPA
    process?*

    *4. What legal standing means:* Any grievances the public has about
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training MUST be addressed in public
    comments first, in order to have legal standing, which means we are giving
    the Forest Service and the Navy notice that we, the public, think these
    grievances should be addressed. If those grievances are not rectified, any
    legal actions on behalf of the public that follow would have more
    authority, because the Navy had been aware of the grievances yet chose not
    to address them. Without legal standing, those legal actions on behalf of
    the public would likely have less authority due to the implication of no
    notice of grievance being given in public comments. This is a denial of due
    process as stipulated in NEPA, and a distortion of the true amount of
    public concern. On page 1-8 of the Environmental Assessment, the Navy
    states, “No comments were received on the draft EA.” That is *exactly* the
    fear of people who attended those meetings, that their comments would not
    be acknowledged and that the absence of their comments will be reflected
    similarly by the Navy as it did in the EA, thus implying less public
    interest than there really is.

    *5. When hearings are required:* Public meetings or hearings “…are required
    when there may be substantial environmental controversy concerning the
    environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
    holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with
    jurisdiction over the action.” (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)).  Proper hearings under
    NEPA have not been held in affected communities, and the usual citizen’s
    right to register comments at public hearings has been denied. Therefore
    the Navy and the Forest Service have violated NEPA in this regard, too.

    *Why are the Navy and Forest Service discounting the extreme level of
    public sentiment that is being amply demonstrated in other ways besides
    formal written comments? *

    *6. Written comments are also being discounted:* Despite the level of
    public concern remaining extremely high, District Ranger Dean Millett was
    recorded on videotape during the meeting in Port Angeles saying that as of
    November 6, with regard to formal written public comments, the Forest
    Service had received “nothing substantive” that would stop him from signing
    the permit. He is looking exclusively for defects in the Environmental
    Assessment, and insists that public opinion doesn’t count if people simply
    express their objections. He also has said that 2,000 written comments are
    “not a lot” and have had no effect on him. The comment period has been
    extended twice, yet the public is still struggling to wade through the
    nearly 5,000 pages of scientific and technical documentation, much of which
    remains unavailable to them. By not allowing the public sufficient time to
    catch up with a process they entered late, through no fault of their own,
    and by not allowing them time to develop substantive comments, the Forest
    Service is compromising NEPA law.

    *What is the point of a public comment process if the Forest Service
    ignores public opinion?*

    *This is why the Forest Service needs to extend the comment period to the
    end of January, so that the public has enough time to understand the issues
    well enough to make “substantive” comments, and so that the holidays won’t
    interfere with that. *

    *7. Other agencies not consulted:*  Neither Olympic National Park nor the
    State DNR, whose lands will be affected by the mobile emitters, were
    consulted during the drafting of the Environmental Assessment. If they were
    consulted afterward, then where is the public record of those
    consultations? This is another failure on the part of the Navy in its NEPA
    procedure.  Also, neither DNR nor the Park Service were represented at any
    of the informational meetings. Why not?  Failure to consult with other
    affected agencies is a violation of federal law.

    *Part 3*

    *Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan*

    *8. Public interest is paramount: *By signing the permit, the Forest
    Service places itself in violation of its own Forest Management Plan, and
    the National Forest Management Act. No outside agency, including the
    Department of Defense, has the right to override the Forest Service’s own
    Forest Management Plans and conduct activities that place their priorities
    over those of the public. The Forest Service’s own regulations state that
    military use of public lands is not permissible if the military has other
    “suitable and available” lands for their Proposed Action, and Forest
    Service management policy states that when considering issuing such a
    permit, “…the interests and needs of the general public shall be given
    priority over those of the applicant.”  The Navy has not adequately
    demonstrated that it has not investigated the use of private or other
    lands, and its reasons for wanting to move the entire electronic warfare
    program from Mountain Home, Idaho to the Olympic National Forest are not
    enough: fuel savings and ease of scheduling for training are insufficient
    justification to override the overwhelming socioeconomic and environmental
    interests of the public.

    *Why are the needs and desires of the public not being given priority over
    the desires of the Navy?*

    *9. Special Use Permit screening checklist*:  Among its 14 requirements,
    the Forest Service’s own checklist for considering applications says, “Use
    will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety AND
    Use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy AND
    Use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by
    the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses on or
    adjacent to non-National Forest System lands.”

