Amazing how there are funds for Sasha and Malia to head to Idaho, the Bahamas (and Mexico last year) with Secret Service in tow for Spring Break, but no funds for the rest of America’s kids to visit the White House (the People’s House) or have an Easter Egg Roll on the White House Lawn… finally reinstated after an uproar from the public; Obama even played the Jesus card in his Easter message… no doubt hoping to appease “We the Sheeple” and to take the focus off the first daughters’ trip(s)?
Earlier this week, Breitbart News broke the story that the Obama daughters spent part of Spring Break at the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas.
***
UPDATE: The White House has confirmed the report was removed on their request. From Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady:
From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.
Earlier this week, Breitbart News broke the news that the First Daughters were on a spring break trip in the Bahamas, with Secret Service protection in tow, despite staff shortages that the White House cited in closing tours to the public.
The cross-continental trip for the First Daughters represents an epic tour. The KMTV news report cited photo evidence that the First Daughters were on the ski slopes, but noted that it was "unclear" whether First Lady Michelle Obama had accompanied them.
Separately, Breitbart News received a tip Friday morning from a parent whose daughter encountered the First Daughters in Sun Valley: "My daughter found herself in the middle of the entourage as she exited a local shop."
Meanwhile, the White House remains closed to thousands of students traveling to Washington, D.C. over Spring Break.
President Obama canceled the public, self-guided tours in a bid to trim $2 million from the Secret Service budget. The full cost of the First Daughters' 2013 spring break travel and necessary security detail are unknown at this time. Presumably, the Secret Service costs could have covered at least a few weeks of public White House tours.
Most people, if they have a spring break vacation, have to choose between the beach or the slopes. The Obamas, however, are not most people.
*Beware people… this will be our world, the have and have-nots, if we don’t snap out of our daze quickly. Just like in most of the rest of the world, we the masses, the sheeple, the lowly taxpayers will not be taking the trips… it will be the ruling elite, and most of the time, you won’t even get to see the pictures!
I just want to know if Idaho has lost her ever-freaking mind. I would laugh at this except I know it is not a joke and in reality what they are practicing for is societal collapse and civil unrest. Gee, I wonder whose bright idea this was? Surely it has the approval of Governor Otter who seems to have shifted to the dark side. He is signing Idaho up (along with the majority of Republicans in this state I might add) to accept Obama’s health care exchange and in return, Idaho gets millions. I am sure Otter’s 30 [million] pieces of silver seem a great boon to him; to the patriots of Idaho, it is more like treason. Once the state door is open to these Progressive vampires, they go all out. The latest invited in is evidently FEMA.
Yes folks, FEMA will hold a Zombie Apocalypse/Alien Invasion drill in Moscow, Idaho on April 27th, from 9 am to 5 pm with 100 goons and/or dupes participating. This is a full-scale exercise. Guess what? I may go see this for myself. Moscow is full of good people. I almost moved there. I know they don’t condone this farce of a pretense. I wonder why they picked Moscow? There’s a university there, but it is a small town. Boise would have been the logical choice, but I don’t think logic has anything to do with this.
There are 2 scenarios: mass casualty and a rope rescue. All Latah Co first responders and nearby counties will be participating. CERT will be assisting in the EOC and other duties as deemed necessary.
Mass casualties? From what? A blizzard? Flooding? Neither of those are likely at all. More likely, mass casualties from civil unrest and the Obama administration clamping down hard on the area. I find this very disturbing. Maybe there’s a “logic” to it after all: Moscow is a small town, off the beaten path, with a pool of willing, uh, “participants” to recruit for such an exercise. Doing this in a larger venue might attract press, remote small-town Idaho, not so much.
Hey, any excuse to practice shooting at unarmed citizens, right? The government is using citizen target profiles to practice with as well, while buying up all the arms and ammo they can get their evil hands on. They are also stockpiling food and medicine. I’m sure this is all just a coincidence – not. If FEMA and the CDC were truly concerned in prepping for emergencies to ‘protect’ civilians, they would go about it seriously. Instead, they are practicing on how to take us down in case of an emergency, while trying to sell it as humorous. Look at the funny government! Don’t pay attention to what they are really practicing for. I seriously doubt it is Zombies or Aliens. The government thugs and our local leaders make it seem sooo silly, that no one will take it seriously (at least they hope that is the case). They want everyone to view it as entertainment, like a movie and not real. Do they really think we are that stupid? Why, yes they do. It’s like reality TV, without the reality or the TV.
