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.
Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion
Reprehensible….sounds like a death panel for a historic American icon.
A federal depredation permit authorizes you to capture or kill birds to reduce damage caused by birds or to protect other interests such as human health and safety or personal property. A depredation permit is intended to provide short-term relief for bird damage until long-term, non-lethal measures can be implemented to eliminate or significantly reduce the problem.
You should review Title 50 parts 10, 13 and 21.41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with your application. You are responsible for reviewing and understanding these regulations before you request and accept a permit. These regulations are on our website at: http://www.fws.gov/permits/ltr/ltr.html.
The process, conditions, text and application document is found here.
U.S. proposes giving wind farms 30-year permits to kill eagles
Reuters: U.S. wildlife managers on Wednesday again proposed granting 30-year permits to wind farms that would forgive them for thousands of eagle deaths expected during that time frame from collisions of the birds with turbines, towers and electrical wires.
The proposed rule, like one struck down by a federal judge last year, would greatly extend the current five-year time frame in the permits required under U.S. law for the “incidental take” of eagles, including those killed by obstacles erected in their habitat.
Wind energy companies have pressed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to lengthen the terms of the eagle permits, saying a five-year duration left too much uncertainty and hampered investment in the burgeoning renewable power industry.
The agency in 2013 approved a similar plan extending eagle-take permits to 30 years. But a U.S. judge overturned it last year, agreeing with conservation groups that the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to properly assess impacts of the rule change on federally protected eagle populations.
The revised proposal cites significant expansion within many sectors of the U.S. energy industry, particularly wind energy operations in the Western states, at a time when bald eagle numbers are growing while golden eagles appear to be in decline.
Nevertheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the U.S. population of roughly 40,000 golden eagles could endure the loss of about 2,000 birds a year without being pushed toward extinction. And the agency suggested that bald eagles, estimated to number about 143,000 nationwide, could sustain as many as 4,200 fatalities annually without endangering the species.
The new proposal, which is open for public comment through July 5, would make wind farms and other energy developers responsible for monitoring eagle deaths from collisions with facility structures.
That arrangement was decried by the American Bird Conservancy, which led the successful legal challenge against the previous eagle permit plan.
The conservancy’s Michael Hutchins said a system that relies on industry rather than government regulators to monitor and report problems fails to protect a beloved bird of prey stamped on the great seal of the United States.
The American Wind Energy Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The number of eagles killed each year at wind facilities is not precisely known, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. An estimated 545 golden eagles are thought to perish annually from collisions with obstacles ranging from turbines to vehicles, the agency said.
There are some refugees in Russia yet is seems the process is highly controlled and with stipulated boundaries and conditions.
There are currently about 12,000 Syrian refugees in Russia, according to the Federal Migration Service, only 2,000 of whom have so far received legal residency papers. Human rights activists say the bureaucratic logjam is unacceptable and point out that most of the Ukrainian refugees also lack legal documentation.
“There is no policy on refugees in our state,” says Svetlana Gannushkina, chair of the Committee for Civil Assistance, a nongovernmental organization that works with migrants. “When large numbers of Ukrainians started coming here, they were at first met with kindness. But soon all official interest in them disappeared.”
Russia already has a huge and largely underground population of Muslim migrant workers, mostly from former-Soviet central Asia. Experts say that any Syrian refugees who have made it to Moscow are probably blending in with that group.
But that could change. A summary of press reports in the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda suggests that increasing numbers of savvy Syrians are entering Russia on student or tourist visas, hopping on the train to Murmansk, and then heading directly to Norway’s single border crossing with Russia.
Fewer than 200 people have been so far recorded using this unique method of escape, to Russia’s far north by train and into Norway, often by bicycle from nearby Murmansk, high above the Arctic Circle.
The paper says that local taxi drivers are charging over $1,000 for the two-hour drive, while the price of bicycles has soared. Much more here from CS Monitor.
Syrians Have No Chance Of Asylum In Russia
A Russian solicitor working with Syrian refugees tells Sky News there are “unwritten rules” preventing them gaining asylum status.
Sky News has discovered the extraordinary lengths to which Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration is going to keep out Syrian asylum seekers.
Russia has granted two Syrians full asylum status since the conflict began in 2011.
In comparison, Germany is currently accepting about 35,000 people per month.
Makhachkala, the biggest city in the Russian state of Dagestan, is a chaotic spot – with half-built apartment blocks and partly paved roads fanning out, spaghetti-like, from the western edge of the Caspian Sea.
Makhachkala, the biggest city in Dagestan, is a chaotic spot
Among the 600,000 people who live here, there is just one man – a solicitor called Shamil Magemadov – who is willing to work with refugees.
