An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Finally, someone here has fully summarized the water and infrastructure, the farming and enterprise issues in the ‘now’ and immediate future. Survival matrix forecast…GRIM. The ‘green’ thing and the Delta smelt fish….are a protected agenda over humans thriving. Bring on the 3 minute showers, the dead lawns, cars that need washing and big fines for violations….$10,000? the Golden State is brown and broke. The Big Idea: California Is So Over by: Joel Kotkin
California’s drought and how it’s handled show just what kind of place the Golden State is becoming: feudal, super-affluent and with an impoverished interior.
California has met the future, and it really doesn’t work. As the mounting panic surrounding the drought suggests, the Golden State, once renowned for meeting human and geographic challenges, is losing its ability to cope with crises. As a result, the great American land of opportunity is devolving into something that resembles feudalism, a society dominated by rich and poor, with little opportunity for upward mobility for the state’s middle- and working classes. The water situation reflects this breakdown in the starkest way. Everyone who follows California knew it was inevitable we would suffer a long-term drought. Most of the state—including the Bay Area as well as greater Los Angeles—is semi-arid, and could barely support more than a tiny fraction of its current population. California’s response to aridity has always been primarily an engineering one that followed the old Roman model of siphoning water from the high country to service cities and farms. But since the 1970s, California’s water system has become the prisoner of politics and posturing. The great aqueducts connecting the population centers with the great Sierra snowpack are all products of an earlier era—the Los Angeles aqueduct (1913), Hetch-Hetchy (1923), the Central Valley Project (1937), and the California Aqueduct (1974). The primary opposition to expansion has been the green left, which rejects water storage projects as irrelevant. Yet at the same time greens and their allies in academia and the mainstream pressare those most likely to see the current drought as part of a climate change-induced reduction in snowpack. That many scientists disagree with this assessment is almost beside the point. Whether climate change will make things better or worse is certainly an important concern, but California was going to have problems meeting its water needs under any circumstances. Not Meeting the Challenges. It’s not like we haven’t been around this particular block before. In the 1860s, a severe drought all but destroyed LA’s once-flourishing cattle industry. This drought was followed by torrential rains that caused their own havoc. The state has suffered three major droughts since I have lived here—in the mid ’70s, the mid ’80s and again today—but long ago (even before I got there) some real whoppers occurred, including dry periods that lasted upwards of 200 years. This, like the threat of earthquakes, is part of the price we pay to live in this most beautiful and usually temperate of states. The real issue is how to meet this challenge, and here the response has been slow and lacking in vision. Not all of this is to be blamed on the greens, who dominate the state politically. California agriculture, for example, was among the last in the nation to agree to monitoring of groundwater. Farmers have also been slow to adjust their crops toward less water-dependent varieties; they continue to plant alfalfa, cotton, and other crops that may be better grown in more water-rich areas. Many cities, too, have been slow to meet the challenge. Some long resisted metering of water use. Other places have been slow to encourage drought-resistant landscaping, which is already pretty de rigeur in more aridity-conscious desert cities like Tucson. This process may take time, but it is already showing value in places like Los Angeles where water agencies provide incentives. But ultimately the responsibility for California’s future lies with our political leadership, who need to develop the kind of typically bold approaches past generations have embraced. One step would be building new storage capacity, which Governor Jerry Brown, after opposing it for years, has begun to admit is necessary. Desalinization, widely used in the even more arid Middle East, notably Israel, has been blocked by environmental interests but could tap a virtually unlimited supply of the wet stuff, and lies close to the state’s most densely populated areas. Essentially the state could build enough desalinization facilities, and the energy plants to run them, for less money than Brown wants to spend on his high-speed choo-choo to nowhere. This piece of infrastructure is so irrelevant to the state’s needs that even many progressives, such as Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, consider it a “ridiculous” waste of money. And there needs to be, at least for the short term, an end to dumping water into San Francisco Bay for the purpose of restoring a long-gone salmon run, or to the Delta, in order to save a bait-fish, the Delta smelt, which may already be close to extinct. This dumping of water has continued even as the state has faced a potentially crippling water shortage; nothing is too good for our fish, or to salve the hyper-heated consciousness of the environmental illuminati. The Political Equation The biggest reason California has been so slow, and uncharacteristically feckless, in meeting this existential challenge lies with psychology and ends with political power. The generation that built the sinews of modern California—most notably the late Governor Pat Brown Sr., the current governor’s father—sprang from the old progressive spirit which saw in infrastructure development a chance not only to create new wealth, but also provide opportunity to working- and middle-class Californians. Indeed, if you look at California’s greatest achievements as a society, the Pat Brown legacy stands at the core. The