Middle America's Worldview

Amazon released their vision of using delivery drones to 60 minutes, providing us a look at their new delivery system. The autonomous delivery vehicles, termed “octopters” could provide your package within 30 minutes. Will FAA allow Amazon to launch their Amazon Prime Air?CEO Jeff Bezoz spent alot air time providing a sneak peek to his Amazon Prime Air program.

The idea is to use electric drones to deliver up to 5 pound packages for trips up to 10 miles, within 30 minutes. Considering Amazon is located throughout United States, this has the potential to reach many. Additionally, 86 percent of the items would be qualified for delivery.

  The idea to use flying drones isn’t really new.


In London, the resturant YO!Sushi, created the new method of delievering burgers on their flying tray. The flagship store in Central London has dubbed their flying drone, iTray. It is a four-propeller flying waiter, being controlled by a nearby human waiter with an iPad. The tray has speeds up to 25 mph.

In California, Tacopter had the idea of a hungry customer ordering on his cellphone, and having his food delivered to the house or office by the quadratic drone. "Thanks to the imagineers at Tacopter, now, wherever I am, by sending my cellphones GPS co-ordinates I can call in a surgical flavour strike that will level my hunger with significant collateral deliciousness."The idea provided the idea, but the startup never lifted off.

 Stemming the idea of using drones for personal use has already been squashed in California. The Bill California SB-15 is passing through the state senate with speed. This came from Senator Alex Padilla for fear of paparazzi using drones for video and picture taking. The bill termed “California Drone Bill” puts restrictions on civilian use, rather than commercial use. Questions remain for Amazon to be able to use their Amazon Prime Air. To date, no blessings from FAA to allow use of domestic drones. Nothing appears to be said till 2015 the earliest. Bezos says it “optimistic” at best.

 While the innovation and desire continues, it appears we continue to wait on the government for approval.

Is California really becoming the un-hinged?

An Oakland, California, pastor could face jail time for expressing his pro-life views.



Pastor Walter Hoye ran into trouble with an abortion clinic while doing an informational picket. Dennis Howard, leader of The Movement for a Better America, believes Hoye is innocent.

"His approach was simply to carry a sign that said 'Jesus Loves You. Can We Help?' and offering those who wanted it some information about alternatives to abortion," Howard explains.

A complaint was filed and Hoye was found guilty in spite of proof to the contrary. "There was a video taken of him doing this, and it shows that he was not harassing anybody," Howard points out. "In fact, he was being harassed by escorts from the abortion clinic."

Pastor Hoye faces up to two years in jail and a $4,000 fine. Howard is calling Christians into action. "We feel that pro-life organizations around the country ought to take up this man's cause and pray and fast between now and February 19," he concludes.

That is when Hoye is due to be sentenced.

Here's the problem. One group want's something, another group has it. The first group is fighting hard for it. The second group puts it to all for a vote in who should have possession of it. The vote goes to the second group.

Now the first group is oppressing the second group, because they still do not have it.

Sounds like a mini-war going on to me. Not only does this group fight, but harass and whine when they lose. Sigh.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.



Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.



The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.



"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions...and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.



The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California's Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.


The secretary of state's office and another defendant, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit. But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the homosexual-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.



He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten homosexual-rights supporters. "They've used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.



Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs' arguments are not trivial. "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said.



He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.