“That’s surprising, I know,” says the 37-year-old.
“Syrians who come here (seeking asylum) share the same religion as the residents, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference.”
As Makhachkala goes, so does the rest of Russia.
It may be the principal military backer of the Syrian regime but that does not mean Russia is willing to accept its citizens fleeing war and terror.
We joined Mr Magemadov as he made his way to the local lock-up where five Syrian asylum seekers are being held indefinitely.
They have all applied for refugee status but lack the proper paperwork permitting them to stay.
As a consequence, each one has spent more than a year behind bars – and human rights groups believe there are Syrians in similar circumstances sitting in just about every detention centre in the country.
“They are very depressed,” said Mr Magemadov, when I asked about their mental state.
“They have been in there a long time and they don’t know if they’re ever getting out.”
The detention centre where the five men are being held
What is clear is that these men have no chance of getting asylum.
Nonetheless, the ‘Makhachkala 5’ did leave the detention complex in February, when Russian migration officials tried to secretly deport them back to Syria.
A decision, says Mr Magemadov, that could have cost them their lives.
When he got wind of what was going on, he immediately tried to block it at the European Court of Human Rights.
“They were waiting at Moscow airport (to be deported) and I filed a petition to the court,” he said.
“We had no time to lose. If the court sided with me after the government put them on the plane, we knew we would never get them back.”
Sky News has learned that such deportations are common.
According to the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) and other civil society groups operating in Russia, at least 18 Syrians have been sent back directly to Syria, contravening the 1951 Refugee Convention (of which Russia is a signatory) and the Russian Constitution.
Sky News has been told the total number of Syrians deported is “almost certainly far higher” but this number represents those cases they have heard about and can confirm.
The lives of the five men in Makhachkala may have been saved but they told us they have little, or nothing, to live for.
Zacharia Berri, from Aleppo in Syria, has spent almost a year inside and during that time, he has twice tried to take his own life.
The second attempt was made in February, just before Russian migration officials tried to take them all to the airport.
In a message recorded on a telephone inside the detention centre, Mr Berri told Sky News: “I don’t want to go to Syria, I oppose the regime.
“I am a wanted man. The security services are waiting for me to send me to the army. I don’t want to go.”
We have obtained this picture of the 24-year-old after he tried to slash his left wrist two months ago.
Zacharia Berri tried to slash his left wrist
Sky News also received this picture, in the past few days, of another inmate called Rebar Kasar.
The young Syrian has taken a chunk out of his own arm because, after 14 months inside he says he is “going insane”.
Rebar Kasar says he is “going insane”
Aleppo native Sabri Koro has spent 16 months inside and told us it has been particularly difficult because he has a Russian wife and child who he is not allowed to see.
Migration officials rejected his asylum request on the basis that he has failed to provide his family with “manly and fatherly care”.
The registration of his marriage, which took place after he had been detained, was proof, said officials, of paternal negligence.
Sabri Koro and his wife Kalimat Kouro
Mr Magemadov chuckles when the subject of the migration service’s ‘rejection notices’ is raised.
The Russian migration service uses – and reuses – the same templates when issuing these rejections, telling failed applicants they are “in no more danger than other citizens living (in Syria)”.
The country is safe, add the templates, because the regime is “in control of about 50% of the territory”.
For the troubled-looking refugee lawyer, in the sprawling city of Makhachkala, the arrests and detentions, the deportations and the rejection slips, are simple proof of an unacknowledged yet active government policy.
“I think there are unwritten rules regarding Syrians,” he said.
“Why do citizens of Ukraine get asylum without problems (in Russia), but citizens of Syria do not?”
A top National Security Agency official wants to keep tabs on national security personnel off-the-clock, in part by tracking their online habits at home. The aim is to spot behavior that might not be in America’s best interests.
Historically, some illicit activity, like downloading child pornography, which is different to perfectly legal and enjoyable content from sites similar to tubev, has occurred on government computers and been prosecuted.
But today, the digital lives of employees cleared to access classified information extend beyond the office.
About 80 percent of the National Security Agency workforce has retired since Sept. 11, 2001, says Kemp Ensor, NSA director of security. When the millennial and Gen Y staff that now populate the spy agency get home, they go online.
“That is where were we need to be, that’s where we need to mine,” Ensor said.
Currently, managers only look for aberrant computer behavior on internal, agency-owned IT systems – it’s a practice known as “continuous monitoring.”
But the military and intelligence communities are beginning to broaden checks on cleared personnel in the physical and digital worlds. It used to be that national security workers were re-investigated only every five or 10 years.
