Urge Congress to give farmers the tools they need to build resilience. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.

 

Soil Can Lead the Way to a Climate Resilient Agricultural System     TAKE ACTION         Dear David, In the face of worsening effects of climate change, the US food and farm system must be made resilient. Living soil is a key factor, but we need to act fast. "Living soil"—teeming with fungi, microbes, and living plant roots—soaks up water like a sponge, adding a buffer against increasing floods and drought. It also promotes healthier crops and can draw carbon out of the atmosphere and back into the ground. Right now, Congress is debating legislation that represents one of the best opportunities in decades to incorporate the science behind soil into our national climate solutions—but they need to hear from constituents like you! Tell Congress to prioritize soil health and resilience in comprehensive infrastructure and climate legislation. We know soil is the literal foundation of our farming system, making most of our food supply possible. But healthy, spongy soil can also make other important things possible—such as clean water and flood control. That means soil is vital infrastructure for our climate future. President Joe Biden wants to build the nation's critical infrastructure, spur job creation, and help farmers thrive while leading the charge against climate change. Healthy-soil farming systems can help with all those things, but only if constituents like you can be louder than "Big Ag" companies who support the status quo. In close collaboration with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Representative Chellie Pingree (ME) and Senator Martin Heinrich (NM) re-introduced the Agriculture Resilience Act, which seeks to transform our food and agriculture system into one that can confidently face an uncertain climate future while safeguarding livelihoods and the future of our food. Write today an urge Congress to include provisions from the Agricultural Resilience Act in the next climate and infrastructure package. Farmers and scientists know that we need to be smart in how we steward the soil that grows our food, and your legislators need to understand this too. Tell your members of Congress to give farmers the tools they need to build resilient soil and incorporate the ARA in the next climate and infrastructure package. Sincerely, Ethan Fetz Outreach Coordinator Food & Environment Program Union of Concerned Scientists   TAKE ACTION

WEBSITE BACK UP.

 MY WEBSITE IS BACK UP, WITH NO WARNINGS. WHY WAS IT TAKEN DOWN? I WAS NEVER GIVEN A WARNING, NOR WAS I ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE CHARGES BEING MADE AGAINST MY SITE.

THE SITE WAS DOWN ONLY ABOUT 1.5 HOURS

NOW THAT MY SITE IS OPEN WITH NO WARNING SIGNS, TWEETS NEGATIVE TO GOOGLE HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN, EXCEPT THE ONE DEFINING LIBEL.

Libel- is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures...business..

FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC- WHAT IS THE ONE SURE-FIRE DEFENSE YOU CAN USE TO FIGHT A CHARGE OF LIBEL?

TRUTH- YOU CANNOT BE GUILTY OF LIBEL IF WHAT YOU CLAIM IS SHOWN TO BE FACTUAL, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

Sign up for this month’s APA Member Webinar: Publishing in History of Philosophy Journals.

 

Dear DAVID,   Publishing in journals is a key part of a career in academic philosophy, and the specifics of journal publishing can vary across specializations. To assist members in their efforts to publish in the history of philosophy, the APA's virtual programming committee has organized a webinar for APA members: Publishing in History of Philosophy Journals.     The webinar will include a panel discussion with editors of major history of philosophy journals, followed by Q&A with attendees. The panelists for the webinar are the following: Steve Nadler, chair (President, Board of Directors, Journal of the History of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin–Madison) Deborah Boyle (Editor, Journal of the History of Philosophy, College of Charleston) Alix Cohen (Co-Editor, British Journal of the History of Philosophy, University of Edinburgh) Brian Copenhaver (Editor, History of Philosophy Quarterly, University of California, Los Angeles) Antonia LoLordo (Co-Editor, Journal of Modern Philosophy, University of Virginia) Ron Polanski (Editor, Ancient Philosophy, Duquesne University) The webinar will be held on Tuesday, May 25 at 12 noon Eastern time / 9 a.m. Pacific time. To participate, register on the APA website. Registration will be available until 9 a.m. Eastern time / 6 a.m. Pacific time on the day of the webinar, and access information will be provided to registrants at least one hour prior to the start of the webinar. Registration is limited to current APA members.   Register now.   Space is limited, so register now! If you’re unable to attend the live webinar, a recording will be made available to APA members afterward.   All the best,   Amy Ferrer Executive Director

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ALLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BECOME CORRUPTED BY SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS, INCOMPETENT JURISTS, AND AMORAL LAWMAKERS.

