To the Editor,
Gotta love the ultra liberal ninth circuit Court. Banning students from wearing shirts with the US because it offends Mexicans.
For those who talk about flag code, though I agree in principle, it’s not law. Just a set of rules on how the flag should be treated and wearing one on a shirt is freedom of speech!
Also the flag code law applies to an actual flag being worn as clothing, not a design of it
Given that, any ruling that limits anyone’s rights based on anyone else’s opinion on how it makes them feel is wrong.
The right to free speech needs to be paramount in any decision.
also, I think people who burn flags are terrible unpatriotic people, but I’ll defend their right to do it.
To the Editors,
Keeping the American public in the dark and not releasing full transcripts of the interviews is a horrible optic for the Dems. I suspect that they want to see how they can spin whatever they learn.
And remember if they had anything that made their case a slam dunk, it would already be out.
We all know that this impeachment nonsense is just trying to distract/covering up for Barr's investigations into the origins of Russiagate? And to keep people from talking about Biden withholding aid money to force the firing of the Ukraine prosecutor and his son Hunter making a million dollars from an energy company's board of directors that meet once or twice a year without any experience to bring to the table.
Smoke and mirrors ... just smoke and mirrors
To the Editor,
I love your paper! But I was disanointed when I turned to page seven and found no Sun Bunny.The sunset was nice but that was usually on page 14 or so.
Are you not doing that anymore?
Ed. Note: Even as fun of a job as that it is to do, and I would know, I used to do it for the Sandpaper back in 2000 and 2001. But Unfortunately, we have a very small staff and do not have anyone dedicated to getting those pictures.
All the Sun Bunny pics have been sent in by readers for more than 2 years now. Just haven’t had any sent in quite a few weeks now and we used up all the ones we had saved.
If you know any budding photographers that would like to volunteer to do the terrible job of taking pictures of ladies on the beach, send them my way. Or have your significant other take one of you and send one in yourself.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says activities including oil and gas development on federal lands managed by the agency contributed $105 billion in economic output in fiscal 2018.
The BLM, which manages over 245 million acres, released a report Friday detailing the agency’s economic contributions. Total economic output on BLM-managed lands is $105 billion, up from $95.6 billion in fiscal 2017.
“America’s public lands are a key driver of the nation’s economy, particularly in states across the West. The jobs and communities these lands support are vital to millions of Americans, and the Bureau of Land Management is proud to make sure economic activities continue in a sustainable, environmentally-sound manner,” acting BLM Director William Perry Pendley said.
Energy production was the largest contributor to the agency's increased economic output.
Oil and gas development on BLM lands accounted for $71.5 billion in economic output last year. Oil production increased from 174 million barrels in 2017 to 214.1 million in 2018, the bureau said.
Coal production on BLM lands accounted for $10.1 billion in economic output in 2018, with an 8 percent decrease in production from the previous year.
Non-energy mineral production made up $12.7 billion in economic output, with a mineral production value of almost $89 million in 2018.
Recreation on BLM lands contributed $6.8 billion in fiscal 2018, with 68 million visits for activities like fishing, horseback riding and mountain biking. Recreation accounted for $6.7 billion and 67.4 million visits in fiscal 2017.
Economic activity on all BLM-managed lands helped support 471,000 jobs, with 300,000 of those jobs being related to oil and gas development.
Activities on U.S. Department of Interior lands – which include BLM-managed lands – contributed $315 billion in economic output and supported 1.8 million jobs nationally last year.
In Arizona, recreation on DOI lands contributed $1.8 billion to the state’s economy. Energy and mineral development on DOI lands managed in Nevada contributed nearly $3.8 billion. In Colorado, energy and mineral development contributed $6.1 billion in GDP.
The Center Square
Republicans and Democrats alike take advantage of a pay-to-play system ingrained in the nation’s Capitol, a new oversight report from OpenTheBooks.com maintains.
“Congress writes their own rules to protect their re-election campaigns,” according to the 36-page report, “The Congressional Favor Factory: Legalizing Pay-To-Play – A Study Of Federal Grants, Campaign Cash, Investments, Employment, Power & Influence.”