Under the evolving “continuous evaluation” model, the government will periodically search for signs of problems through, for example, court records, financial transactions, and — if authorized — social media posts.
Ensor and other federal officials spoke April 28 about new trends in personnel security at an Intelligence and National Security Alliance symposium in Chantilly, Virginia.
On government devices, “the amount of child porn I see is just unbelievable,” said Daniel Payne, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Service. The point being, there’s a need to routinely scan agency network activity and criminal records to gauge an individual’s suitability to handle classified information.
Payne, whose 34 years of counterintelligence experience have spanned the military, CIA and National Counterintelligence and Security Center, was not referring to any specific agency or any specific timeframe, his current employer told Nextgov.
Payne just returned to the Defense Security Service in February, after starting his career there.
“Director Payne provided this example to demonstrate the range of issues identified during the personnel security process, and the range and value of different data sources that have a bearing on an individual’s ability to access sensitive information,” the Defense Security Service said in an emailed statement.
Ensor echoed his colleague’s concerns, noting he sees child pornography on NSA IT systems. In the national security space, “what people do is amazing,” he said. Ensor’s guess about the presence of explicit material is that there are many “introverts staring at computer screens” day in and day out. This is why it is so important to look at individuals holistically when determining who might be a so-called insider threat, Ensor said.
In the past, military and intelligence personnel have exploited minors online, without notice, for years or even an entire career.
At least one NSA contractor holding a top secret clearance told investigators in 2007 he had been spending $50 to $60 monthly fees on various sexually explicit websites similar to hdpornvideo.xxx for the past three years, according to a Defense inspector general report on the matter. After each session on the porn sites, he would wipe the browsing history of that system. The Pentagon investigation did not state who owned the computer.
More recently, a military official pleaded guilty to pedophile crimes and accessing child pornography through the Internet — but at home.
On April 15, a U.S. district judge sentenced former Army Corps of Engineers official Michael Beeman, of Virginia, to 30 years in prison for molesting minors, beginning in the 1980s while working in public affairs at Patrick Air Force Base. He later downloaded child pornography to personal devices, court records show.
Case files state the illegal online activity occurred between 2010 and 2014, which according to LinkedIn, was when Beeman served as an Army Corps of Engineers public affairs regional chief.
NewsMax: Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.
Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.
Progressivism is already enforced on campuses by restrictions on speech that might produce what progressives consider retrograde intellectual diversity. Now, from the so-called party of science, aka Democrats, comes a campaign to criminalize debate about science.
“The debate is settled,” says Obama. “Climate change is a fact.” Indeed. The epithet “climate change deniers,” obviously coined to stigmatize skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers, is designed to obscure something obvious: “Of course the climate is changing; it never is not changing — neither before nor after the Medieval warm period (end of the 9th century to the 13th) and the little ice age (1640s to 1690s), neither of which was caused by fossil fuels.”
Today, debatable questions include: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? Are climate change models, many of which have generated projections refuted by events, suddenly reliable enough to predict the trajectory of change? Is change necessarily ominous because today’s climate is necessarily optimum? Are the costs, in money expended and freedom curtailed, of combating climate change less than the cost of adapting to it?
But these questions may not forever be debatable. The initial target of Democratic “scientific” silencers is ExxonMobil, which they hope to demonstrate misled investors and the public about climate change. There is, however, no limiting principle to restrain unprincipled people from punishing research entities, advocacy groups and individuals.
But it is difficult to establish what constitutes culpable “misleading” about climate science, of which a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report says: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”
Did Al Gore “mislead” when he said seven years ago that computer modeling projected the Arctic to be ice-free during the summer in as few as five years?
The attorney general of the Virgin Islands accuses ExxonMobil with criminal misrepresentation regarding climate change. This, even though before the U.S. government in 2009 first issued an endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases, ExxonMobil favored a carbon tax to mitigate climate consequences of those gases.
This grandstanding attorney general’s contribution to today’s gangster government is the use of law enforcement tools to pursue political goals — wielding prosecutorial weapons to chill debate, including subpoenaing private donor information from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.
The party of science, busy protecting science from scrutiny, has forgotten Karl Popper (1902-1994), the philosopher whose “The Open Society and Its Enemies” warned against people incapable of distinguishing between certainty and certitude. In his essay “Science as Falsification,” Popper explains why “the criterion of a scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” America’s party of science seems eager to insulate its scientific theories from the possibility of refutation.
The leader of the attorneys general, New York’s Eric Schneiderman, dismisses those who disagree with him as “morally vacant.” His moral content is apparent in his campaign to ban fantasy sports gambling because it competes with the gambling (state lottery, casinos, off-track betting) that enriches his government.