California Aqueduct turned vast stretches of the Central Valley into one of the most productive farming regions in the world. The freeway system, now in often shocking disrepair, allowed for the construction of mass suburbia that offered millions a quality of life never experienced by previous generations. At the same time the development of energy resources—California still boasts the nation’s third-largest oil production—helped create a huge industrial base that included aerospace, semiconductors, and a host of specialized industries, from logistics to garment manufacturing. In contrast, Jerry Brown has waged a kind of Oedipal struggle against his father’s legacy. Like many Californians, he recoiled against the sometimes haphazard and even ugly form of development that plowed through much of the state. Cutting off water is arguably the most effective way to stop all development, and promote Brown’s stated goal of eliminating suburban “sprawl.” It is typical that his first target for cutbacks this year has been the “lawns” of the middle–class suburbanite, a species for which he has shown little interest or tolerance. But it’s not just water that exemplifies the current “era of limits” psychology. Energy development has always been in green crosshairs and their harassment has all but succeeded in helping drive much of the oil and gas industry, including corporate headquarters, out of the state. Not building roads—arguably to be replaced by trains—has not exactly reduced traffic but given California the honor of having eight of the top 20cities nationally with poor roads; the percentage of Los Angeles-area residents who take transit has, if anything, declined slightly since train-building began. All we are left with are impossible freeways, crumbling streets, and ever more difficulty doing anything that requires traveling. The Road to Feudalism These policies have had numerous impacts, like weakening California’s industrial sector, which cannot afford energy prices that can be twice as high as in competing states. Some of those who might have worked in the factories, warehouses, and farms of California now help swell the numbers of the welfare recipients, who remarkably make up one-third of the nation’s total. As recently as the 1970s and ’80s, the percentage of people living in poverty in California was below the national average; California today, based on cost of living, has the highest poverty rate in the country. Of course, the rich and entitled, particularly in Silicon Valley have achieved unprecedented riches, but those middle-class Californians once served by Pat have largely been abandoned by his son. California, long a relative beacon of equality and opportunity, now has the fourth-highest rate of inequality in the country. For those who, like me, bought their first home over 30 years ago, high housing prices, exacerbated by regulation, are a personal piggybank. But it’s doubtful either of my daughters will ever be able to buy a house here. What about “green jobs”? California leads in total number of green jobs, simply by dint of size, but on a per-capita basis, a recent Brookings study notes, California is about average. In wind energy, in fact, California is not even in first place; that honor goes to, of all places, Texas, which boasts twice California’s level of production. Today even The New York Timeshas described Governor Jerry Brown’s promise about creating a half-million green jobs as something of a “pipe dream.” Even surviving solar firms, busy in part to meet the state’s strict renewable mandates, acknowledge that they won’t be doing much of the manufacturing here, anyway. The Cost of Narcissism Ultimately this is a story of a state that has gotten tired, having lost its “animal spirits” for the policy equivalent of a vegan diet. Increasingly it’s all about how the elites in the state—who cluster along the expensive coastal areas—feel about themselves. Even Brown knows that his environmental agenda will do little, or nothing, to combat climate change, given the already minimal impact of the state on carbon emissions compared to escalating fossil fuel use in China, India and elsewhere. But the cosmopolitan former Jesuit gives more priority to his spiritual service to Gaia than the needs of his non-affluent constituents. But progressive narcissism is, as some conservatives assert, not the main problem. California greens are, to be sure, active, articulate, well-organized, and well-financed. What they lack is an effective counterpoint from the business class, who would be expected to challenge some of their policies. But the business leadership often seems to be more concerned with how to adjust the status quo to serve privileged large businesses, including some in agriculture, than boosting the overall economy. The greens, and their public-sector allies, can dominate not because they are so effective as that their potential opposition is weak, intimidated, and self-obsessed. What we are witnessing the breakdown of a once-expansive, open society into one dominated by a small group of plutocrats, largely in Silicon Valley, with an “amen” crew among the low-information donors of Hollywood, the public unions, the green lobby, and wealthy real estate developers favored by Brown’s pro-density policies. This coalition backs Brown and helps maintain the state’s essentially one-party system. No one is more adamant about reducing people’s carbon footprint than the jet set of Silicon Valley or the state’s planning elite, even if they choose not to live in a manner that they instruct all others. This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed. Less understandable is why many Hispanic politicians, such as Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon, also prioritize “climate change” as his leading issue, without thinking much about how these policies might worsen the massive poverty in his de-industrializing L.A. district—until you realize that de Leon is bankrolled by Tom Steyer and others from the green uberclass. So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too.
