@ctnewsjunkie, 3/6/12 11:02 AM

Random dogs running around Capitol grounds.

Must have heard about the efforts to weaken voter registration laws!

GMOs

There are so many things wrong with Rep. Miller's campaign to be the first in the nation to require labeling of GMOs.  For example, he states that GMOs are not God's work, as though anything done solely as a result of nature should be acceptable, whereas acts of man are not.  Why didn't he believe that beavers could be adapted to Viney  Brook Preserve?  He had them trapped and drowned, their furs sold.  Weren't they just God's creature doing what nature intended them to do?  His outrage with corporations that are trying to improve the world's supply of food through genetic engineering, creating disease resistant foods or insect resistant crops, rings hollow when we know his actions in the past have been anti-nature.  And what constitutes GMOs?  Is selective breeding not   a process resulting in GMOs?  What are we supposed to do?  Eat only heirloom fruits and vegetables?  And what about the cross fertilization that happens naturally?  Is that somehow not a GMOS result? Isn't evolution itself the process of ongoing genetic modification?  What should be put on these labels?  Any product sold today is likely to be the result of some hybridization or modification of an original food source.  This is nonsense.

Rep. Phil Miller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alT6F3yAJ4E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Jeri comments on CT Voter Laws proposed changes

Voter fraud is proved (when it's pursued) AFTER the fact - ballots are counted and elections are certified many times years before the fraud is proved.  It's too late to turn back. Nationally, the overwhelming majority of ineligible voters who evade detection arise out of - you guessed it- Election Day Registration. The area of voter activity that gives rise to the runner-up for voter fraud arises out of Absentee Ballot abuse. Election Day Registration has NO mechanism to detect or prevent ineligible voters before the vote. The primary source of available evidence of false identity in voting comes from the returned postal verification cards AFTER THE FACT and prosecution is impossible after the fact, the election has already been called!  In North Carolina, where we have heard about the impressive increase in voting as a result of Election Day Registration, it was discovered that there were 24,821 invalid driver's license numbers, 700 invalid Social Security numbers, 380 people who appeared to have voted after their deaths and a handful of votes cast by 17-year-olds. (Gaps in Voter Registration Process Raises Concerns of Fraud http://lincolntribune.com/?p=178) So, the idea that there was an increase in the number of votes cast is technically factual but the data would be more completely reported with the factor of actual qualified votes cast! Why add more uncertainty to the question of voter integrity when, according to the PEW report released on 2-14-2012 which found - -24 million (1 out of 8) voter registrations in the US are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate -More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters -Approximately 2.75 million people are registered in more than one state. If you are serious about addressing voting rights...distinguish between disenfranchise and misenfranchise and focus on each equally.  Make sure that each eligible voter who votes does not have that vote compromised by the admission of ineligible votes.  Address the current abuses before even thinking of expanding the means, methods and opportunity for those with motive to corrupt the process. The statement made earlier that there is no evidence of voter fraud in Connecticut is simply wrong. Look at the Connecticut Post article of 10/22/2011 which covers just the fraud associated with Absentee Ballots in Bridgeport.  Imagine if all the varieties of voter fraud (multiple votes cast per person, dead people voting, stealing another person's identity) and all the communities in Connecticut were covered - we'd have an entire BOOK of evidence of voter fraud in Connecticut! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  If voter fraud occurs and no one detects it, does it affect an election?

Plan to take more property?

Is this really happening? Is there an effort to shift from private property ownership to a much larger ownership by governments? If so, how dangerous is it to personal liberty and freedom? Do people exist to serve the state or does the state exist to serve its citizens? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YVTGK1uYqJo

School budgets and state mandates

Why does Connecticut impose a minimum budget requirement(MBR)for schools? The MBR prevents towns from reducing school budgets by greater than 1% year over year. This forces school administrators to look for ways to spend money they don't need and drives up the property taxes of communities that have declining enrollments. More funds are directed to schools while other critical town services are cut in order to keep property taxes under control while maintaining the MBR at the state's required level. This makes no sense.

Strategic Retreat? From Property Ownership?

Bill 5128, AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN REVISIONS TO THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT STATUTES, currently under consideration by the Environment Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, introduces the policy of “strategic retreat of property ownership.” It is important to examine the “strategic retreat” concept. It is nothing less than a challenge to private property ownership and promotes a concept that changes the relationship between governments and individuals who are property owners, while changing the valuations of property that can be taken by the government. Refer to a paper funded by the Educational Foundation of America (EFA) and authored by Andrew Coburn, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. The paper is titled, “Reforming State-Level Coastal Management and Development Policies: Strategic Retreat as an Innovative, Proactive and Equitable Coastal Environmental Management Strategy.” The author describes the “Problem of Coastal Development” and proposes a number of solutions to the perceived problem caused by the Constitution, particularly the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Refer to the paper’s section, “The Concept of Regulatory Givings.” In this section the author describes as a problem with the U.S.Constitution, specifically, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. According to the author, “this clause enables property owners to receive compensation when an entire estate is taken by a government agency and title transfers to the government; when property is physically invaded by government order, either permanently or temporarily; when regulation for other than health or safety reasons takes all or nearly all of the value of a property and when government attaches unreasonable or disproportionate permit conditions on use.” Coburn goes on to describe the converse concept of “givings.” “Givings” are government actions or programs such as “flood insurance, construction of flood control measures and liberal disaster relief.” According to the author, these “givings” have magnified the market value of coastal real estate by reducing or allocating risks. The author’s perceived problem is as follows: Market assessed values have been inflated by government policies. Therefore, the valuation method to be considered in strategic retreat would be as follows: Instead of market value, the properties’ value would be derived by its contributions to government revenue streams. In addition, let’s subtract from that market value any amounts that have been paid in the past by any governmental agency that were incurred to mitigate or prevent damages. Let’s just forget about that market value stuff. For that matter, let’s just forget about the value of the property to the owner, or the private market. It’s all about the value accruing to the government. Coburn goes on to suggest (my understanding) that the solution to the government’s inability to afford to compensate property owners at fair market value is to devalue the property by claiming that the market value is only as high as it is because of past government policy “mistakes.” So, he writes: “Governments can counteract the high cost of coastal property acquisition programs by making past government subsidies subject to recapture as a “credit” to be offset against the cost to purchase or condemn redevelopment rights or other interest in a property.” He concludes:”Once economic barriers, real and perceived, can be successfully overcome, strategic coastal retreat will provide coastal communities, counties, property owners and states with a sustainable and equitable strategy for effectively managing development and redevelopment along dynamic shorelines.” The effort to foster “strategic retreat of property ownership” seems to be a major effort to take land away from private owners at reduced prices, as well as an effort to circumvent the United States Constitution and particularly the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. If the strategic retreat concept can be applied to coastal property, why would it not be applicable to all property? The proponents of these efforts seem to think that people and property exist for the state, not the other way around! Here is a link to the original paper: http://www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/Strategic_Retreat.pdf Here is a link to Education Foundation of America: http://www.efaw.org/index.html Here is a link to Bill 5128: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05128-R00-HB.html