Voice over

Calling on Green-Leaning Republicans: Curt Clawson Issues

Posted on Updated on

Behold: a Basketball
Look at this Ball, not my Energy Interests

Carl-John X. Veraja

Here’s Curt Clawson. As soon as he could, he backhanded Florida by signing a bill that increases Big Oil activities in Florida, setting us up for drilling right off the coast. According to Dee Ann Miller of the Florida DEP, this practice is currently forbidden.

The bill includes items “to streamline and improve onshore and
offshore energy permitting and administration, and for
other purposes.”

After 411 rules were already deleted from the Department of Environmental Protection, do we want a congressman who approves of such things? What about investing in solar? There’s so much solar here I can barely take a walk to the mailbox without losing a pound of water weight.

He is backed by Chuck Quackenbush, who took the chair of the Lee County Republicans from Terry “Team Frack” Miller.  Quackenbush is a scandal-fleeing public institution infiltrator who was once Insurance Commissioner of California, then served in military intelligence after 9/11, and is now working for Sheriff Mike Scott.

Clawson, by signing that bill, is flirting with political suicide. The precious resources of Florida: its groundwater, its beautiful endangered species, its property values, its sustainability–these are all threatened by your signing onto a measure such as the deceptively named Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

More like The Increase Corporate Profits and Poison You and Then Makeoff for my Swedish McMansion Act.

Calling on all green-leaning Republicans!!
I thought you were patriotic?
Don’t support fracking, it makes other countries rich.
Common sense government doesn’t mean complicated swindles to bankrupt the public.
You may have to consider jumping the fence this election in order to have water.
And what is going on with the ballot-busting? Are we turning into a one-party state like the U.S.S.R.?
This is America. Democracy means choice.

Don’t let yourselves be lead by double-dealing corporate gladhanders.

You the people have the power.

Also–we are pumping more oil than ever domestically and prices aren’t going down.

Arvella Clare Running Against Frackers for 2nd Time

Posted on Updated on

Arvella Clare, Lee CNTY School Board, District 4
Arvella Clare, candidate for Lee County School Board, District 4

By Carl-John X Veraja

Arvella Clare is running against a green-washing, pro-fracking opponent for the 2nd time now. Richard Dunmire, also running for District 4 of the School Board,  has hired Action Point Campaigns. This at a time when Floridians are increasingly outraged at oil spills and water contamination in the area.

Action Point Campaigns is the same outfit running the campaigns of Ray Rodrigues, Brian Hamman, Dane Eagle, and Matt Caldwell, all under the management of Terry “Team Frack” Miller.

Previously, Arvella Clair ran against Dane Eagle for Florida State Representative. Unfortunately, she lost and Team Frack took over Southwest Florida’s State House, along with FGCU.

And now they want to frack-stack and green wash the School District of Lee County.

Don’t let history repeat itself. Richard Dunmire made a serious miscalculation in hiring frackers to run his campaign. No doubt, it helped land a lot of money in his coffers, but the cost to our future way of life was left out of the equation.

Do we want the minds of our children molded by corporations that would contaminate the groundwater, wipe out the Florida panther, destroy property values, and chase out tourists for their own quick gain?

Action Point Campaigns was paid to manage his campaign on April 17th. The next month Richard Dunmire’s contributions leapt up. See for yourself.


Now, granted, Dunmire’s contributions didn’t derive from extra creepy sources like Big Oil and Big Beer, like I saw with Ray Rodrigues. He did extract quite a bit from the Shell Factory and its owners, however, and get lots of “favor” items from others. And they’ve all been in bed to some degree for a number of years now. It actually surprises me that Sheriff Mike Scott is so close to Team Frack, though it probably shouldn’t.

So, Dunmire is enmeshed with frackers now.  It won’t change.

Of course, you realize I’m going to say vote the frackers out.

And don’t vote them in. Golden Gate Estates residents are finally breathing a sigh of relief tonight. Don’t inflict fracking on your neighbors or yourselves.

Or anyone. Anywhere.

You should let that Dunmire go. He has a lot of experience, it’s true, but he’s done his part, and perhaps doesn’t understand the world we are now facing. Future shock, they call it.

Bring in the younger candidate with the kids who need a frack-free future.

(note: although author is member of Anti-Fracking Movement of Lee County, this article does not reflect the opinion of all participants, but only the author’s)

So, You Thought FEMA Camps Weren’t Real…

Posted on Updated on

FEMA jobs nightlycitizen

Lots of people think that FEMA camps are either not a big deal or entirely make-believe.

Well, if you don’t believe in them, sign this incredibly popular petition. Make sure to include your actual name and address and where you keep the guns.


But check out the document: FM 3-39.40.

As soon as you begin reading it, it gets rather creepy. You are reminded that there has been a “paradigm shift” from traditional enemy prisoners of war to “broader and more inclusive requirements of detainee operations.”

Well, that’s nice. Everyone loves inclusivity.

It also says in the preface:  “U.S. military prisoner and detainee operations within operational environments (OEs), ranging from major combat operations to humanitarian-assistance missions in support of a host nation (HN) or civil agency. I/R operations are a major subordinate Army tactical task under the sustainment warfighting function”.