    (36CFR 251.54; FSH 2709.11 12.2 & 12.3; FSM 2703)

    *Part 4*

    *Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*

    *10. Documents still unavailable:* Though the Forest Service’s NEPA home
    page links to the Navy’s Environmental Assessment and its decision
    documents, neither it nor the Navy web pages contain links to the 2010 EIS,
    which was removed from public access by the Navy, or the previous EIS’s
    going back to 1989 that have been cited by the Navy in meetings, or the
    Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2010 Biological Opinion, which is not posted
    anywhere, or to the temporary permit that was issued by the Forest Service
    to the Navy three years ago, or to the Memorandum of Understanding that
    declared military training to be an “appropriate use” of national forest
    lands, or to supporting documents referenced in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment, such as Joint Publication 3-13.1, which describes the methods
    and intent of electronic attack weapons on the Growler jets that will be
    training in the Olympic National Forest.

    This is a violation of NEPA, which says such pertinent documents shall be
    made available to the public for scrutiny.  (18CFR 380.9).  Moreover, an
    explanation of the Forest Service’s own updated NEPA handbook says, “…NEPA
    procedures regulations [sic] are intended to let interested parties become
    more effectively engaged in the decision making process rather than merely
    as reviewer of proposals and final documents. Specifically, the regulations
    include an option for responsible officials to incrementally develop,
    modify, and document proposed actions and alternatives through an open and
    transparent process.”

    *If District Ranger Dean Millett is the responsible official who has the
    power to make the public review process more open and transparent, then why
    does he not do it?*

    *11. Navy dismisses entire categories of impacts:*  On page ES-2 of the
    Environmental Assessment the Navy states, “Cumulative impacts of the
    Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future impacts, were analyzed. Based on the analysis, cumulative
    impacts within the EW Range Study Area would not be significant.” On page
    4-1 the Navy says, “The cumulative impacts analysis in this EA focused on
    impacts that are “truly meaningful,” in accordance with CEQ guidance
    (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The level of analysis for each
    resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts.” Also, “…this
    EA dismissed from further analysis the actions and environmental
    considerations that were considered not reasonably forseeable.” *The Navy
    is not allowed to dismiss environmental considerations* it considers not
    meaningful or foreseeable during a NEPA process; this is a violation of
    NEPA, which does not allow an agency such leeway. In November 2009, a
    federal court judge ruled that a faulty impacts analysis in a NEPA process
    may subject the government to financial liability later. In early 2010, the
    Obama administration announced plans to require analysis of the proposed
    action’s relation to climate change, along with impacts on land use,
    biological diversity, and air and water quality. While analysis of
    cumulative impacts has been the subject of disagreement among agencies, *the
    Navy has provided in its EA neither peer-reviewed citations nor detailed
    analysis on any of the following topics, all of which would be in the
    public’s interest:*

    a. Socioeconomic impacts to communities from increased jet noise and air
    pollution;

    b. Impacts to wilderness values in Olympic National Park;

    c. Cultural factors, including traditional uses of land;

    d. Analysis of multiple stressors on humans, endangered species, and other
    wildlife;

    e. Analysis of chronic radiation effects on humans, wildlife and habitats,
    including aquatic; (There was no mention in the EA of the U.S. Department
    of Interior’s February 7, 2014 critique of the FCC’s outdated dismissal of
    radiation concerns, see

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf  )

    f. Evaluation of the protection of children, environmental justice, water,
    land use, and geology;

    g. Analyses on population effects on threatened bird species, particularly
    the cumulative effects of noise and electromagnetic radiation on the
    northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, in whose critical habitat areas
    most of the Navy’s emitter sites will be located;

    h. Analysis of the effects of electromagnetic radiation and loud sounds on
    migrating shorebirds, geese, ducks, and other non-listed birds;

    Additionally, there were none of these:

    9. Cost analysis for jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles,
    versus effects on the environment.

    i. Analysis of other sites as alternatives to the Olympic MOA, including
    private lands.

    j. Analysis of the increased fire danger posed by jet and drone crashes,
    sparks from vehicle transmitters or operators’ cigarettes, or misdirected
    electromagnetic beams from either the transmitters or from jets, hitting
    tinder-dry vegetation;

    k. Analysis of the interaction and effects of climate change as a potential
    magnifier of impacts.

