AYESHA CURRY'S TWITTER RANT BACKLASH IS RACIST (REMEMBER TIPPER GORE?)

AYESHA CURRY'S TWITTER RANT BACKLASH IS RACIST (REMEMBER TIPPER GORE?)

IGNORE STEPHEN A. SMITH'S SEXIST, MISOGYNIST REMARKS.

IN AMERICA FREE SPEECH ISN'T COLORBLIND.

DOES ANYONE REMEMBER TIPPER GORE'S CENSORSHIP PR STUNT?

IS IT POSSIBLE AYESHA CURRY'S ANTI-NBA TWEETS COULD BE AN INTENTIONAL PR STUNT?

Sources: ESPN, Huffpost, Twitter, NBA, Rollingstone, Oprah, Village Voice, Undefeated, YouTube

Ayesha Curry, wife of NBA Superstar Stephen Curry is being slammed for her recent tweets about the NBA being rigged.

Many people have previously expressed this same sentiment about the NBA Play-offs, so why is Ayesha being rebuked?

Is it due to the fact that her husband Stepen is currently employed by the NBA or does RACISM play a factor in this backlash against Ayesha?

And why is Sports Commentator Stephen A. Smith (a BLACK Man) comparing Ayesha Curry to Lebron James' wife Savannah?

Both Women are BLACK, however that is where the similarity stops.

Since the husbands of Ayesha Curry and Savannah James will play for rival teams during the 2016 Play-Off games, is it possible Ayesha is strategically posting negative NBA Twitter rants as a PR stunt?

Has the Mainstream Media forgotten about TIPPER GORE, former wife of AL GORE?

When her husband was still employed as Vice-President in the Clinton administration, TIPPER GORE launched a national campaign to shut up and Censor the music of BLACK Rappers.

Yet......

No one, not even the NAACP told TIPPER GORE to "Shut up and stay in her place".

TIPPER GORE used her fake "Family Values" Hip Hop Music Censorship campaign to bring attention to HERSELF but no one said a word.

Not even Bill and Hillary Clinton!

******* Stephen A. Smith Essentially Tells Ayesha Curry To Shut Her Mouth And Know Her Place

“You are not just Ayesha Curry. You are Steph Curry’s wife.”

What many people thought would be a night of champagne celebrations for the Curry family instead turned out rather badly for them on Thursday night.

Stephen continued to lack MVP-level sharpness in Game 6 of the NBA Finals, fouling out and then getting ejected for throwing his mouthpiece at some rich kid in a loss that pushed the series to seven games. But most of the conversation following the game centered around his wife, who hopped on Twitter to accuse the Cavs of holding up the Warriors’ family bus and the NBA of rigging the Finals for money. (She quickly deleted the latter tweet.)

TWITTER/@AYESHACURRY

Ayesha joins the NBA conspiracy theorist community.

Steph defended his wife after the game, saying, “Everybody says stuff where you get caught in the moment ... I don’t fault her from showing some emotion on Twitter.” But on ESPN’s Friday morning episode of “First Take,” “analysts” Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless completely faulted Ayesha for showing emotion.

Smith spoke at length (as seen in the above video), in fact, about how NBA wives should and should not act. He focused the conversation around wives of the NBA Finals’ two rival stars: LeBron James and Steph. Smith thinks that Ayesha, a relative rookie when it comes to the superstar NBA lifestyle, should be quiet and act more like LeBron’s wife Savannah Brinson, a 13-year veteran of the NBA family. 

“[Brinson] never brings attention to herself. She never tweets and calls out the lying. Nobody, nobody is more scrutinized than her husband, but yet she thinks about how she represents him,” Smith said.  

And there’s nothing wrong or right about that! It’s Savannah’s choice to stay low and work on a small business. It’s also Ayesha’s choice to parlay her popularity as a family-first social media presence into a Food Network show. They’re different women who are making their own mark, if Smith couldn’t tell.

But he can’t, because his sexism won’t allow him to recognize Ayesha as an independent person from her husband. “You are not just Ayesha Curry. You are Steph Curry’s wife,” he shockingly said (and Bayless agreed!). Apparently, once a woman marries an NBA player, they no longer have their own identity. They’re merely ornamental.  

Smith claims that because “everybody veers towards Steph Curry,” we’re ignoring Ayesha’s tweets. Quite the contrary, as much has been made of her tweets Thursday morning. 

“If this were Savannah acting like this, do you know how much heat LeBron James may have taken?” Smith continued to argue. 

Savannah “acting like this” may indeed cause some heat for LeBron. Yet in the spectrum of overly critical LeBron stories, Smith’s “acting like this” hypothetical would likely amount to nothing. Would LeBron and Savannah suffer if she started defending LeBron’s flopping? No. Will Ayesha and Steph suffer because of a few tweets? No. When you’re Steph Curry or LeBron James, two of the biggest athletes alive, it’ll take a lot more than heated tweets to “hurt yourself or your husband or your family in any way,” as Smith said.