So, it could be a humanitarian-assistance operation like, oh, Katrina, or “helping” homeless people?

Whereas I/R  operations have been a possibility for sometime now, hiring appears to have increased during the reign of Obama. However, shifting the blame from Obama to Bush, or vice versa, is a false burden budge. They have both been carriers of the torch of American fascism. Bush helped get enemy combatants and torture into the public consciousness, and Obama hasn’t gotten them out.

In 2009, Rachel Maddow, a liberal, noticed that Obama had decided to take a pole vault over the Constitution with the proposal of prolonged detention. This means, Obama can just lock you for any or no reason forever. That would appear to be effective at keeping you locked up forever for no reason.

In December 2011, Obama signed the NDAA for 2012 that codified such a practice.

In August of 2013, Columbia, South Carolina decided it would ship homeless people out to improve the appearance of the downtown area. They were to be sent to a “far-off” camp where they “couldn’t leave.” (watch video).

Moves such as the above, along with gun control measures, lead many people to assume Obama was making a play at dictator and coming for their guns. This increased gun sales substantially. However, the Republicans blocked these measures, until recently when they approved an increase of millions to fund the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System. This followed on the heels of Elliott Rodger killing several students and then himself in what has become an increasingly familiar story of a person being treated for mentally illness purchasing guns and taking a few people with him into the afterlife or the nothingness.

Interestingly, school shootings and other mass murder rampages have increased almost as much as gun sales in response to Obama’s gun control and other proposals. Along with these shootings go conspiracy theories.

Most of these conspiracy theories go along the lines of the killer being made into a killer with CIA techniques, such as the actually confirmed MK-Ultra program (see The Sleep Room). Theories on how this is pulled off range from the use of federal agents posing as therapists and psychiatrists who push these individuals over the edge, to more elaborate scenarios where the killers are culled from early childhood. A Sandy Hook researcher was actually arrested for asking questions. And a Sandy Hood documentary using footage and camera grabs shows that visually you have to conclude there were at least 3 suspects if not 7.

The Boston Bombing was likewise pointed to by conspiracy theorists as a false flag operation which provided a practice run of martial law on a city.

Are these things likely? Well, they don’t sound that way, at first glance. However, some things that don’t sound likely at first glance, like CIA-backed drug running, have been confirmed. So have operations to topple governments and allow corporations to hire private armies to enforce corporate dictum. This doesn’t prove school shootings are part of a CIA operation, just makes it within the realm of ethical consideration on their part.


Militia’s Efficacy Demonstrated at Bundy Ranch

Posted on Updated on

“The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must … organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. … [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. …As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers.  In order that this party whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat.” – Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League (1850)

Despite being leftist, I support the right to bear arms. I’ve seen enough gestapo tactics in my time to know better than to hand off our guns to the government. I say “despite” because large sections of the “left” in America seem to think there is a dire need for more gun control. I respectfully disagree. Not because I’m not concerned about psychopaths getting a hold of guns and shooting up schools. It’s because I’m concerned about the psychopaths already armed who work for the government, whether at the Federal, State, or City level.

When I was in Occupy Fort Myers, I had to wonder if we should have imitated the Tea Party and all had guns on us. If the police could abuse us over being present in a public park, what would they do to our gun rights if they could get away with it?

If you want to talk about gun control, let’s first talk about disarming the police. You know, the guys who have killed thousands of citizens in the past decade.

When the cops came to break up our camp, we were unarmed and fighting back with meditation. Predictably, we were scattered to the wind, and the movement never recovered.

If we lived in a civilized country, maybe gun control would work.

Meanwhile, the BLM has called off its cattle rustling efforts.

I have a lot of well-founded cynicism about the NRA and ALEC (both of which promote some policies which I oppose), as I do any lobbying efforts. However, I noticed that some of the most vocal critics of the latest gun bill moving through the Florida Legislature are sheriffs.

The bill is dubbed by some The Zombie Apocalypse bill. There may be some concerns with it that are justified. However, it’s a complex issue and using the complexity to weaken the 2nd Amendment is a larger problem than the reverse, in my eyes. And simple “solutions” are even worse.

At the same time, I find lots of the arguments made by gun enthusiasts to be ridiculous or even paranoid (which says a lot, coming from me). What isn’t ridiculous is the well-founded desire to be safe from an overly intrusive government that doesn’t seem interested in environmental issues, in civil rights, in a free press, or in its own transparency. They like your transparency though, and want to know everything you communicate, and where all the guns are, that’s for sure.sp;

And, if you live “off-grid,” helmet cams are not enough to protect you.



FGCU Biology Professor Speaks to Environmental Stress

Posted on Updated on

Nora Egan Demers Associate Professor of Biology  and Interdisciplinary Studies
Dr. Nora Egan Demers
Associate Professor of Biology
and Interdisciplinary Studies

By Carl-John X. Veraja

Nora Demers, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Biology, Comparative Immunology and Interdisciplinary Studies at FGCU, has a research background in stressors and how they affect an individual organism in an environment. She also speaks from a history of observations of industry practices and failures to comply with regulatory procedures.