    *Why did the Navy not do its homework?*

    *Did the Forest Service assess each segment of the Olympic National Forest
    to be used by the Navy with an initial focus on identifying and evaluating
    the wide variety of impacts and potential risks to resources?  Were these
    risks rated as high, medium or low? Did the Forest Service assess impacts
    from jet emissions, jet and drone crashes, possible fires caused by said
    activities, along with other impacts, including but not limited to:  Loss
    of National Forest public revenue, loss of use by the public, the scope and
    number of acres needed for use by the Navy, the scope of the habit in that
    area, etc.  If there is potential damage, how will Navy restore these
    areas?  *

    *Were the above factors, if investigated by the U.S. Forest Service,
    reviewed by the Forest Botany and Wildlife Team? During their review, did
    they specifically consider the influence of electronic and electromagnetic
    affects to species such as fragmentation, disturbance, and potential loss
    of habitat quality?*

    *Part 5*

    *Fraudulent Noise Measurements*

    *12. Jet noise not accurately measured for assessing impacts:*  At a
    meeting with residents in Coupeville on the topic of jet noise, a Navy
    representative described the process of sound measurement as that of
    placing a GE engine on a test platform on the ground, turning it on and
    recording its noise. That data is fed into noise mapping software that
    considers land contour data. The processed data was then averaged with
    quiet time over the length of a year to produce a “Day-Night Average,” as
    is done at commercial airports by the FAA. No live jet takeoffs or landings
    were measured in establishing the Day-Night Average, according to the Navy
    official, nor was the frequent use of afterburners ever factored into those
    sound levels, nor was the significant extra noise from extended flaps,
    landing gear and speed brakes included.

    The Navy developed a decibel average of 65, which is under the limit for
    hearing damage but over the limit, according to the Navy’s own figures, for
    residential development. 65 decibels does not, however, account for the
    times when the decibel level *inside* some residential homes is above 100,
    which is more than enough to cause hearing loss, or the fact that at some
    homes at Admiral’s Cove the decibel level has been measured by an
    independent sound professional, at 134.2.  Growler jets are louder than the
    Prowlers they are replacing, and the Navy has promised that the minimum
    altitude they will be flying over land is 1200 feet. That has been
    frequently contradicted by hikers on mountainous forest trails, who have
    reported seeing jets fly past beneath them. According to the Navy’s own
    figures, a Growler jet flying at 1000 feet produces a “Single Event Level”
    of 113 decibels, which is enough to damage hearing and cause medical
    problems in people subjected to it. In the Roosevelt-Okanogan Military
    Training Area the Navy is authorized to fly at 300 feet above ground level.
    It is not clear what would prevent them from authorizing that lower
    altitude in the Olympic National Forest.

    A recent study called Community Aircraft Noise: A Public Health Issue
    identified serious health effects in Coupeville, WA, caused by chronic and
    acute noise episodes:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%20Health%20Issue.pdf

    *With regard to jet noise and emissions,* the “Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve”
    on Whidbey Island have created a web page which includes this Links and
    Files section, full of valuable information:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/LinksAndFiles.html

    *As a result of the Navy’s apparent underestimation of sound levels* caused
    by jets, the effects of loud noise on threatened and endangered species in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Navy, which was
    begun in 2009 and issued in 2010, may be based on inaccurate or misleading
    information from the Navy. If this is indeed the case, that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was given inaccurate or misleading information on which to
    base its evaluation of biological impacts, then the Biological Opinion
    should be considered invalid and formal consultation re-initiated under
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, using actual sound measurements
    from real jets. Providing deliberately misleading information to a federal
    agency is also considered a form of fraud or false statement under US Code,
    Chapter 47. There may be other applicable laws that were violated.