Ayesha evidently watched Smith’s diatribe, and responded on Twitter immediately: 

Seeing the tweet, Smith responded live on “First Take” and continued to explain why she was out of line.

“It is not me. It is you,” he said.

No it isn’t, Steven. No it isn’t. 

MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

GARLAND WAS APPOINTED AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE IN 1997 BY BILL CLINTON.

Sources: CNN, Washington Times, Youtube

February 12, 2016 Conservative SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia was Murdered.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Pres Obama nominated  Scalia's replacement, Appellate Court Judge Merrick Brian Garland, a LIBERAL appointed by former president BILL CLINTON in 1997.

Due to this being a presidential election year, the GOP-controlled Senate has already refused to confirm Garland.

Scalia's open seat places the 2016 presidential election in a dangerous predicament.

If Garland is not confirmed, in the event of a Bush v Gore-style election battle the SCOTUS will remain deadlocked.

A deadlocked SCOTUS court in an election results battle presents two possible scenarios:

1).  A long drawn out, expensive litigation until a decision is made.

2) Obama is legally allowed to remain President until a decision is made.

Thus Obama may get the 3rd term he has been hoping for.

***** Jeffrey Toobin: Sure, Merrick Garland is qualified, but this is politics

Story highlights

• Jeffrey Toobin: Supreme Court nominee is unlikely to survive political maelstrom 
• Toobin says Republicans will likely not bend and allow hearing or vote on Merrick Garland 
• Cost of allowing Obama pick who could tip court is too great for GOP, he says.
• Should Merrick Garland's friends be offering him congratulations -- or condolences? After a distinguished career in public service, Garland has been tapped for the legal profession's highest honor -- to be a Supreme Court justice. But President Barack Obama's nomination thrusts Garland into a political maelstrom he is unlikely to survive -- at least as a judge on the nation's highest court.

Garland, who is 63, has had a storybook career. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School (like the justice he would be replacing, Antonin Scalia), was clerk for a pair of legendary judges (Henry Friendly and William Brennan), and a partner at a prominent law firm -- which he gave up to work as a line prosecutor in the District of Columbia.

He was a Justice Department official and then judge for the last 18 years on the second most important court in the nation. 

The issue of Garland's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court is beyond question.

But Republicans have said that because Obama is in the last year of his term, the seat on the court should be determined by the voters -- who will be choosing the next president. They have vowed, in very explicit terms, to refuse to give Garland a hearing or a vote. 

Most Republican senators will refuse even to meet with him. And while Republican senators have so far avoided attacking Garland's qualifications, conservative interest groups are already pledging to run television advertisements portraying the judge as a mindless liberal and Obama stooge.

It's all very ... political. But the Supreme Court has always been as much a political body as a legal one. Supporters of the President, and of Garland, are seeking to impose the maximum amount of political pain on their opponents in the Senate.

Democrats have already started calling out their Republican counterparts as do-nothing obstructionists. This is how the process will play out, and the outcome will depend on the politics. Do Republicans stick with their base and refuse a vote? Or do they cave under criticism and allow Garland to proceed through the process?

The odds strongly favor continuing Republican solidarity. The seat is the tipping point to a Democratic majority on the court, and the GOP will put up with a lot of heat to prevent the loss of the court for a generation. 

True, a President Hillary Clinton might pick someone even more liberal, but better to risk a fight later than lose one now. When it comes to the Supreme Court, political calculation is nothing new. There were no good old days.

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION:

"GET OVER IT"??

HOW CAN WE GET OVER THE PREMEDITATED MURDER OF A HIGH COURT JUSTICE??

WE NEED TO PRAY & VOTE.

So do I believe several theories floating around about SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia being MURDERED to prevent another Bush v Gore election?

Yes!

Scalia's death was designed to Intimidate and Terrorize 2016 election voters.

American citizens need to Pray and  Vote!

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, 60 Minutes, CNN, World Net Daily, Youtube

*** Justice Scalia On The Record

This 60 Minutes segment was originally broadcast on April 27, 2008. It was updated on Sept. 12, 2008. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Ruth Streeter, producer.

Not many Supreme Court justices become famous, but Antonin Scalia is one of the few. Known as "Nino" to his friends and colleagues, he is one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation.

He first agreed to talk to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl last spring about a new book he's written on how lawyers should address the court. But over the course of several conversations, our story grew into a full-fledged profile - his first major television interview - including discussions about abortion and Bush v. Gore.

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.

Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values. 

---

Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

He's been on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.

For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.

"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.

"I'm surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He's evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He's going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can...I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use... A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

But his critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Scalia's realintention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 1960s and 70s.

He's been labeled a "counterrevolutionary."

"A counterrevolutionary!" Scalia reacts. "Sounds exciting."

The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and to allow more religion in public life.

"The public sense of you is that [you] make your decisions based on your social beliefs," Stahl says, with Scalia shaking his head. "That is the perception."

"I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia says."

His philosophy has occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag burning, as he told a group of students in Missouri.

"If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail, but it was not up to me," Scalia told the students.