How could proposed land development and natural resource extraction impact Southwest Florida? Since the prospect of fracking appears to be before us, I wanted to deepen my understanding of stressors involved. This is an extract from a discussion with Professor Demers in the form of a brief, fractured chat, questions and answers selected from all that were done.

In addition to what is printed below, Demers recommended Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, and also examination of PEER findings for those interested in understanding how industry can obstruct the clear presentation of scientific findings.

What are the basic problems with resource extraction?

“Any natural resource extraction brings similar stressors,” said Demers, “to the environment that have to be addressed. The ones that people are most interested in are the ones that affect their safety, and their health, and their well-being, and the aesthetic interaction that they have with their environment.”

And what do you mean by aesthetic interaction?

“Many people, especially if you think about Southwest Florida, came to this area because of the quality of life which results from the environment that we have around us. That we are adjacent to the Everglades. That we have fresh water, clean air, fishing, boating, manatee watching, birdwatching, all of these things that mean that you, that the environment that we sit in, is very important and critical to our sense of being, and sense of place.”

Do you believe fracking can be performed safely?

“It depends how you define safely and it depends how you define fracking,” said Demers. “It’s a common strategy to compartmentalize some processes. So that, for example, I prepared a report for the Army Core of Engineers Environmental Impact Study on phosphate mining, and presented a paper for the hundreds of cases of failure to comply or ask for variances to permit applications.  And, after I was done with my presentation, the result of one of the people in the audience was to say ‘That wasn’t mining. That was the byproduct of the mining operation’ So, it’s very easy to separate one piece of the operation from the other, which allows them to say things like there’s no indication there’s any methane release into drinking water from the process of fracking. The issue with that, and another way that that’s used, is those methane releases were caused by horizontal, hydrological fracking for natural gas, where what’s being presented in Southwest Florida is not necessarily for natural gas, and is not exactly like horizontal natural fracking for natural gas. So, those that would deny that connection would use that distinction to say that people are overreacting and uninformed and not aware.”

And you’re arguing there’s something disingenuous about that?

“To me it’s disingenuous, but it’s standard operating procedure. It’s been that. It will continue to be that way. That’s the way it’s done. It’s been done for, as long as I know, this country’s been here.”

It’s an evasive tactic? 


Because you’re saying ‘That question isn’t proper.’

“Yes, the reason I’m waffling on saying it is usually, if you look at what these, the people who are using these resources and extracting it for, are consumption, they’re not hiding it. It’s there if you want to look. But they’re not holding it up and waving a flag, like they are about some of the positive benefits, the number of jobs that will be created, the lower price of fuel we have. Where these things are short term benefits. Social traps. Where in the business community they discount the externalities. So, all of the impacts the public takes on, the expenses, are hidden from the permitting process, from the application, from the public discourse about the process. So things like air quality, water quality.”

From the types of drilling proposed, that you’re aware, in this area, what are the safety issues?

“In our area is Southwest Florida, it’s primarily fossil fuel extraction and rock. In our area right here in Lee County, it’s limestone. Some of the biggest issues are road traffic, air quality, water quantity and quality. So, the biggest thing to me, looking at the proposition to do major fossil fuel extraction in the major Everglades ecosystem is the displacement of water. The environment that you see around us, the reason that the invasive exotics, the melaleuca, the Brazilian pepper, have done the damage they are doing and the millions of dollars that we’re spending to to try to eradicate them and restore the natural landscape are because of differences in the water level that have come about because of man made modifications to that system starting way back in the 40s, starting with Disston and the other people that engineered South Florida, at our request.”

So, how does the quantity of water get affected?

“The fresh water, millions of gallons of it, are used in extracting fossil fuels from the earth. Especially in these new technologies that are being ramped up and modified to get the dregs of the fossil fuels out of the planet. What they’re doing is putting that fresh water way down into the earth, well away from our other aquifers that we’re dependent upon, because they know that it’s highly polluted. What it’s doing is taking the water off of the landscape and permanently lowering the level of the groundwater, lowering the aquifers, and that disrupts the landscape.”

And in some cases though don’t they take the water back up?

“They do. And that’s another major problem. I don’t know how much of that will be done with the proposed resource extraction down here. Sometimes that happens and what they do is they purposefully evaporate that water to reduce the quantity of toxic water that they have to deal with. What they’re doing when they do that is they’re making them aerosols and putting them into the air. So, they’re now in the air, and people and organisms are breathing them in that way.”

So, it’s not just water evaporating, chemicals as well?

“Absolutely. The chemicals went in, the chemicals come out. Another common strategy is to claim it’s only .01 percent or something of those chemicals, but these chemicals are highly toxic in very low concentrations. Another very controversial research, it’s not at all controversial in the scientific community–environmental endocrine disruptors. That’s where I’ve spent a lot of my time doing the educating that I do with my students here. I use the example of environmental endocrine disruptors, their sources, their effects, that are brushed aside because it’s that social trap thing again. Because we want the things. We do not know the unintended consequence. But, now that we do, we’re hiding it, rather than addressing it.”