    *What is the real level of sound produced by Navy jets, and why was this
    information not incorporated into impact studies, and shouldn’t the Navy be
    required to change its measurement system to the full spectrum of noise
    generated by actual aircraft?*

    *Part 6*

    *No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*

    *13. The Forest Service conducted no independent research:* At the Port
    Angeles meeting, District Ranger Dean Millett acknowledged and is recorded
    on videotape saying that *the Forest Service did not conduct any
    independent investigation to verify the Navy’s claims of no significant
    impacts*. This violates the Forest Service’s own policies as well as the
    law. For example, the Environmental Assessment dismisses potential impacts
    on everything that does not fall into its category of “observable
    wildlife.” It inaccurately states that amphibians and reptiles only exist
    around marshes and meadows. On page 3.2-6 it says, “The proposed activities
    do not occur on marshes or in meadows; therefore, it is highly unlikely
    that amphibians or reptiles would occur in the project area.”

    A similar statement dismisses the possibility of amphibians or reptiles
    occurring on “disturbed areas” such as roadside pull-outs where mobile
    transmitters would operate.  The Forest Service is presumably aware that
    the Olympic National Forest is designated a temperate rainforest, which
    means it is damp and wet during much of the year, and is prime habitat for
    amphibians such as frogs, newts, and salamanders throughout, which can be
    quite far from “marshes and meadows.” Furthermore, both amphibians and
    reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) often frequent cleared or “disturbed”
    areas. Dismissing amphibians and reptiles from consideration is misleading
    and unlawful, because amphibians are especially sensitive to
    electromagnetic radiation, particularly in their larval stages. Along with
    omissions of important analyses and data previously discussed, such blatant
    misstatements of fact *preclude informed public comment*, raise serious
    questions about the integrity of the preparers, and renders the entire
    Environmental Assessment and the permit that is intended to be based on it,
    suspect. *The US Forest Service has a duty to conduct its own independent
    scientific review* of the impacts of activities that it allows or condones.
    An agency cannot simply adopt the conclusions of another agency.

    *If the Forest Service questions the Navy’s data, then why has it not done
    its own independent investigations?  And if it does not question the Navy’s
    data, why not?*

    *14. The Courts have spoken:*  The above comments amply demonstrate the
    need for the Forest Service to conduct its own scientific review.  In Save
    Our Ecosystems V. P Clark E Merrell, http://openjurist.org/747/f2d/1240 the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The Forest Service must do research
    if no adequate data exists.” In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep V.
    US Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit Court said, “the very
    purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that
    may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for such
    speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior
    to the implementation of the proposed action.” 681 F.2d at 1179. In Warm
    Springs Dam Task Force V. Gribble, the Court held that an agency cured the
    defect in its EIS by commissioning a study about the effects of a newly
    discovered fault system on that dam. 621 F.2d at 1025-26.

    *15. Other courts have imposed similar requirements on agencies*. See,
    e.g., Rankin v. Coleman, 394 F.Supp. 647, 658 (highway project enjoined for
    inadequate EIS on effects and alternatives; alternatives must be
    “affirmatively studied”), mod. 401 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.N.C.1975); Montgomery
    v. Ellis, 364 F.Supp. 517, 528 (N.D.Ala.1973) (“NEPA requires each agency
    to undertake research needed adequately to expose environmental harms and,
    hence, to appraise available alternatives”) (project enjoined pending
    preparation of an adequate EIS); Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269, 279
    (“NEPA requires each agency to indicate the research needed to adequately
    expose environmental harms”), supplemented, 350 F.Supp. 287
    (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, *487 F.2d 1344*
    <http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/1344> (9th
    Cir.1973); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
    (D.D.C.1971) (interpreting section 102(2)(A) as making “the completion of
    an adequate research program a prerequisite to agency action …. The Act
    envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results
    rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate
    programs already decided upon”) If the information relevant to adverse
    impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
    known, and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the
    agency *shall
    *include the information in the environmental impact statement.

    *Part 7*

    *Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*

    *16. Chronic radiation effects not addressed:* In Section 2.1.1.4, the
    claim that the noise and RF radiation from mobile emitters will not impact
    what the Environmental Assessment calls Biological Resources is entirely
    based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest,
    so exposure at any one site is limited. This despite the fact that 3 mobile
    units will be in operation from 8 – 16 hours per day, 260 days per year,
    among 15 different sites on the Olympic Peninsula. According to the EA,
    each mobile emitter site will average 11.15 training events per day, which
    also includes electronic detection and attack weapons from jets. This works
    out to an average of 468 hours of electromagnetic radiation per site per
    year, or 195, 24-hour days per decade. The Department of the Interior has
    criticized the FCC’s standards for cellphone radiation to be outmoded and
    no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

    *Where is the peer-reviewed research to back up the Navy’s claim of no
    significant impacts?*

    *17. Potential loss of human lives:*  Page 2-7 of the environmental
    assessment says the following: “The activities of the Proposed Action
    center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
    electronic attack (EA).” Then it goes on to provide this short explanation:
    “Sailors aboard Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft conduct ES and EA
    training as they search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize
    sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy
    for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and
    conduct of future operations. “(EA 2-7)  This sounds pretty benign.