Get our your decoder ring, some interesting things are in play here and it appears that Kerry is possibly ready for the ultimate Iran betrayal, which has been telegraphed in history and most especially during the P5+1 talks.
In case the talks fail, Kerry could be posturing a move to delete Russia and China from having a vote. Even the Iranian Supreme leader appears to be poised to run away. The Obama team building mission for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has failed…no checkmark there. The next try again event is neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program which appears to be taking a nose-dive…no checkmark there either?
(Reuters) – Washington wants to be certain that any nuclear deal between Iran and major powers includes the possibility of restoring U.N. sanctions if Tehran breaks the agreement without risking Russian and Chinese vetoes, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.
United Nations sanctions and a future mechanism for Iran to buy atomic technology are two core sticking points in talks on a possible nuclear deal on which Tehran and world powers have been struggling to overcome deep divisions in recent days, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.
Negotiators were wrapping up nearly a week of talks in New York on Tuesday, the latest round in 18 months of discussions aimed at clinching a long-term deal by June 30 to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an end to sanctions. Expert-level negotiations are expected to continue for several days.
The current talks have been taking place on the sidelines of a conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The negotiations between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union will resume in Vienna next week.
The latest discussions revolved around a future Security Council resolution that would endorse a deal and render invalid all previous sanctions resolutions, while keeping U.N. bans on ballistic missiles, an arms embargo and some other restrictions.
U.S. and European negotiators want any easing of U.N. sanctions to be automatically reversible – negotiators call this a “snapback” – if Tehran fails to comply with terms of a deal. Russia and China traditionally dislike such automatic measures.
The “snapback” is one of the most important issues for Western governments who fear that, once any U.N. sanctions on Iran are suspended, it could be hard to restore them because Russia and China would veto any such attempt.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made it clear that Washington did not want Russia’s and China’s recent slew of vetoes on resolutions related to Syria to be repeated with an Iran nuclear agreement.
“We’re going to do so in a manner that doesn’t require Russian and Chinese support or a vote for snapback … because we are in a different world in 2015 than we were when the sanctions architecture was put in place,” Power said in an interview with Charlie Rose on Bloomberg television.
She offered no details.
Power said Washington hoped the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Tehran would lead to a change in Iran’s posture on Syria, where it has supported President Bashar al-Assad in a four-year civil war against rebels seeking to oust him.
PROCUREMENT CHANNEL
Iran’s chief negotiator in New York offered a positive assessment of the latest round of nuclear negotiations.
“The atmosphere of the talks was good and it is possible to reach the final deal by June 30,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state television.
However, Western diplomats said on condition of anonymity that Iran and the six powers, who struck an interim agreement on April 2 in Switzerland, were far from agreement due to divisions on sanctions, monitoring and other issues.
Restoring U.S. and EU sanctions is relatively easy, but that is not the case with U.N. sanctions. While the United States is worried about Russia and China, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran want to be certain that Washington cannot unilaterally force a snapback if the Republicans win the U.S. presidency in 2016.