To Scalia, flag burning was protected by the founding fathers in the First Amendment, which is his only criterion, he says, under originalism.

"But do you respect that there is another way to look at this?" Stahl asks.

"You know the story of the Baptist preacher who was asked if he believed in total-immersion baptism? And he said, 'Believe in it? Why I've seen it done!' I have to say the same thing about your question. There must be other views because I've seen them," Scalia says.

"Yeah, but do you respect them? You don't, do you?" Stahl asks.

"I respect the people who have them, but I think those views are just flat out wrong," Scalia says.

He's talking about some of his fellow justices, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who is - and this never ceases to surprise people - one of Scalia's best friends, both on and off the court.

To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.

"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.

"Justice Ginsburg and you disagree...on lots of things. And yet you're such good friends," Stahl remarks.

"I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas," Scalia says. "And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multi-member panel."

He's one of the best writers on the panel, known for a bold and colorful style. He told Stahl he has to work at it - that it doesn't come easy.

He some times quotes Cole Porter, and references Greek tragedies. Scalia says he does it because, "It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it."

But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision "sheer applesauce."

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

"How about, 'This opinion is not to be taken seriously.' He wrote that about Justice O'Connor," Ginsburg points out. "He's rather mild I think in the adjectives that he uses for me. But you can take every one of those words, run his opinions and you'll see that he, all of us are implausible when we disagree with him."

Asked if she ever takes it personally, Ginsburg says, "No, I take it as a challenge. How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real put down?"

"I'm trying to figure out if there was ever real anger," Stahl says.

"I would say exasperation is the word," Ginsburg replies.

"As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say 'I'm glad that he's my friend' or he's my colleague,'" she adds.

"What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun," Stahl tells Scalia.

"I can be charming and combative at the same time," Scalia replies. "What's contradictory between the two? I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may well be that I'm something of a contrarian."

Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v. Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the 2000 election to George Bush. The subject came up at the Oxford Union.

"Supposing yourself as a Supreme Court justice were granted the power to appoint the next president of the United States. Who would you pick and why? And would he or she be better than your last choice?" a student asked Scalia.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," he replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don't think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that's all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That's all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

#‎parisagreement‬

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

"PARIS AGREEMENT" IS NOT REALLY ABOUT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.

GOOD-BYE FOREVER TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

~ Climate change pact adopted by delegates of nearly 200 nations

LE BOURGET, France -

Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don't.

The "Paris agreement" aims to keep global temperatures from rising another degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between now and 2100, a key demand of poor countries ravaged by rising sea levels and other effects of climate change.

The countries pledge to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound and costly changes.

The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments - at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions - before taking effect.

The White House is calling the Paris accord "the most ambitious climate change agreement in history" and says it establishes "a long-term, durable global framework" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is praising the new accord on global warming as a deal that will save the world for generations to come, saying "it's a victory for all of the planet and for future generations."

Kerry told fellow negotiators Saturday in Paris that "it will help the world prepare for the impacts of climate change that are already here and also for those that we already know are on our way inevitably." He added the pact would "prevent the worst most devastating consequences of climate change from ever happening."

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says "years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity's moral courage to solve the climate crisis. And they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act."

Nicaragua's U.S.-born climate envoy, Paul Oquist, told climate negotiators that his country is "not able to support the consensus." He said the agreement does not go far enough and leads to twice as much global warming as the stated goals.

South African environment minister Edna Molewa calls the pact "the best we can get at this historic moment."

She says it "can map a turning point to a better and safer world" but she added that developed countries still have to cut emissions more and help poorer nations to counter the effects of global warming.

Post Sources: AP, WTHR, PBS, YouTube

CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS WILL DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS ON PLANET EARTH (MORE INCONVENIENT TAXES & REGULATIONS)

Global CLIMATE CHANGE Laws (new TAXES) being pushed by Pres OBAMA and other Elite world leaders will not "Save the Planet", nor "Protect the Future of our Children".

So what is the real "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" about CLIMATE CHANGE??

Is it only about reducing CARBON EMISSIONS?

These new set of Global CLIMATE CHANGE Taxes and Regulations being pushed by the Wealthy Elite, will in fact help to reconfigure Mankind on planet Earth via destroying the current Middle Class and eliminating people stuck in Poverty.

It is really all about making the Super RICH more Wealthy by creating only two Economic groups:

~ The Elite, Super Wealthy & Big Banks - LEADERS

~ A New Lower Class - WORKING SERVANTS

~ NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS



~ Climate Change Laws Hurt The Poor And Benefit No One: Why Are Political Elites Pushing So Hard?

August 21, 2015 by Bob Loewen
Bob Loewen is the chairman of the California Policy Center.

I was eighteen years old in 1966 when my plane circled the tiny airport in Ontario, California. I was traveling from the Bay Area to Claremont to begin my freshman year in college. Looking down from my window seat, the overcast cloud cover prevented me from seeing the freeways and buildings on the ground. When we landed, however, I looked up and saw a hazy blue sky. Then I realized that I was looking up through the cloud cover that I had observed from above. To my horror, what I had seen below me from the sky was not cloud cover at all; it was thick, brown smog, and I was breathing it.