    The environmental assessment references Joint Publication 3-13.1,
    Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012 as a source document, and if you look
    at this publication the short explanation above is, verbatim, the
    definition of electronic support but  the environmental assessment leaves
    out any explanation of electronic attack (EA). Joint Publication 3-13.1
    defines Electronic Attack as follow: “EA refers to the division of EW
    involving the use of EM energy, DE (directed energy), or antiradiation
    weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of
    degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability…”

    Directed energy is defined as:  “An umbrella term covering technologies
    that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic
    energy or atomic or subatomic particles. ” (GL6) “Examples include lasers,
    electro-optical (EO), infrared (IR), and radio frequency (RF) weapons such
    as high-power microwave (HPM) or those employing an EMP.  (I-4)  Now it’s
    getting serious. Additionally, Joint Publication 3-13-1 also speaks to
    unintended consequences of EW:  “Unintended Consequences. EW planners must
    coordinate EW efforts … to minimize unintended consequences, collateral
    damage, and collateral effects. Friendly EA could potentially deny
    essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in
    loss of life and/or political ramifications.”  (III-5)

    The Environmental Assessment, which only deals with the ground operations
    (the emitters), is addressing just a part of the impact and is totally
    silent on what may be the bigger concern, which is impact caused by the
    aircraft, ships and submarines engaging in EW training, and particularly
    electronic attack training.

    *What types of electronic attack will be practiced, and what are the
    potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the
    environment?*

    *How can a Special Use Permit include the use of Electronic Attack weapons
    if they weren’t even discussed in the Environmental Assessment? *

    *Part 8*

    *Conclusion*

    The U.S. Navy is demonstrably unable to perceive or assess impacts in our
    forests, and is evidently unwilling to assess or disclose impacts to
    humans, wildlife and habitats from a variety of sources that concern the
    public. Because none of these direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have
    been analyzed, and because there have been so many violations of NEPA
    procedure, and because case law has shown again and again that one agency
    cannot rely exclusively on the data from another agency, this Special Use
    Permit should not be issued. For the above reasons, the Navy’s self-serving
    Environmental Assessment should be withdrawn and an honest, independent
    assessment of impacts should be made by the Forest Service, in a valid
    Environmental Impact Statement that places no applicant’s priority above
    the interests of the public, and that allows the public to have a say in
    the management of its public lands.

    It is ironic in the extreme that the Navy forces other agencies to consider
    vast amounts of area when evaluating impacts, such as to endangered species
    in the entire northwestern region of Washington, or on a training range
    that stretches from California to Alaska, yet it forces public commenters
    to restrict themselves to one item on their menu of impacts when foisting a
    program of such potentially immense consequence upon the public.

    As of December 2014, the Navy will also be expanding its sonar and
    explosive activity (http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2) into waters off
    Indian Island near Port Townsend, in the Strait of Juan De Fuca, and in the
    2,408 square mile Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary, where the Navy says it is
    exempt from prohibitions. It has, however, said that bombing exercises will
    take place outside the Sanctuary. At the same time, the Navy is developing
    plans for two Carrier Strike Groups to train in the Gulf of Alaska just
    south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, using new
    extremely loud weapons systems and sinking two ships per year, in exercises
    that the Navy admits will kill or injure 182,000 whales, dolphins,
    porpoises, sea lions, seals, sea otters and other marine mammals in one
    five-year period. This is less than the original prediction of 425,000
    marine mammals, but still so astonishing it makes one wonder what parts of
    our biologically rich coasts will not become war zones with high casualty
    counts, if the Navy gets its way.

    s/  Karen Sullivan, November 14, 2014


  • Why I don’t Vote for Liberals?