“We haven’t found a mechanism that works for everyone yet,” one diplomat said.
Another difficult issue is the “procurement channel” – a mechanism for approving Iranian purchases of sensitive atomic technology currently banned under U.N. sanctions. One idea under consideration is a vetting committee that would include Iran and the six powers. Tehran would have a say but not a veto, diplomats said.
Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal and works hard to circumvent them.
A confidential report by a U.N. Panel of Experts, obtained by Reuters last week, said Britain had informed it of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted companies.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, vowed on Wednesday that his nation would leave nuclear negotiations if it feels threatened by America’s armed forces.
“Recently U.S. officials threatened to take military action against #Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.
“What does negotiations mean under ghost of a threat?” he asked.
“U.S. need for the #talks – if not more – is not less than #Iran’s,” Khamenei wrote.
“Negotiators should observe red lines & tolerate no burden, humiliation & threat,” he added.
Khamenei said Tehran does not need the economic relief the U.S. is offering in a potential deal over its nuclear arms research.
The pact would lift sanctions on Iran in return for greater restrictions on its nuclear programs.
“Many foreign officials said if sanctions against #Iran were put on other countries, they would’ve been destroyed but they didn’t undermine Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.
The supreme leader also mocked the Obama administration’s struggles with the civil war in Yemen. U.S. efforts in the region, he argued, had not restored stability in the Middle East.
“U.S. has been disgraced,” he said.
“Supporting those who attack #women & #children in Yemen & destroy #Yemen’s infrastructure ruin U.S. image in the region,” Khamenei said of American support for ousted Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.
Khamenei closed with a parting shot at U.S. race relations. Police action towards minorities, he said, exposed the hypocrisy of American human rights.
“In the world of deception, the most racist govts. become flag-bearers of human rights,” Khamenei posted alongside a video documenting alleged law enforcement abuses in the U.S.
Khamenei’s criticisms come as diplomatic talks between Iran and the West resume over Tehran’s nuclear program. The two sides are wrangling for a final agreement due June 30.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday announced he would move later this week on legislation allowing Congress to review any final Iran deal.
Should it pass, lawmakers could vote on whether they approve of the Obama administration’s potential agreement with Iranian leadership.
Their declared power is an aphrodisiac as witnessed by the words wielded by Hillary Clinton. While many in Washington DC abuse authority for the sake of collusion seeking personal gain, Hillary is one of the top trophy winners in this category with her machine and inner protective circle.
Hillary goes farther than Obama on amnesty if that is possible and then her personal aide gets major protections of turning over government documents, mostly emails from that private server. Keep in mind, Hillary is/was a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton held a Cinco de Mayo event with illegal immigrants in Nevada Tuesday — “an especially appropriate day for us to be having this conversation” — in which she promised to go farther than President Obama in using executive authority to confer legal status on illegal immigrants, and to ultimately to award them U.S. citizenship. No matter what Republicans might offer to illegal immigrants in terms of legal status, Clinton said, she will offer more.
Changing the immigration system will be a top priority should she become president, Clinton said. “We can’t wait any longer. We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship.”
Clinton made clear she would go beyond any Republican, be it Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or any other, in conferring benefits on currently illegal immigrants. “This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side,” she said. “Make no mistakes — today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”
As for Obama’s unilateral executive action, Clinton said she will defend what has already been done and then add action of her own. “I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for you and for your families across our country,” she said.
“I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put Dreamers, including those with us today, at risk of deportation. And if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further. There are more people, like many parents of Dreamers, and others, with deep ties and contributions to our communities, who deserve a chance to stay, and I will fight for them.”
“I want to do everything we can to defend the president’s executive orders,” Clinton said at another point. “Because I think they were certainly within his authority, constitutionally, legally, they were based on precedent that I certainly believe is adequate. And then still try to go further and deal with some of these other issues, like the re-unification of families that were here and that have been split up.”
A number of words were missing from Clinton’s discussion of immigration. She did not say “border,” for example, or “visa” or “E-Verify” or “workplace.” The notion of enforcing the nation’s immigration laws as they currently exist was not on the table.