That was the day I became an environmentalist. Although I have a libertarian’s skepticism of government, many times I have supported government programs to clean up the air, water, forests and beaches. In this way, I am like other Californians. Because all of us love and defend the natural resources of our state, the brand “environmentalist” is almost as popular as Santa Claus.

George Orwell warned, however, “political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” [1] California’s climate change laws have nothing to do with removing smog or keeping California’s beaches clean. They hurt the poor and benefit no one. Yet a political elite has managed to impose its will on the California economy without having to explain why it has chosen to hurt the poor for no benefit to the public largely because they use the label “environmentalist”. It is time to hold them accountable.

Orwell’s warning also applies to the substance of the climate change conversation. The climate change elites do not discuss climate change issues in the manner of scientists; they collapse multiple distinct issues into demonizing rhetoric: “The science is settled,” they say in response to every argument that is made; this means that the opponent is a “science denier”. Seldom is this rhetoric even arguably responsive.

While science is one of the principal subjects of the discussion about predicting earth’s climate future through scientific computer modeling, it is no more than political rhetoric to argue that one scientist is so completely wrong in his opinion, and the other so clearly correct, that the first is “denying” the very principles of science. And this is not even the main point of this essay…

Opponents who have other reasons for their opposition to climate change laws usually do not challenge the science. Assuming the climate change outcomes have been predicted accurately by proponents, for example, opponents nevertheless contend that enforcement of climate change laws will not eliminate or delay the predicted harmful effects of climate change because reductions in GHG emissions required by California (or EPA) are more than offset by increased emissions from new power generation plants in China and India.

Opponents who make this point do not deny the science; they embrace it.

The climate change elites do not respond to this point as a distinct argument for which they are accountable; at most, they pretend that the issue does not exist, a slick move worthy of Orwell’s admonition about “political speech”.

California has the most aggressive climate change laws of any state in the nation and is the only state imposing a cap and trade protocol on emitters. It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels no later than 2020.

This year, new laws have been proposed to tighten that standard, requiring that 2020 emissions be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels. Other restrictions include specific requirements that specified minimum levels of wind and solar power be included in the mix of power sources.

All of this makes power in California the most expensive in the nation.

According to the Manhattan Institute, “California’s renewable energy mandates and climate change policies . . . are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor.” [2] The report found that “in 2012, about 1 million California households were living in energy poverty, a term that applies to households that spend 10 percent, or more, of their income on household energy costs.”

There is a considerable disparity between wealthy areas, such as Mill Valley in Marin County, whose monthly energy costs were only $200 per home because of mild weather conditions, and middle-income areas, such as the town of Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley, where harsher average weather leads to average monthly energy costs of about $500 per home.

The climate change elite is leaving the poor and middle class behind in other ways too.

The Manhattan Institute study found that because of the high cost of compliance (estimated $115 billion to meet renewable requirements alone), California’s climate change laws are forcing businesses out of the state, resulting in job losses. There are also collateral effects from the general hostility of climate change elites to any business involved with fossil fuels. Take fracking, for example. Two years ago, Californians were excited about the potential for thousands of jobs when we learned that California’s shale formations are even richer than those in boom states like North Dakota. [3] A USC study predicted that fossil fuels from shale would provide “up to 2.8 million jobs, increasing the state’s total economic output by up to 14.3 percent . . . boosting personal income by up to 10 percent.” [4] Due to actions in Sacramento, nothing has happened. Why not? A public official who wants to help the poor and middle class close the economic gap has enough information to allow fracking to proceed, but for now, the political elites prefer to keep fossil fuels right where they are, embedded deep in California’s shale.

Most troubling is that the goals of climate change laws are not achieved even when they are strictly enforced. For example, the EPA is pressuring American utilities to stop using coal because it generates more GHGs than other fuel sources. India and China, however, both build coal-fired power plants faster than the United States can remove its own. [5] Eric Roston, writing for Bloomberg Business, observes “’The U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere as quickly as India is adding them,” and “By 2020 India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity [in coal] as the U.S. is about to lose.” [6]

China, “the world’s biggest coal addict by far,” has a plan to build hundreds of coal plants, which negates the efficacy of emissions limits imposed by political elites in this country. Eric Lawson of Princeton University, known for his strong stance in favor of the science of climate change, is quoted by Stephen Moore in Investors Business Daily: “From 2010 through 2013, (China) added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week for seven straight years. [7] And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.”

California’s climate change laws are particularly vulnerable to the criticism that they will not change the predicted outcome of man-made warming because, according to the Manhattan Institute study, all of California’s emissions are only 1% of GHG emissions worldwide and 6% of total U.S. emissions. There are no climate models that support the idea that reduction of some or all of those amounts will affect global climate change given increases of emissions in China and India.
Instead of responding directly to these criticisms, some have argued that China and India will change; if the U.S. sticks with its stringent emission reduction policies, they contend, our example will encourage them to reverse the increases in emissions that represent their recent history and turn those into reductions in emissions.