While the nut cases and the conspiracy theorists will thrill to this, you should be thinking in real terms. For instance, if the economy tanks, which is VERY likely, the government knows there will be riots and violence. They are preparing for how to quell these events. Which is why the choice of Moscow, Idaho has me confused. The Coeur d’Alene/Post Falls/Hayden area is close and much bigger in population. So, I will have to keep noodling on their choice of cities. Perhaps it is a county/regional thing. In which case, those in Moscow need to be asking some hard questions of their leaders.
I would really like to know what Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch have to say about this. I would also like to know what Congressmen Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson have to say. I don’t care if it is their area of the state or not – this affects all of us.
The person organizing this at FEMA is Sandy Rollins. Here is her contact info at Citizen Corps (that creeps me out all by itself – or as Obama would say: ‘Citizen Corpse’):
County Coordinator Latah County PO Box 8068 Moscow, ID 83843
Nothing makes much sense anymore. We cuddle with the Muslim Brotherhood and support terrorists and tyrants. The US is broke and we are gutting our military, but we can send fighter jets to Egypt. We are supposedly protecting the homeland, but we release over 2000 illegal immigrants (part of the smoke and mirrors of Sequestration), many with violent records with a promise that they will check in. We leave our borders wide open. We are redistributing our wealth to nations all over the planet, while running FEMA drills across the country for reasons that just don’t make sense. Unless of course you include civil unrest and martial law in the equation. And possibly war. All this while our leaders are trying to disarm us and nullify the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself. Do the revolutionary math.
Believe it or not, most people aren’t bothered by all this. They just think it is the government running drills and is normal. It is not normal folks. Not at all. And the costs have to run into the many millions if not billions. How can we afford this, especially since it is unnecessary?
There are military drills being run all over the country now. Tammy Bruce reports there have been drills in LA. I’ve seen reports on Houston, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Phoenix and the list goes on and on. These drills included helicopters and repelling military into the heart of cities. All I can say, is trust your gut. This will not end well.
The government is prepping Idaho — maybe reminding us we’re not out of reach? — as part of its overall plan for the US and her citizens. Believe me when I say that it has nothing to do with Zombies or Aliens (well, maybe illegal aliens). Something wicked this way comes, folks. And it’s not cute. And it’s not theater. It will be very real. Life-and-death real.
Note: The web page has now been taken down from the FEMA web site, citing that this post (on a Sunday) caused so much negative response, it had to be removed. I’m just a blogger on a backwater blog asking questions about stuff that doesn’t seem right. You never know what question is going to start a storm.
At the GOP Debate last week the two agencies that got the most votes from the public and the presidential candidates to either get rid or completely or get rid of start over were the EPA and the Department of Education… and the IRS was the 3rd if you put the fair or flat tax systems in place. Under Obama they’ve all grown and will keep growing.
$40 million in fines pending over plan to build new home
Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.
That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.
Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.
The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."
"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""
The organization has prepared a video to explain the case:
The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.
The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.
Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.
Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million.
Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."
"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."
No matter, said the government. Do what we want.
So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can't address a decision like this, as it's an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the "compliance order" and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.
Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.
The "taking" of their private property without due process now is the focus on the high court's hearings.
The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."
"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"
The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."
"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.
Further, the "compliance order" also demands that the private property owners give the EPA full access not only to the lands but to their private records about what is done to the land.
"Given that the order is not based on probable cause, it withdraws the Sacketts' constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches by requiring them to grant access to 'all records and documentation related to the conditions at the site and th restoration activities conducted pursuant to this order.'"
The EPA ordered the planting of specific trees and shrubs and then demanded that the land "be fenced for the first three growing seasons."
"Monitoring of vegetation on the restored site for survival and ground coverage shall be performed in October 2008, June 2009, October 2009, and October 2010," it ordered.
"The very existence of the order, subjecting the property to a federal mandate, prohibiting the intended, authorized use, and requiring expensive remedial actions, substantially reduces the value of the property and limits the Sacketts' ability to [use] it," the brief said.
"Although there has been no judicial decision to establish EPA's jurisdiction and authority to impose these deprivations, the compliance order threatens the Sackets with various 'sanctions.'"
The couple's eventual lawsuit claimed the EPA does not have jurisdiction and the order violates their due process and other constitutional rights.
"The second claim turns on the basic principle that, before a person can be deprived of liberty or property, he is entitled to a full and fair hearing 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'" the brief argues. "The third claim is based on the related principle that a person cannot be punished for conduct that violates an 'impermissibly vague' law."
The district court rejected their case, as did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The court created a constitutional problem by reading the Clean Water Act to preclude judicial review of the compliance order," said the brief. "The court acknowledged both that the Clean Water Act's express language does not mandate the interpretation it ultimately adopted … and that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that raise serious constitutional questions," the brief said.