    Why I don’t Vote for Liberals?

     I got an email with a form to fill out. They ask this question? Tell us why you vote Republican?

    What’s YOUR Story?

    If you asked “ME”  the question it should be, Tell us why you don’t vote for liberals?

    The answers you get would probably? Result in a lot of REALLY impressive  HORROR stories.

    What’s “MY” Story? Why I don’t Vote for Liberals?

     ————————————————————————-

    My defining moment? Jan. 26, 2011.

     “WHEN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE AFRAID OF WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO TO THEM, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME.”

    I was profoundly affected by the following quotation

    “I said “Somebody should do something about that.” Then I realized I am somebody.”

    So, I did something about it.

    What’s “MY” Story? Read all about it.

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism; commissioner defends efforts

    Peninsula Daily News- Pearl Rains Hewett, who attended a Jan. 26 forum, said some citizens were fearful over what the update will mean to them. “If the Clallam County update on the Shoreline Master Program turns out to be anything like the one in Port Townsend, my conclusion is that any type of property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,” Hewett said.

    ————————————————————————————

    What’s MY Story? Why I don’t Vote for Liberals?

     Read all about it…

    Olympic National Park mea culpa: ‘Inholder’ blocked from family property

    Pearl Rains Hewett On June 28, 2011 an article “Access Denied” with my picture was on the front page of the Peninsula Daily News.

    Pearl Rains Hewett stands at a blockade on Olympic Hot Springs Road in Olympic National Park on Monday. — Photo by Chris Tucker/Peninsula Daily News

    By Paul Gottlieb
    Peninsula Daily News

    ——————————————————————–

    I know I won’t win the contest…

    But,  I am happy to respond and tell you WHY I always VOTE.

    AND, WHY I DON’T VOTE FOR LIBERALS?

    I am a concerned American Grandmother. I was born a free American, I would like to die as a free American,  I am a concerned American Grandmother. Voting is the least I can do, in an attempt to protect the freedom of my ten grand kids and my seven great grand kids in the future.

    The majority of time I find myself frustrated by the political smorgasbord, we the voters, are presented with, And, I eventually just end up voting for the least wurst candidate.

    ———————————————————————————————

    WOW… THAT  OLD AMERICAN GRANDMOTHER  ALWAYS VOTES…

    BOY, NOW, THAT’S A REALLY SCARY CONCEPT.

    Then, yet again, I thought “Somebody should do something about that.” Then, yet again, I realized I am somebody.”

    And I did.

    ————————————————————————————————

    My second defining moment? Jan 31, 2012.

    My grandson set up my website. “behindmyback.org”

    THE POWER OF CYBER SPACE, INDEED, THAT IS A REALLY SCARY CONCEPT TO POLITICIANS.

    ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND IT GOES AND WHERE IT STOPS NOBODY KNOWS.

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    What’s MY Story? Why I don’t Vote for Liberals?

     Read all about it…

    My website has been  mentioned in the GOP Newsletter- December 2013 Clallam  County   clallamrepublicans.org/wp…/07/GOP-Newsletter-December-2013.pdf

    Dec 18, 2013 – Spotlight on an Activist: Meet Pearl RainsHewett. Long-time resident and grandmother activist, Pearl RainsHewett has seen many changes on …

    If you’d  like to learn more about what our

    government agencies are doing “to”

    us, this is a great place to visit.

    www.behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————————–

    What’s MY Story?  WHY I DON’T VOTE FOR LIBERALS?

     WOW, They are too damned “WILD” for me.

    I thought “Somebody should do something about that.”

    SO, I did.  I POSTED A TEN PART SERIES ON THE WOW A “WAR ON WILD” read all about it on my website.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    And, those “WILD” postings created an opportunity for me to speak…

    Hi Folks,

    Please join us for our King County Chapter CAPR meeting — Thursday April 3rd.

     Our speaker is Pearl Hewett—WILDING THE WEST.

    We are meeting again at the Issaquah IHOP.  Dinner at 6:00 PM, meeting at 7:00 PM.

    The address is 1433 NW Sammamish Rd.