The report includes eight case studies of four Republicans and four Democrats.
These members serve on the most powerful committees in Congress, the report states, within “a culture of conflict of interest. The confluence of federal money, campaign cash, private employment, investments, prestigious committee appointments, political power, nepotism, and other conflicts are a fact pattern.”
Republicans analyzed include: Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Rep. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington.
Democrats include Connecticut Rep. John B. Larson, Tennessee Rep. Jim Cooper, and Michigan Reps. Debbie Dingell and Brenda Lawrence.
The report found that the members own investment stock in, are employed by, and receive retirement pensions from federal contractors who receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money. The same members sponsor legislation that impacts the contractors whose lobbyists also advocate for or against legislation that helps both the member and the contractor, the report found.
For example, the report highlights Rep. Larson, whose campaign received the most funding from United Technologies Corporation (UTX), a company of which he is a stockholder.
UTX executives, employees, political action committees and affiliated lobbyists donated $377,050 to his campaign. Since 2010, Larson co-sponsored 19 bills for which United Technologies registered lobbying activity. The company received $83.8 million in federal grants (subsidies) and $16.1 billion in federal contracts (2014-2018), according to the report.
In Michigan, the report notes that employees at the University of Michigan (U-M) donated the most to Rep. Dingell over the course of her congressional career. Dingell is a member of the university’s Ford School of Public Policy Committee, involved with fundraising and networking initiatives. She also co-sponsored four bills for which the U-M registered lobbying activity (2014-2018).
In the last five-years, U-M received federal payments of $2.3 billion, of which the vast majority ($2 billion) was in federal grants.
“As I am sure you know, it is not at all uncommon for members of Congress to be strong advocates for and supportive of the major institutions in their congressional districts or in their home states,” Mark Schlissel, University of Michigan president, said in a statement included in the report. “The University of Michigan is a world-class institution of higher education. Both the main campus in Ann Arbor and the UM-Dearborn campus are within Rep. Debbie Dingell’s district.”
“U-M is one of the state’s largest employers – with more than 50,000 employees across the state – and two of the three academic campuses, along with the Michigan Medicine main campus, are located within her district,” Schlissel adds. “Our employees are free to make personal campaign contributions to any elected official they may wish to support.”
Nothing OpenTheBooks uncovered in its oversight report is illegal, it notes. “In fact, it’s all legal. Quite possibly, that is the scandal,” it states. The goal of exposing the pay-for play system is “to hold these politicians accountable,” the report emphasizes.
Information about the federal grant, contract, farm subsidy, and direct payment data was acquired through Freedom of iInformation Act requests from the U.S. federal government and covers four years of records from fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2018, including farm subsidy data over a longer period.
OpenTheBooks auditors acquired campaign donation data from OpenSecrets.org, Center for Responsive Politics, and the Federal Election Commission disclosures through August 7, 2019.
All members audited were given the opportunity to answer questions before the report was published and none chose to go on the record, according to OpenTheBooks.com. All federal contractors were given an opportunity to answer questions before publication and only three chose to go on the record.
The Center Square
Something all married couples need to think about when making their estate plan is Florida's “elective share” rule. This refers to a state law that authorizes the surviving spouse to claim a 30-percent share of a deceased spouse's elective estate–i.e., any property that would normally be disposed of by will or trust.
It is possible, however, for a spouse to waive his or her right to take an elective share by written agreement. For example, if the spouses signed a prenuptial agreement where each spouse waived their future right to claim an elective share in the other spouse's estate, that would be considered legally binding by a Florida court.
Court: Husband's Trust Does Not Override Prenuptial Agreement
In fact, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that a waiver contained in a prenuptial agreement can actually override contrary instructions in a spouse's trust. The case, Wilson v. Wilson, involved a dispute between the wife and son of a deceased Florida man.