Then there is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who suggests using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, written to fight organized crime, to criminalize what he calls the fossil fuel industry’s “climate denial apparatus.” The Justice Department, which has abetted the IRS cover-up of its criminal activity, has referred this idea to the FBI.
These garden-variety authoritarians are eager to regulate us into conformity with the “settled” consensus du jour, whatever it is. But they are progressives, so it is for our own good.
A federal judge on Wednesday opened the door to interviewing Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton as part of a review into her use of a private email server while secretary of State.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia laid out the ground rules for interviewing multiple State Department officials about the emails, with an eye toward finishing the depositions in the weeks before the party nominating conventions.
Clinton herself may be forced to answer questions under oath, Sullivan said, though she is not yet being forced to take that step.
“Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary,” Sullivan said in an order on Wednesday. [READ THE ORDER BELOW] Discovery is the formal name for the evidence-gathering process, which includes depositions.
“If plaintiff believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.”
The order, which came in the course of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, leaves open the possibility that Clinton will be forced to answer detailed questions on the eve of her formal selection as the Democratic presidential nominee about her creation of the server.
Any deposition would surely roil the presidential race and force her campaign to confront the issue, which has dogged her for a year. “Her legal team is really going to fight that really hard,” predicted Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney who has raised questions about Clinton’s email setup.
“You have to take her deposition in this case to fully understand how it was designed and the whys and the what-fors.”
While leaving the door open to Clinton’s eventual deposition, Sullivan on Wednesday ordered at least six current and former State Department employees to answer questions from Judicial Watch, which has filed multiple lawsuits over the Clinton email case.
That list includes longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, under secretary for management Patrick Kennedy, former executive secretary Stephen Mull and Bryan Pagliano, the IT official believed to be responsible for setting up and maintaining the server.
The judge also ordered the State Department to prepare a formal answer about Clinton’s emails. Donald Reid, a senior security official, may also be asked to answer questions, if Judicial Watch so decides.
That process is scheduled to be wrapped up within eight weeks, putting the deadline in the final week of June.
Judicial Watch brought suit against the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in an effort to bring Abedin’s emails to light. The lawsuit has since evolved into a battleground over Clinton’s use of the private server.
Clinton’s Republican critics have repeatedly accused her of setting up the private server and then deleting roughly half its contents to evade public scrutiny. In the process, her critics say, Clinton may have made government secrets vulnerable to hackers.
The FBI and government inspectors general are conducting separate investigations related to the server, and the prospect that classified information might have been mishandled.
Clinton has said that she has yet to be contacted by the FBI to set up an interview as part of its investigation, despite long speculation that she will be.
But any deposition in the Judicial Watch case could frustrate that process for Clinton’s camp.
“You only want your client to tell their story once if at all,” said Whitaker. “If you’re going to stake out some ground in a deposition which is under oath, that’s really a dangerous opportunity to lay out a story that you say is true under penalty of perjury and then it might be used against you, ultimately, if you have to take the stand again.”
In his order, Sullivan pointed to revelations from the emails appearing to show officials trying to evade demands of FOIA.
In one email, for instance, Mull told Abedin that Clinton’s emails “would be subject to FOIA requests” if she used a department-issued BlackBerry, even though her identity would remain secret.
Abedin responded that the idea “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
In February, Sullivan ruled that the evidence-gathering process could proceed, and the two sides have been haggling since then.
Sullivan had previously suggested that Clinton could be forced to respond to questions, but his order on Wednesday offered the clearest indication that it remains a real possibility.
In his order on Wednesday, Sullivan denied the organization’s efforts to combine his granting of depositions and a similar decision by another judge in a separate case.
******
In part from National Law Journal: Clinton’s personal lawyer, Williams & Connolly of counsel David Kendall, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately return a request for comment.
If Clinton is subpoenaed to testify, she wouldn’t be the only presidential candidate personally involved in litigation.
In February, a District of Columbia Superior Court judge ordered Donald Trump to sit for a deposition in his lawsuit against celebrity chef Geoffrey Zakarian, who abandoned plans for a restaurant in Trump’s new hotel in downtown Washington.
Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said that Trump’s campaign schedule wasn’t a shield against deposition. “Neither the rules nor the controlling authority create a special exception for individuals that that ‘may have a busy schedule’ as a result of seeking public office,” Holeman wrote.
Trump could also be called as a witness in cases in California and New York about Trump University, a now-closed for-profit institution accused of fraud. Trump, according to news reports, is on the witness list in the case in California, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has said that Trump would be an “essential” witness at trial. Read more.