    NOTE:   After the business meeting people can enjoy dinner and conversation before the regular meeting starts at 7:00 PM.
    Thanks,

    Rick Forschler

    President, King County Chapter

    Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR)

    ———————————————————————————————–

    I have no choice but to plead the “Jefferson” on your

    Tell us why you vote Republican? question.

    “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself.  Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” –Thomas Jefferson to Francis
    Hopkinson, 1789.

    ———————————————————————————————

    Why?  Am I not one of “THEM”?

    When I was leaving a packed Commissioners meeting in Clallam County, in the hallway,  two county employees were talking.

    One said “What going on? why all the people?”

    The other said OH, IT’S JUST THEM” referring to  Clallam County 4C’s

    When a couple of hundred of people showed up at a commissioners meeting to protest ICLEI

    God, forbid…. that 200 say, DISRUPTIVE IGNORANT PUBLIC ATTENDEES from 4C’s should be disruptive at County Commissioners meeting to pull Clallam County out of ICLEI.

     Profiled Americans, casually dismissed, as nobodies, no big deal… OH, IT’S JUST THEM”

     —————————————————————————————————————

     The New York Times called me for a survey.

    The first question was “How would you describe yourself? Democrat? Republican?  libertarian?  independent?  Tea Party?…..

    ENOUGH already…… I did object…

    No, I am not one of “THEM” or a Communist or a member of the Ku Klux Klan either.

    I am simply an American Grandmother.

    OK… so I may be called an Activist American Grandmother

    Please visit my website behindmyback.org for my 400+ postings on “Why I don’t vote for liberals”.

     


  • VA Conspiracy to Defraud?

    923 18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

    House hears evidence VA cooked books on claims backlog

    May 9, 2014 – A whistleblower who worked at two Texas VA facilities claims he was “coached” on how to “cook the books” to conceal long wait times for …

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    —————————————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW

    923 18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

    Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

    TO CONSPIRE TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

    Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

    The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

    Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants’ actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission’s reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

    The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant’s activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest”), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    THIS IS THE LAW

    18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact

    accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    ARE THESE LAWS IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN JUSTICE?

    WHAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

    WHO IS IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS?

    ERIC HOLDER- FAST AND FURIOUS

    LOIS LERNER – IRS TARGETING

    WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    ERIC HOLDER

    HOW MANY AMERICAN SCANDALS DO THESE LAWS  DEFINE?

    THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DISASTER

    BENGHAZI

    IRS TARGETING

    THE AFFORDABLE  HEALTH CARE ACT

    FAST AND FURIOUS

    WHAT IS AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT?

    —————————————————————————-

    House hears evidence VA cooked books on claims backlog

    Furthermore, the VA then “lost control” of the provisional ratings cases, which were pushed further to the back burner, where they were ignored. Some veterans might never have received final rating decisions if not for the IG investigation, according to Halliday.

    Miller showed internal VA emails from last year showing managers told employees that the method of dealing with the oldest cases might go against their professional values but that “there will be no negative consequences for you the employees.”

    The only negative effects would come from not meeting VA goals of reducing the backlog, according to excerpts from the emails.

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Report: $8.8 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses at seven accused VA facilities since 2011

    “If you look at recent VA preventable deaths, patient safety incidents and backlog increases, department senior executives who presided over negligence and mismanagement are more likely to have received a bonus or glowing performance review than any sort of punishment,” says a description of the bill on the website of the House Veteran Affairs Committee.

    —————————————————————————————-

    VA Cooking the Books….

    May 27, 2014 – “Cooking the books” at VA hospitals has exploded into public view since allegations arose that up to 40 patients may have died at the Phoenix …

    May 9, 2014 – A whistleblower who worked at two Texas VA facilities claims he was “coached” on how to “cook the books” to conceal long wait times for …

    18 U.S. Code 286 -Conspiracy to Defraud the Government

    www.law.cornell.edu › … Part 1>Chapter 15› Legal Information Institute

    Whoever enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, or any department or agency thereof, by obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false, fictitious or fraudulent claim, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    PENAL CODE

    TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

    CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

    Sec. 19.01.  TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

    (b)  Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 19.04.  MANSLAUGHTER.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

    (b)  An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.04 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 307, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.05 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 19.05.  CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

    (b)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.06 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.07 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    ——————————————————————————————

    VA Gave Out Bonuses for Criminally Negligent Homicide

    May 19, 2014

    If reports are true, the VA is a hotbed of corruption which lets dozens or hundreds of veterans die waiting for help. It’s no less than criminally negligent homicide at the hands of self-serving bureaucrats.