This is pure Utopian fantasy.

About 900 coal plants are currently planned in China and India.

Where is the evidence that India or China have made any plans to change these to lower-emission energy plants? What plans have been made to tear down the existing coal plants and replace them? Absent concrete plans, the follow-my-lead theory is far-fetched.

There is no precedent to suggest that follow-my-lead will succeed. There is, however, precedent suggesting it will not succeed. In California, proponents of AB32 sold the most aggressive state law on climate change in America partly on the follow-my-lead theory. They told Californians that when AB32 was enacted, other states would follow California’s example by adopting statutes similar to AB32.

This effort failed; not one state has adopted a climate change law like California’s. Since it should have been easier to convince another state, like Oregon, to join California on climate change law than to convince a sovereign nation like China, California’s experience disproves the follow-my-lead theory.

Proponents of climate change laws point to the “Joint Announcement” on climate change dated November 12, 2014 signed during President Obama’s visit to China as supposed proof that China is willing to reconsider its policy of increasing emissions.

The Joint Agreement, however, confirms that China will continue to increase its emissions through at least 2030. Much false information has been implied about this nonbinding statement. But it is available on line, and its meaning is pretty clear.

[8] China does not commit anywhere in the document to reduce its emissions; it only states, without agreeing, that it might reach a peak in its increases by 2030. By signing the Joint Agreement, President Obama effectively acknowledges that current conditions will not change before 2030 at the earliest. This means that the heavy burdens created by California’s emissions limits cannot achieve the intended benefits until sometime after that date.

These critical problems with climate change laws have been known for a long time.

Yet climate change elites do not respond to them, making it clear that they have no response that makes sense. This does not mean that nothing should be done about climate change.

But it does mean we need to change the laws that are hurting the poor and middle class, examine what is possible in the area of adaptation, and hold the political elites accountable. The future of California depends on it.

FOOTNOTES

(1) “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell, 1946
(2) “Renewable Energy Mandates Same As A Tax On The Poor,” by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, 7/26/2015
(3) “Fixing California: Will Fracking Bonanza Be Allowed?,” Chris Reed, CPC Prosperity Forum, 9/30/2013
(4) “The Monterey Shale & California’s Economic Future,” USC Price School of Public Policy, March 2013
(5) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(6) “The Grim Promise of India’s Coal-Powered Future,” Eric Roston, Bloomberg Business, 5/21/2015
(7) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(8) U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11/12/2014


Sources: California Policy Center, Manhattan Institute, Fox News, YouTube, CPC Prosperity, USC Price School of Public Policy

Illegal Immigration Becomes Central Focus Of 2012 Presidential Election (Latino Voters)

George W. Bush used the SCOTUS Court to Win the 2000 Presidential Election.
Now Barack Obama is using his DREAM Act/ Amnesty/ Illegal Immigration Reform to Win the 2012 Presidential Election.
What's wrong with that?
Bush is WHITE.
Obama is BLACK.
SAME Game, Different Strokes!
Obama is using his Political Influence to "buy" 800,000 Latino Votes, while George W. Bush used his Political Influence to Eliminate more than 200,000 BLACK Votes.
ALL is Fair in Love, War & Politics baby!
Only the Strong Survive!
That was a Smooth Move Pres. Obama!
I have to give it to you for that one Bro.







Republicans refine immigration message after Obama's scoop

Caught off guard by the Obama administration's shift in immigration policy last week, Republicans on Tuesday refined their response in an effort to lessen any political bounce for the president at what had been a tough time in his campaign.

Certain GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney led the Republican counterattack, accusing President Barack Obama of undermining the possibility of long-term immigration reform by taking the partial step of halting deportations of some young illegal immigrants who came to America as children.

Speaking in an interview on Fox News Radio, Romney said Obama could have proposed immigration reform earlier in his term, when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, but instead waited until his re-election was pending.

"The reason this came out was the president is trying to shore up his base with Latino voters," Romney said, noting that Obama's campaign has struggled in recent weeks to deal with a disappointing jobs report and what he called self-inflicted wounds.

"He is also trying to change the subject from his miserable speech last week, from his gaffe that the private economy is doing fine," Romney added.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, acknowledged that Obama's move "puts everyone in a difficult position," telling reporters it will "make it much more difficult for us to work in a bipartisan way to get to a permanent solution."

Boehner also said that the policy change might violate the Constitution and that the president made no attempt to work with Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, called such Republican arguments hypocritical and "phony outrage."

"The complaints are varied, but they have one thing in common: None of them actually take issue with the substance of President Obama's directive," Reid said, adding: "They just don't like the way President Obama made the decision -- or that he will get the credit for bringing out of the shadows 800,000 trustworthy young men and women who know no other home but the United States."