When the husband and wife married in 2011, they signed a prenuptial agreement. The agreement contained specific language waiving and relinquishing any “elective share” rights they might have under law in the “property or estate of the other party.” Notwithstanding this language, the agreement also said either spouse could still “elect to make a gift to the other by Will” without invalidating the elective share waiver.
Two years later, in 2013, the husband executed a will and trust as part of his estate plan. The trust directed the successor trustee to “set aside from the property of this trust” to “satisfy the Wife's elective share” under Florida law.
After the husband died in 2017, the wife attempted to claim her elective share, citing the language in the trust. The son, who was now trustee, opposed the election, maintaining the original 2011 waiver remained in force.
The Second District agreed with the son. Affirming an Indian River County judge's earlier ruling, the appeals court said the “language of the prenuptial agreement unambiguously waived the wife's elective share.” The husband's subsequent decision to create a trust “could not modify the prenuptial agreement since it was not signed by both parties as was required by the prenuptial agreement” and Florida law. And even if the husband gave his wife a “testamentary gift,” that would not effect the waiver of the elective share itself.
The critical thing to note here is that when a married couple signs a prenuptial agreement affecting their rights under Florida probate law, any subsequent modification to that agreement must also be in writing and signed by both parties. One spouse cannot unilaterally assume their actions will automatically invalidate a waiver.
If you are thinking about making changes to your own will or trust, it is important to work with an experienced Fort Myers estate planning attorney who can advise you in the proper way to do things. Contact the Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., at 239-333-4529 to schedule a free, confidential consultation today.
General Motors can afford the comparatively rich offer it made to settle the month-long United Auto Workers strike in part because it has a revamped line of highly profitable trucks and SUVs ready to hit showrooms in a few weeks.
It also gained some much needed production capacity reductions with the closing of three plants, especially its massive Lordstown Assembly Plant in northeast Ohio that eliminates production of 300,000 units a year.
That flexibility came in exchange for a promise over four years to invest $9 billion in U.S. facilities, give two annual raises of 3% each and two 4% bonuses, uncap profit sharing pay and an $11,000 signing bonus to each UAW member.
It's a good enough deal for the UAW to justify its walkout. Strikers will be made whole by the signing bonus, and the union also won important concessions on temporary workers.
Still, it all teeters on a strategy that requires GM to keep churning out vast quantities of money making and less fuel-efficient SUVs and pickup trucks. General Motors expects to sell a lot of these over the next few years because nearly all of its large vehicle models have been redesigned for 2020.
But the automaker could well find its plans stymied by a shift in energy and emissions policies should a progressive Democrat be elected president next fall. Nearly all of the Democratic contenders have pledged a major crackdown on fossil fuels, with some setting aggressive timelines for moving America to a zero-emissions economy.
Among the frontrunners for the nomination, former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have all signed on to some version of the Green New Deal, which would basically put the internal combustion engine out of business.
While automakers are slowly moving toward electrification of their fleets, it will be a long time before most SUVs and pickups are fully electric.
Warren presents a particular danger. She says she would "ban fracking everywhere." Fracking is the extraction technology that has allowed the United States to become a major exporter of oil and natural gas, and has kept fuel prices in this country low.
Take away fracking, and the cost of a gallon of gasoline will soar. Detroit has seen before what happens to large vehicle sales when fuel costs rise high enough to change consumer behavior.
The Big Three automakers have virtually eliminated cars and don't have many small vehicle options should extreme fuel prices alter market demand.
If past practice holds, Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV will have to match the economic package GM presented under the UAW's long tradition of "pattern bargaining."
Doing so will keep all three automakers from closing the hourly labor cost gap with their foreign competitors who build vehicles in the United States. For GM, that was $13 an hour going into the strike, for Ford it was $11 an hour and for FCA $5. This deal likely will make the gap worse. For context, Toyota is recruiting workers for its Georgetown, Kentucky plant with an offer of $18 an hour. That's a little more than half of what GM will be paying UAW members at its Bowling Green, Kentucky, Corvette facility.
Again, that's not such a big deal, as long as the assembly plants can produce SUVs and pickups around the clock.