Clinton has not always been quite so expansive on the subject of immigration. For much of 2014, as the nation debated Obama’s threatened unilateral executive action, Clinton stayed out of the conversation, not committing one way or the other. In the summer of 2014, when there was a flood of unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants across the southeastern border, Clinton advocated sending most of them back to their home countries.
“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who the responsible adults in their families are…” Clinton said at the time. “But I think all of them who can be, should be reunited with their families.”
During her 2008 run for president, Clinton famously opposed issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
That’s all in the past. Now, Clinton is again running for president, and with Hispanic votes to be won, she is vowing she will not be outbid when it comes to the subject of immigration.
The emails of Huma Abedin, the top personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are now facing a disclosure lawsuit after the State Department failed to turn them over in response to an open-records request.
Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had filed a request to get a look at Ms. Abedin’s emails during her four years at the State Department. News outlets have reported that Ms. Abedin also used the private email server Mrs. Clinton set up to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear.
It’s one of a number of open-records requests Judicial Watch filed after the email scandal broke, and Tom Fitton, president of the organization, said they’ve been stonewalled on all of them, so now they’re turning to the courts.
“We’re churning through these,” he said. “The scandal at the State Department is more than about Hillary Clinton. There are others involved.”
The State Department said it wouldn’t comment now that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit — though it had struggled to explain its procedures even before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of Ms. Abedin’s emails remains unclear.
Mrs. Clinton has said she turned over about 30,000 emails from her server, and discarded another 32,000 messages she deemed unrelated to business. But it’s unclear whether the messages she turned over were hers alone, or whether they also included ones from Ms. Abedin’s account or other aides who were using the server for government business.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who exposed the private emails as part of his investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, has urged Mrs. Clinton to turn the server over to a neutral third party while questions get sorted out, but Mrs. Clinton has refused, saying she believes she has now complied with the law by finally going through and turning emails over.
The law at the time Mrs. Clinton was in office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to their official accounts for storage. Mrs. Clinton rejected using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy’s inquiries the State Department asked her to belatedly turn her emails over.
The State Department has turned about 300 emails over to the Benghazi probe, but has refused to release the other tens of thousands of messages, saying it wants to process and clear them all at the same time, which will take months.
But the department has admitted in court that it was remiss in not searching the emails earlier, and has agreed to reopen some previous open-records requests from Judicial Watch that had sought Clinton emails.
Ms. Abedin, who is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as she also worked for an outside consulting company.
The department’s inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal, since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government service. Ms. Abedin was already a government employee when she was given the designation, and the State Department has yet to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status.
Wells Fargo appears to have a history of fraudulent decision-makers and employers. Consider this a public service announcement for those account-holders of Wells Fargo. As noted in the LA Times, the city is suing the big bank.
But this is clearly not the first rodeo for Wells Fargo as in New York in 2013:
Defendants Face Up To 25 Years In Prison If Convicted
Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown, joined by New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin M. Lawsky, today announced that three individuals – including a Richmond Hill attorney and his sister – have been charged with conspiring to commit mortgage fraud and larceny from Wells Fargo Bank by fraudulently obtaining mortgage funds in excess of $3.3 million pertaining to the purchase of six properties – including four in Queens – during a six-month period in 2008. More here.
Then there was a case with Freddie Mac.
WASHINGTON — Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to an $869 million settlement with Freddie Mac over claims on home loans it sold to the government-controlled mortgage finance company.
The agreement announced Monday by Wells Fargo involves mortgages sold to Freddie before January 2009. Wells said the amount of the agreement was adjusted to reflect credits for previous claims payments, resulting in a cash payment to Freddie of about $780 million. Freddie and its bigger sibling Fannie Mae demanded that Wells Fargo and other big banks buy back mortgages they sold that later soured in the housing bust.
Now there is May of 2015, where the City of Los Angeles has Sued Wells Fargo:
Complaint Also Alleges Wells Failed to Notify Customers of Unauthorized Use of Personal Information
LOS ANGELES – City Attorney Mike Feuer today announced that his office has filed a civil lawsuit against Wells Fargo, alleging the company has victimized consumers by opening customer accounts, and issuing credit cards, without authorization–then failing to inform customers of the alleged misuse of their personal information or to refund fees for unwanted services.