Tuesday's spin by leading Republican moderates Romney and Boehner differed from the initial reaction by conservatives who called Obama's move an amnesty -- a buzzword for right-wing opposition that has stymied immigration reform efforts.

Now the Republican criticism focuses on the process rather than the content, and for good reason.

A Bloomberg poll released Tuesday showed that a solid majority of likely voters back the policy change Obama announced Friday, including coveted independent voters.

According to the survey, 64% of respondents agree with the new policy, while 30% disagree. Among independents, the percentage in agreement rises to 66%, while 26% are opposed.

The poll also showed that 86% of Democrats support the new policy, while 56% of Republicans disagree with it.

Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University, called Obama's move "very shrewd" because it showed leadership on an issue important to his liberal base and the Hispanic community.

"This is a major, major step toward cementing the bond between the Latino community and the Democratic Party in an active way," Schiller told CNN, adding that voters will remember that the Democrats were "the party that let me stay in this country, ... that kept my family intact."

In announcing the change Friday, Obama said it would make U.S. immigration policy "more fair, more efficient and more just."

The new policy allows people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat and were successful students or served in the military to receive a two-year deferral from deportation.

They also can apply for work permits.

Administration officials emphasized that the change offers no path to citizenship or legal residency, and they said it will allow the Department of Homeland Security to focus resources on keeping out new illegal immigrants and tracking down repeat offenders, criminals and others.

The policy change mimics legislation called the DREAM Act, which Democrats were unable to push through Congress in 2010 because of a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

In that vote, five Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in blocking the measure, while three GOP senators voted with Democrats to bring it up.

The final tally of 55-41 was five votes shy of breaking the filibuster.

Reid complained Tuesday that Republicans have continually resisted efforts to work with Democrats on immigration reform and the DREAM Act.

"Every time Democrats offer to work together on comprehensive immigration reform, Republicans find an excuse to fight sensible change," Reid said. "And every time Democrats propose bipartisan legislation to provide a pathway to citizenship for children brought here illegally through no fault of their own, Republicans find an excuse to oppose our practical reforms."

After Obama announced the policy change Friday, conservative House Republicans immediately blasted it as a backdoor amnesty, with Iowa Rep. Steve King threatening to sue the administration.

However, Republican aides acknowledge that immigration is a divisive issue within their party, with GOP members in competitive districts needing to appeal to Hispanic voters to win re-election this fall.

To Schiller, the Obama move put Republicans in a tough spot if they oppose his policy of halting the deportations.

Noting the children of illegal immigrants affected by the change had to be very young when they arrived in America with their parents, she called it "a population that is impossible to paint in a negative light."

"How can you support a policy that would break up families? You can't," she said.
Boehner and Romney reflected that reality Tuesday.

"I think we all have concerns for those who are caught in this trap through no fault of their own and are here," Boehner said.

Romney pledged to "work from the beginning of my administration to put in place a piece of legislation which deals with this issue on a long-term basis," saying young illegal immigrants who serve in the military "should be able to become permanent residents of the United States," a step short of full citizenship.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, avoided a direct answer to repeated questions from reporters about his response to Obama's move, deferring instead to a speech by Romney later this week at a major Latino conference in Florida.

"He is the leader of our party from now until November and we hope beyond, and we're gonna wait and hear what he has to say about it," McConnell said.

Romney has endorsed efforts by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been mentioned as a possible running mate, to draft a Republican version of the DREAM Act.

Obama's move effectively ended that effort, a Rubio aide acknowledged Monday.
"We're re-evaluating our plans," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said. "The president's announcement took away our momentum and made the politics a lot tougher."

Rubio had planned to introduce the bill this summer, citing concerns about certain students facing deportation ahead of the new school year, but his office said the president's step erased any sense of urgency.

"This approach requires a long-term solution, and my biggest concern -- and I may be proven wrong -- my biggest concern is that by doing it this way, the president had undermined and set back the hopes of getting a long-term solution done on this issue," Rubio told CNBC on Tuesday.

Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in immigration issues, said the exceptionally bitter political divide right now made Republican calls for comprehensive immigration reform ring hollow.

During the GOP primary campaign, Romney said he wanted illegal immigrants to deport themselves, "meaning if we make it miserable enough for (them), they will leave," Singer told CNN.

Now his desire for comprehensive reform also sounds like campaign talk that might not translate to results should Romney win the White House in November, she said.

If Obama's policy change is close to what Rubio was proposing, then both sides should be able to coalesce around it, Singer noted, adding: "The fact is that Obama has enacted something similar that doesn't somehow add up to bipartisan support, and that, my friend, is politics."

Both Obama and Romney are scheduled to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials annual conference later this week in Florida, a key general election battleground state with a large Hispanic population.

Both candidates also released Spanish-language ads this week. Romney unveiled a spot Monday attacking the president's record on the economy, while the Obama campaign released a spot Tuesday featuring Latino talk show host Cristina Saralegui, who endorsed the president after last week's policy shift, according to the campaign.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Bush vs Gore: Analyzing SCOTUS' Role in The 2000 Presidential Election (Videos)

Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore


Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore

Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest political contest of all. Legions of Court watchers, law professors, media commentators, and armchair legal analysts across the country thought the Court's willingness to step into the fray was a major misstep. Still, somebody had to decide who's in charge!