    Two whistleblowers have said that many veterans were deliberately delayed or never seen at all. Veterans were kept on separate lists so DC wouldn’t find out about the delays. At risk were employee bonuses.

    The problems at Veterans Affairs might be systemic and they have been well-known for a long time. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden knew in 2008.

    How many, if any, veterans deaths are the result of criminally negligent homicide is unclear and will remain that way because the DOJ is refusing to investigate at this point, but don’t worry Barack Obama and Eric Shinseki are “mad as hell”.

    According to a report issued by the VA last year,  22 soldiers a day kill themselves. Could their lives have been saved with prompt intervention?

    After what our military men and women have sacrificed for us, we have thanked them by giving them horrendous healthcare services. Don’t worry, we will all soon suffer the same fate under Obamacare. Look to the veterans for your future healthcare and weep. Obamacare will provide bonuses to those who let Grandma die.

    In some VA hospitals, our military healthcare officials appear to be waiting for our veterans to die and all our leaders can do is say they are mad as hell?

    Did you know that the VA has been shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars in financial settlements because of negligence? The settlements amounted to $845 million in the last decade alone.

    An investigation by the Dayton Daily News found 167 cases since 2001 in which the VA delayed treatment, delays which resulted in voluntary and court-ordered claims totaling $36.4 million.

    At least 23 people have died because of delayed care according to the VA.

    Our transparent government pretended that Robert Petzel, undersecretary for health care at the VA, was forced to resign. As it happens, he was scheduled to retire. It was another lie to give the impression that they were being tough. Even if it were a forced resignation, and the poor man had to settle back and live off his fat government pension, how is that an appropriate response to potential cases of criminally negligent homicide?

    Agency head Eric Shinseki and Barack Obama are “mad as Hell” but the DOJ has announced they are not looking into any of the claims, they are monitoring.

    Government workers should NOT be getting bonuses.  The government is offering incentives for people to lie and cheat.

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office in December 2012 released a review of the Dayton VA Medical center as well as VA hospitals in Montana, California and Washington, D.C. It found errors by schedulers at every hospital.

    “During our site visits, staff at some clinics told us they change medical appointment desired dates to show clinic wait times within VHA’s performance goals,” the report says.

    Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

    “This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote.

    The briefing materials, obtained by The Washington Times through the Freedom of Information Act, make clear that the problems existed well before Mr. Obama took office, dating back at least to the Bush administration. But the materials raise questions about what actions the department took since 2009 to remedy the problems.

    An April 9 GAO report issued after a review of select VA centers across the country noted that approximately 2 million outpatient referrals were unresolved for more than 90 days in 2012.

    At one medical center, veterans waited 140 to 210 days. Four of 10 physical therapy referrals at another medical center took 108 to 152 days “with no apparent action taken to schedule an appointment for the veteran.”

    Ohio’s six VA medical centers had a combined 54 malpractice payouts related to deaths since 2001. The Dayton VA Medical Center had the most, though Cleveland’s two medical centers had 22 combined. One case settled in 2003 for $200,000 involved hospitals in both Dayton and Cleveland.

    The VA paid $91.2 million last year in financial settlements and awards in response to malpractice claims. A nationwide Cox Media Group investigation in November found that payouts peaked in 2012 and totaled $845 million over the past decade.

    U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said he expects the House this month to consider the VA Management Accountability Act, which would give Shinseki — who Boehner is not calling on to resign — authority to remove senior executives.

    “If you look at recent VA preventable deaths, patient safety incidents and backlog increases, department senior executives who presided over negligence and mismanagement are more likely to have received a bonus or glowing performance review than any sort of punishment,” says a description of the bill on the website of the House Veteran Affairs Committee.

    We give bonuses to the people who should be fired.

    ———————————————————————————

    keep reading if you are interested

    Defrauding the government

    18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

    The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

    The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

    Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

    The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

    Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

    To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

    Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

    The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

    Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants’ actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission’s reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

    The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant’s activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest”), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

    In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:

    the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.

    18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact

    accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section3571 fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.