“Consumers should be entitled to expect that major financial institutions will treat them fairly,” said Feuer. “Our lawsuit alleges that in Wells Fargo’s push for growth the bank often elevated profit over its customers’ legal rights.”
The complaint alleges Wells Fargo’s business model imposed unrealistic sales quotas that, among other things, have driven employees to engage in unlawful activity including opening fee-generating customer accounts and adding unwanted secondary accounts to primary accounts without permission. These practices allegedly have led to significant hardship and financial loss to consumers, including having money withdrawn from customer’s authorized accounts to pay for fees assessed by Wells Fargo on unauthorized accounts and derogatory notes on credit reports when unauthorized fees went unpaid, causing some customers to purchase identity theft protection.
Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Wells Fargo failed to properly inform customers of misuse of their personal information and failed to refund unauthorized fees. Read more here on the press release.
A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.
The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.
In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.
“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”
The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).
In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.
“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.
But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”
The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.
In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
“Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” they wrote. “And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century.”
FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.
Governor Rick Scott joins us. Governor, thanks for going On the Record tonight and we want to hear more about why you are suing the administration.
RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Kimberly, it’s outrageous. The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the low income pool. It’s for low income families. Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands ObamaCare. So this first off is horrible.
GUILFOYLE: It sounds like extortion.
SCOTT: Absolutely. It’s – first off, you think about the families at our state that are relying on this. Second, Justice Roberts said, The NFIB versus Sebelius, that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand ObamaCare. They say they can’t do that. So – and by the way they are not cutting our federal taxes in doing this. They did not say, “Oh, we will cut your federal taxes because we are going to cut out your program.” So our taxpayers are still paying for the federal government.
GUILFOYLE: Right.
SCOTT: But they are going to cut out a program and try to hold a gun to our head.
GUILFOYLE: All right. So when are you going to file this lawsuit?
SCOTT: We’re working with our attorney general, Pam Bondi. We have a great attorney general in our state.
GUILFOYLE: Yes. That’s my friend.
SCOTT: We’ll work with them to make sure – yes. She is a good friends of yours. And we’re working with her to do this in the right manner. But we’re going –I’m going to stand up for every citizen in our state. One, the citizens that have a program that they are relying on, those that can’t afford their own health care, that’s one. Then two, the rest of our citizens that are saying, “You know, we are paying our federal taxes and we are not going to let the federal government tell us how to run our state.” That’s outrageous. It’s not what the Supreme Court allows. And so we’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.
GUILFOYLE: Well, I think, you know, with Pam Bondi filing this and you on top of it, this is really a compelling issue. There are serious constitutional implications as a former prosecutor myself. It seems that you are on some serious strong ground with the president, with the comments from the chief justice that this should not be allowed and it should be precedent setting for other states if they are compelled in this way, forced against their will to expand and feed the behemoth that has become ObamaCare.
SCOTT: Absolutely. But don’t they care about the low income families that they have already created a program for in our state?
GUILFOYLE: Sure.
SCOTT: And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactic and when it’s appropriate they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want.
GUILFOYLE: Right. The penalty. Yes.
(Crosstalk)
SCOTT: That’s not the way the federal government is supposed to work. Absolutely. It’s not the way we expect our federal government. We’re supposed to be able to run our state.
GUILFOYLE: Well, it’s a shakedown to the states. If you don’t do what we say….
SCOTT: Absolutely.
GUILFOYLE: . …because we’re gig bigger than you, and we’re going to bully you and we’re going to force you and penalize you and it’s really just hurting the lower income families by doing this.
SCOTT: Absolutely. One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully — this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.
GUILFOYLE: Well — but you’re standing up for all Floridians. So I think that’s fantastic. And you know, this is so important we get the message out there and that we learn about these issues because it’s going to be facing the other states as well. Governor, such a pleasure. Thank you for coming on here tonight.