Background info

Election night 2000 was a cliffhanger that went on for weeks. Many people went to bed that night thinking that Al Gore had won, only to discover in the morning that George W. Bush had been declared the winner. In fact, the election was simply too close to call. Several states were up for grabs, but in the end it came down to one: Florida, where Bush's younger brother, Jeb, was governor. Florida electors were unable to commit themselves to either Bush or Gore owing to the closeness of the vote. Brush fires erupted in several precincts where the candidates' surrogates traded allegations about various improprieties. Recounts were started, then stopped as Republicans and Democrats wrangled over what standards to apply. It was more than a little chaotic.

The Court steps in

The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.

A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.

Needless to say, the George W. Bush camp was jubilant. Al Gore supporters were incensed. Many people were simply happy to have things settled. But others worried that the Court had gone too far. In the past, in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which put an end to legal segregation, and United States v. Nixon (1974), which led to the first presidential resignation under threat of impeachment, were unanimously decided. After Bush v. Gore, the concern was that the Court had not only overreached itself but undermined its authority by not speaking with one voice. That split decision, 5-4, suggested that Bush v. Gore was a political, not a judicial, decision.

Precedents

Bush v. Gore wasn't the Court's first foray into the realm of king making. The election of 1876 pitted Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York, against Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican governor of Ohio. After the votes had been counted, it seemed that Tilden had won the popular vote and had 184 uncontested electoral votes to Hayes's 165. The magic number was 185 electoral votes. Twenty votes of the Electoral College were still up for grabs, however — all but one of them in the southern states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. (The exception was Oregon. They always have marched to a different drummer.)

The Twelfth Amendment stipulates that in a contested presidential election, "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Because in 1876 Congress was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House set up an electoral commission to decide who would become president. The Senate chose three Republicans and two Democrats to sit on the commission, and the House chose two Democrats and three Republicans. The remainder of the commission was to consist of five justices of the Supreme Court. The bill setting up the commission named two Republican justices and two Democratic justices, but let those four select their own nonpartisan tiebreaker.

The only truly neutral member of the Court at the time was David Davis. But Davis resigned from the Court almost immediately, leaving only Republican justices as alternatives. Joseph Bradley, seemingly the least partisan of those remaining, was selected as the final member of the commission. To no one's great surprise, the commission voted along party lines, selecting the Republican Hayes. Democrats, who were mostly Southerners, cried foul, claiming that Davis, and perhaps Bradley, had been subjected to political blackmail. When the uproar threatened to derail the orderly transfer of power, a deal was struck. The Republicans agreed to withdraw the federal troops still occupying the South in the wake of the Civil War, to appropriate funds for Southern improvement, and to appoint at least one Southerner to the cabinet. In return, the Democrats agreed not to delay Hayes's inauguration. It was a flat-out political deal, and ever since its implementation, the Court has been criticized for having played a part in what many saw as outright log rolling.

And the winner is . . .

Why, then, did the Supreme Court agree to get back into the fray after the election of 2000? In a sense, the justices had no choice. When the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore proved too close to call, the contestants resorted to a series of lawsuits in an effort to settle the matter. These suits proceeded simultaneously in the state court system and in federal court. The cases largely concerned the matter and manner of vote counting (and recounting) in the pivotal state of Florida. There were charges of voter intimidation, ballot rigging — all manner of political shenanigans. Something had to be done.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Dummies.com, Youtube, Google Maps

Florida vs The DOJ: Purging Minority Voters: Deja Vu' Bush vs Gore? (Videos)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Florida Refuses to Stop Voter Purge

Last week the U.S. Department of Justice ordered Florida's Secretary of State Ken Detzner to halt the state's plan to purge thousands of registered voters from the voter rolls.

Florida's database-matching process for deciding which residents are ineligible non-citizens had not been cleared with the Justice Department -- a step that the agency argues is required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that states and counties with a history of voting discrimination (in Florida's case, five counties within the state) get federal permission to change election procedures.

The Justice Department thusly called on the state to stop the purge and submit the procedure that it's using for federal review.

On Wednesday night the state of Florida officially responded to the request.

In a letter (pdf) to the Justice Department, Detzner firmly maintained that Gov. Rick Scott will continue with the purge.

As the Miami Herald reports:

In a sharply worded letter, Scott's administration claimed the Department of Justice doesn't understand two federal voting laws at the heart of the dispute and was protecting potentially illegal voters more than legal ones.

Florida also accused another federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security, of violating the law by denying Florida access to a federal citizenship database.

"This hardly seems like an approach earnestly designed to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that eligible voters have their votes counted," said the letter, written by Scott's hand-picked secretary of state, Ken Detzner, a fellow Republican.
Detzner also submitted a list of four questions that he wants the DOJ to answer.