But should the direction of federal policy shift suddenly toward much tighter fuel efficiency standards and less energy production, the new contracts will put all three companies in a tough spot.
I have to tell you a remarkable personal story, a story that proves the liberal media are, in fact, out to frame and ruin President Donald Trump and his supporters with lies, distortions and misrepresentation; a story that proves the liberal media are vicious, untrustworthy and sometimes just plain evil.
I was in Miami last weekend to speak in front of 1,200 conservatives at a fabulous three-day conference called AmpFest19. Speakers also included Donald Trump Jr., Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Dinesh D'Souza. The event was organized professionally. The speakers were inspiring. The crowd was enthusiastic. And the energy was sky high.
But it turned out the liberal media sent spies into the audience to try to ruin, denigrate and demonize the event, and kill all the joy. Guess who they went after.
Their agenda was to paint conservatives as "violent." First, they went after a fake Trump video supposedly played in a back room of the event that no one ever saw. When that didn't work, they went after me.
Nothing violent about me, right? Wrong. When liberals want to slander you, they can take any sentence out of context to hang you — as long as they leave out the actual details and context.
They do this to President Trump every day.
I gave a speech about how to beat Democrats in 2020. It centered on the fact that liberals and the liberal media are bullies — out to intimidate, ban, censor, persecute, beat us into submission.
I told an inspiring, heartwarming story of my high school past, a story of how I became the real-life "Karate Kid," how I morphed from a nerd, persecuted and brutalized by bullies, to a champion fighter who turned the tables on the bullies.
I started out as a skinny Jewish kid with acne, braces and thick glasses attending one of America's roughest and most violent urban high schools. I was tortured, intimidated, persecuted and beaten — in the bathrooms and lunchrooms, on the playground and after school.
But one summer, I changed my life. I learned how to fight, lifted weights like a maniac, got contact lenses and took off my braces. I came back to school, and when the first three tough guys attacked me, I responded in self-defense and beat them each badly. My classmates cheered. The nerd became the hero. I made the bullies cry.
No one ever bullied me again. From that day forward, I was the protector of the nerds.
The moral of the story is to never let a bully intimidate you. Always fight back and defend yourself. Never allow the media, antifa thugs or punks on social media to intimidate you. Be a pit bull, not a Chihuahua.
I've walked tall, with confidence, ever since. And I haven't been in a fight. Peace through strength. And one more lesson: Bullies are cowards. If you fight back, they will crumble.
Great story, right? I brought the house down.
But a Soros-funded liberal media group wrote a story in which it accused me of "promoting violence." It turned a great All-American story of the nerd defeating bullies into a story of "violence by conservatives." That's disgusting. That's fraud.
But it's instructive. This is what the liberal media and liberal politicians do to Trump every day. They are liars and bullies. They slander, intimidate, misrepresent and persecute. Their chief tool is propaganda.
From this day forward, every time you see a negative story about Trump, remember my story.
Wayne Allyn Root
When you rub your eyes, sneeze or stand up too fast, you might see bright flashes or squiggly lines. These are not figments of your imagination but actual sparks of light inside your eyeballs called biophotons. All cells within the human body let off light or bioluminescence.
You don't see them, of course, except inside your eyes, where the brain is usually able to ignore them.
When you apply pressure to your eyes, more biophotons are created than the brain can process, and the result is visible flashes.
If the Democrat “leaders” would only record what they say and play it back, they would see how really dumb they are.
Look at the House Committees, chaired by completely ignorant Attorneys…Nadler, Schiff, and Swalwell! The American people see people who are “lawmakers”, Congressmen… make incredibly stupid statements; statements that we realize violate our Constitution, and Rule of Law, and these lawyers don’t care. They just want their people running the country and don’t care who it is, as long as they are Democrats.
I believe most Americans do not believe anything these incompetent, ambulance chaser lawyers say, even if they are member of Congress….mistakes!!
The Second Ammendment
I have one question. What defines an “assault weapon”? Size? Number of rounds? WHAT? Beto? What the hell are you babbling about?