 

REMEMBERING TRUMPS DISGRACE: ARTICLES AND POSTS FROM HIS IMPEACHMENT. BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT: A BRIEF TIMEOUT. PART 3. IMPORTANT UPDATE..

FROM NPR NEWS- 6/27/2019.

In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND ALLOW THE OPPOSITION TO CONTROL THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

OR

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU DO NOT CHALLENGE BOGUS RETURNS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HANDING THE WHITE HOUSE TO A SELF - CENTERED DEMAGOGUE?

ANSWER TO BOTH.

YOU GET DONALD TRUMPS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REGARDING ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades."

WHAT AN INTELLECT!! FITS IN WITH TRUMP AND MCCONNELL PERFECTLY.

WHAT ELSE CAN WE TAKE FROM THIS?

#1. Anger-  Does this reference the Unconstitutional denial of President Barack Obamas choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a chance to testify before the Senate, to be followed by a public vote? 

BUT YOU'RE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. REALLY?

#2. President Trump and the 2016 Election- You mean an election with Bogus Returns in at least 6 States that handed Donald Trump the White House, paving the way for him placing 2 Judges on the Supreme Court.

Do you mean "FEAR" of having the future course of Judicial Precedents decided by DONALD TRUMP, whose behavior while in the WHITE HOUSE is often considered to be IRRATIONAL AND VINDICTIVE? 

#3. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons- I assume you have the facts to back this up, since this is a direct accusation. Also, Do you mean that the Clintons planned and executed these plans directly, or are unwitting pawns that had no knowledge about the attempt to create this "Circus"?

IS THIS HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY?

So, What do I mean when I say: TODAYS DONALD TRUMP IS WHAT 
HE WAS ALLOWED TO BECOME...

Ask yourself the following question: OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT;  EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST OFFICE/MOST POWERFUL POSITION THAT CAN BE OCCUPIED IN EACH BRANCH?

ANSWER.

EXECUTIVE-    PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

LEGISLATIVE-  U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.
                     SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REP.

JUDICIAL-        ONE OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE
                       U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Now, in most recent history, what events have most influenced the
current state of each office. 

For that, let's go back a few years.

THE SUPREME COURT.

On FEB,13, 2016 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA passed away.
THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, following procedures Set forth in the U.S.
CONSTITUTION, nominated JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND TO FILL THE VACANCY.       

The following passage is taken from the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

However, for the first time in U.S. HISTORY, THE U.S. SENATE DID NOT MEET TO QUESTION
THE NOMINEE, SO THAT THEY COULD "ADVISE" THE PRESIDENT, AND VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE JUDGE GARLAND NOMINATION. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL DECIDED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A DUTY OR OBLIGATION THAT THE U.S. SENATE HAS, BUT CAN BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. SO, HE REFUSED TO SEAT THE SENATE TO ACT ON THE NOMINATION.

GIVEN SENATOR MCCONNELLS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I DON'T EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF FAIR AND INTELLECTUALLY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE POLITICAL AGENDA HE PUSHES. HOWEVER, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES REFUSAL TO FILE SUIT, AND BRING THIS MATTER INTO COURT TO FORCE MCCONNELL AND OTHER REPUBLICANS TO OBEY THE OATH THEY TOOK TO "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION," SHOWED AN INEXPLICABLE LACK OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COURAGE. WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THIS SENT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? TO BAD, IT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.