In tone and substance, the letter all but dares the Justice Department to sue Florida for allegedly violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), nicknamed "motor voter."

The Justice Department hasn't yet responded to the letter, but a lawsuit is certainly one possibility.

However, the DOJ isn't the only camp calling Florida's purge into serious question.

All 67 of Florida's county election supervisors responsible for doing the actual purging (the vast majority of whom are Republicans, by the way) have refused to comply with Gov. Scott's orders.

Local election officials in Florida, echoing the cries of legal challengers to the state's voter purge, say that the data used to identify people as noncitizens are flawed.

Throughout the state, election supervisors have found that hundreds of people on the lists created by Scott's administration are, in fact, eligible voters.

As the Republican Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark wrote, "The accuracy of the voter registration database is of the utmost importance, and we will continue our efforts to ensure the information is current.

However, we will not use unreliable data."

Judd Legum, editor-in-chief of Think Progress, which has interviewed several Florida election supervisors, says that Scott's fight has become more symbolic than practical. "The county elections supervisors aren't doing it, but Florida is still pressing ahead with their own effort," said Legum, who explained that under Florida law, only the election supervisors, not Scott, can remove people from the rolls. "But the legal fight is still important because they could change their mind at any time.

It's just unclear what the impact of all of this is at this point."



Florida won't halt voter registration purge, setting stage for legal showdown

Florida's top elections official has thrown allegations of law violations back at the federal government rather than halt the state's efforts to identify and purge non-citizens from voter registration rolls.

The decision Wednesday by the administration of Republican Gov. Rick Scott to fight back against the administration of President Barack Obama sets the stage for a legal showdown just months before the swing stage of Florida could help determine the presidential election. The dispute has taken a sharp partisan edge as Republican elected officials have blasted the federal government, while Democrats have criticized Scott.

Secretary of State Ken Detzner in his latest response accused the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of violating federal law by refusing to give state election officials access to an immigration database for the effort that was launched at the urging of Scott.

"This hardly seems like an approach earnestly designed to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that 'eligible" voters have their votes counted," Detzner wrote.

He also denied allegations by the Department of Justice that Florida's purge violates federal anti-discrimination and voter registration laws in a letter to the agency's voting section chief, T. Christian Herren.

Detzner's letter is in response to one Herren sent him last week demanding an end to the state's search for non-citizen voters. The legal adviser to Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections then recommended they stop the effort until state and federal officials resolve their dispute.

"Fortunately, many local election administrators have indicated they will not carry out the state's plan," said Myrna Perez, a voting rights lawyer with the Brennan Center Center for Justice at New York University. "The opportunity for errors when conducting massive voter purges makes it imperative that purge practices be transparent, accurate, and carried out well in advance of an election."

A U.S. Department of Justice official on Wednesday evening acknowledged the department had received but the letter but said officials were "currently reviewing the letter."

Florida began looking for non-U.S. citizens on its voter rolls last year by comparing driver's license information to voter registration lists. An initial search turned up as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens.

Earlier this year the state sent out an initial list of more than 2,600 names of suspected non-citizen voters to local election supervisors and asked them to verify the information and remove ineligible voters.

Supervisors, however, responded by pointing out the list had errors on it. Miami-Dade officials say they have found nearly 500 voters who were citizens and other counties they too have found citizens on the list, but a smaller number of non-citizens have been verified.

"It is absolutely insane what Gov. Scott is doing to attack Florida voters," said U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar. "We know what he is up to, we are mad as hell, and we will not allow our voting rights to be trampled on."

U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, criticized the U.S. Department of Justice for telling Florida to stop its purge.

"The Department of Justice under President Obama has become so politicized that it consistently puts aiding the president's reelection campaign ahead of upholding justice and enforcing the rule of law," Rooney said.

Herren wrote in his letter to Detzner that the state's procedures to identify non-U.S. citizens have not been reviewed to make sure they are not discriminatory. Florida must secure approval for changes in voting procedures because five counties are still covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Detzner argued the rest of the state is not covered by that requirement and that supervisors of elections in the five affected counties "are simply administering a law that the Department of Justice has duly pre-cleared." That law outlines notification requirement and other procedures supervisors must follow before they can remove potentially ineligible voters from the rolls.

Removing voters from the rolls less than 90 days before a federal election also appears to violate the voter registration law, Herren also contended.

Detzner argued enforcing that provision in regard to non-citizens would unconstitutionally discriminate against legitimate voters by diluting their voting strength.

The secretary concluded with a list of four questions for Herren, starting with whether the Justice Department agreed Homeland Security has a legal obligation to give Florida access to its immigration database.

Detzner also asked if the department's position is that federal law bars Florida from identifying and removing non-citizens between now and the Nov. 6 general election and, if not, what steps the state may take in that regard.

Finally, he asked if Florida cannot remove non-citizens from the rolls whether it could still identify them and remove them after the election.

Detzner asked that Herren respond by Monday.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Journal line Online.com, MSNBC, Russia Today, Sunshine State News, The Root, Youtube, Google Maps