Is it multiple round magazines? Then define “too many” and what makes you an expert…because I am a Firearms Expert, and I don’t know the answer to that question!
Is it, “a military type gun”…then define that! Rifle, pistol, revolver, shotgun, machine gun…?
You see…you really can’t, because the second Amendment is our Rule of Law, and IT doesn’t define assault guns. It just specifies that, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”…period.
When there’s an Amendment that states…“only guns for hunting”…you still have a problem because you can hunt with a 50 cal…and some do!
You see most intelligent people understand what people like the “Beto” have in mind, but he wants to ease (lie) his way up to it because they don’t want to say, complete confiscation of all guns… that’s what the left wants, and don’t let anybody tell you different!
The Most Despicable Congress Ever... Pelosi, Swalwell, Schiff... They are Disgracefull (my opinion)!
We have a Constitution that defines and establishes our laws and separation of powers of the different branches. The red wing, left, commie, pinkos don’t agree with our Constitution and want to do away with it…so they disobey our Rule of Law, the very basics of our Rule of law…like Equal Rights to all, Due Process, Innocent until proven guilty, the right to cross examine witnesses, and on and on.
These are “Lawmakers” who are breaking the law…it’s not the first time…we arrested several (like Jenrette) during my tenure as an Agent!
Some said they would impeach our duly Elected President before they were even sworn in as Congressman. Tell me that isn’t intent to obstruct the President’s ability to carry out the duties of the President! That’s a crime! They have tried with an all Democrat Special Investigation by a Special counsel to find a crime …and they couldn’t after 2 ½ years and $35 million of our tax dollars.
Then we have Lawmakers who have no idea what they’re talking about. I heard Congressman Eric Swalwell, on FOX, telling the people why the Republicans are barred from the closed door Intel committee hearing…because the Dems are afraid of “leaks”…do you believe it? The only Congressmen in there are Dems and the “Leaks”, that are against the President abound!
He goes on to tell how the President confessed to a crime but doesn’t say what crime!? He believes the President’s conversation with the President of Ukraine was a confession to a quid pro quo. I’ve read the transcript of the President’s call. I’ve also taken, testified many times to confessions from subjects, written, signed, and just verbal, and know and understand what a confession involves. When Joe Biden said that “he threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars if the Ukraine President Poroshenko didn’t fire the AG from Ukraine who was investigating Hunter Biden; Ukraine would not get the approved 1 billion”… is a confession of Hobbs Act-Political Corruption, Obstruction of a Criminal Investigation, Title 18 Sec 1951, CRM 2403!
The President should fight back…ban all Democrats from all White House Intel Briefings, all White House meetings, all briefings…because he is afraid they will leak…like they are doing in their closed door Intel hearing.
There are no laws that mandate the Dems have to attend briefings, nothing in the Constitution either…but there are laws and precedent that the President must be given Due Process, allowed cross examination of witnesses, subpoena power, an attorney and on and on…that’s called the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Due Process, Equal Rights…the Constitution …our freaking Rule of Law!
The President’s authority rests in the Constitution…Article 2 makes him the Boss of all Bosses. He can have anyone he chooses, without Swalwell approval, to negotiate, speak to, and represent him and the US anywhere in the world. He determines what is classified and who gets top secret clearances…not Pelosi or Schiff! He can do any deal he wants to protect, preserve, and defend the Country and our Rule of law. He could offer Ukraine an Aircraft carrier to help on an investigation into any US citizen he wants.
It’s the law…Congress should try obeying the laws they make! Starting with the three stooges…stooges… Pelosi, Schiff, Swalwell… oh…oh yes, Nadler…and Schumer…don’t forget Waters…oh, I give up there’s just too many morons, to name them all!
There MUST be a crime of impeachable proportion to charge a sitting President…that’s the Constitution! Impeachment behind closed doors, unilaterally, without a defined actual impeachable offense is NOT in the Constitution. A quid pro quo by a President with a foreign government, to protect America and enforce our Rule of Law, is not now nor will it ever be a CRIME!