"The court never considered whether contrary inferences might support the conclusion that Congress did intend for individuals like the Sacketts to obtain review under the APA. Similarly, the court never considered whether the nature of the compliance order itself supports review."
Additionally, it's an order issued without probable cause and "the process that produces the order is entirely secret, with no notice given to property owners like the Sacketts."
"In sum, the compliance order has deprived the Sacketts of the only economically viable use of their property permitted under local law, deprived them of their right to exclude unwanted persons from their property, and deprived them of their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property and effects. The Sacketts have never received any review, let alone meaningful review, of the compliance order," the brief argued.
Schiff earlier told WND the significant property rights and due process issues need to be resolved.
"When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?" he said.
"We're very encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized how important our case is," said Mike Sackett in a statement released earlier by the foundation. "We are standing up against an agency that seems to have unlimited resources and few if any limits on what it can do to property owners. We're standing up for everyone's right to go to court when the government hands you a raw deal– or takes over your hard-earned property. Thank goodness PLF has been helping us, and now PLF will be making our case in the nation's highest court."
Schiff told WND earlier that there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."
"Even if you have a good basis the think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse," he said. "They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."
That puts a landowner in the impossible situation of either complying with the order with its potential cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or facing that same penalty in fines.
And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk.
EPAofficials have declined WND requests for comment. They referred WND to a Department of Justice office, which did not respond.
The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation.
"The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argue
(Reuters) - The Idaho state legislature approved a bill on Tuesday to strip public school teachers of many of their collective bargaining rights while protesters in five states rallied against Republican efforts to curb union power.
The Idaho bill, which excludes issues like class size and workloads from negotiations for the state's 12,000 unionized teachers, was given final approval by the Republican-led House and is expected to be signed by Republican Governor Butch Otter.
The bill also eliminates teacher tenure, limits the duration of teacher labor contracts to one year and removes seniority as a factor in determining the order of layoffs.
Idaho is one of several U.S. states to take up Republican plans for sweeping restrictions on public sector unions in what has become a growing national debate over labor union power.
Republicans say the proposals are needed to rescue recession-battered budgets from deficits, but Democrats and union supporters say they are an attack on organized labor that could linger as an issue into the 2012 presidential elections.
Most national attention has focused on the stalemate in Wisconsin over Republican Governor Scott Walker's proposal to curb union rights, which sparked large protests in the capital Madison.
Wisconsin Senate Democrats have fled the state to block a vote on Walker's proposal, but e-mails released on Tuesday showed Walker has indicated he may be willing to compromise on elements of his plan.
The e-mails, released following a Freedom of Information Act request from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper, show Senate Democrats and a senior Walker aide discussed some flexibility on issues such as his demand for annual votes to keep unions in existence.
Protests against Walker's plan continued in Madison on Tuesday. Similar Republican plans to curb public union rights sparked new protests in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Iowa.
DEATH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS? - EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!
In Indianapolis, where most Indiana House Democrats remain out of state to block a vote on a bill they say is anti-worker, union protesters staged a mock "funeral" for the middle class with a New Orleans-style musical procession in honor of Mardi Gras.
In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich touted a plan that passed the state Senate last week to curb collective bargaining rights of public employees and ban them from going on strike.
In his "State of the State" speech, Kasich said the bill, which still must be passed by the Ohio House, was necessary to give local governments more flexibility in their budgets.
"Frankly, folks, the provisions of collective bargaining reform are examples of what we want to do to allow people to control their costs," said Kasich, setting off cat-calls from the gallery in the legislative chamber.
Pro-union demonstrators packed the Capitol rotunda after the speech, shouting, "Kill the bill."
n Michigan's state capital Lansing, hundreds of pro-union protesters jammed the rotunda and gathered outside the Capitol to oppose a bill to give emergency authority to break labor contracts to revive failing schools and cities. The state's largest school district of Detroit is under emergency management.
The Michigan House approved the measure in February. A final vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 26-12 majority, is expected on Wednesday.
In Iowa, hundreds of union workers crowded the state House chamber to protest a bill that would prevent negotiations on healthcare benefits for government workers and forbid union workers from negotiating layoff schedules.
The measure will be debated in the Republican-led Iowa House on Wednesday. It is expected to run into trouble in the Democratic-majority state Senate.
Curbing public union power and demands is only the first step, but a critical one to saving America. Anyone who hasn’t realized that by now is either a radical Progressive or really doesn’t understand economics and capitalism.
