Sharon Roberts and Texasfor56 Blog posted an interesting piece citing AFP’s list of ways Texas is #1 – see it here:
http://texasfor56.wordpress.com/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Message to Dallas: Stay Out of Businesses' Business
Hats off to the Institute for Justice. They are suing the City of Dallas over the sign ban.
It’s a sign of the times in Dallas that the Dallas City Council is regulating window signs. (Don't they have some hookers or drug dealers to catch?)
That’s right. When the economy there is in a dip, and businesses are advertising sales, the City steps in and puts a halt to it.
The Institute for Justice has come to the rescue.
"These businesses rely on these window signs to stay in business and tell customers what they do, and we think they have a First Amendment right to do so," explained Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter.
IJ has recommended businesses put a sign in their window: Free Speech for Small Business. IJ claims the ban is a violation of free speech. We know it is an overreaching government.
Last fall, Dallas City Council outlawed advertisements in the upper two-thirds of store windows and glass doors in an effort to reduce clutter and make it easier for police to see inside while patrolling and during emergencies.
Mind you, most of us would see signs at eye level (or the upper two-thirds of the store windows) and not at ground level. After all, signs are meant to be seen.
But Dallas officials just don’t get it.
"There's all types of new technology. You have the Yellow Pages. You have Web sites. There's all types of ways to advertise your business," said Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/New-protest-planned-against-Dallas-sign-ordinance-85163027.html
Caraway is owner of an advertising and consulting business. Is there some conflict of interest here? If businesses can’t post signs on their storefronts which are easily read, they might need to pay for advertising. Shame on you, Dwaine!
Great video from IJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtWh6On1DM
It’s a sign of the times in Dallas that the Dallas City Council is regulating window signs. (Don't they have some hookers or drug dealers to catch?)
That’s right. When the economy there is in a dip, and businesses are advertising sales, the City steps in and puts a halt to it.
The Institute for Justice has come to the rescue.
"These businesses rely on these window signs to stay in business and tell customers what they do, and we think they have a First Amendment right to do so," explained Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter.
IJ has recommended businesses put a sign in their window: Free Speech for Small Business. IJ claims the ban is a violation of free speech. We know it is an overreaching government.
Last fall, Dallas City Council outlawed advertisements in the upper two-thirds of store windows and glass doors in an effort to reduce clutter and make it easier for police to see inside while patrolling and during emergencies.
Mind you, most of us would see signs at eye level (or the upper two-thirds of the store windows) and not at ground level. After all, signs are meant to be seen.
But Dallas officials just don’t get it.
"There's all types of new technology. You have the Yellow Pages. You have Web sites. There's all types of ways to advertise your business," said Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/New-protest-planned-against-Dallas-sign-ordinance-85163027.html
Caraway is owner of an advertising and consulting business. Is there some conflict of interest here? If businesses can’t post signs on their storefronts which are easily read, they might need to pay for advertising. Shame on you, Dwaine!
Great video from IJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtWh6On1DM
Cong. Barton takes on the EPA - YEA!
Dear Cong. Joe Barton -
On behalf of more than 975,000 Americans for Prosperity activists, we commend you for introducing a resolution of disapproval to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the Act was never designed to do. We urge your colleagues to become cosponsors of this resolution and stand with you to rein in the EPA.
Of the several onerous proposals to inject the federal government into global warming regulations, EPA’s plan is the worst. As you know, the agency’s endangerment finding will force millions of businesses, churches, schools and hospitals across the country to deal with the complex, time consuming and costly EPA permitting process for the first time. This proposal will quite literally shut down all new investment and development as the private sector struggles to assess its exposure to the new regulations. EPA’s plan would also cripple state permitting agencies, who would be forced to implement the new unfunded mandate.
Congress must step in and assert its authority to rein in this runaway executive agency. Your resolution of disapproval will help restore the proper balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, and we thank you for doing so.
We applaud your efforts to block EPA’s unacceptable regulatory overreach and urge your colleagues to support your efforts.
-- Peggy Venable, Texas director, Americans for Prosperity
and the entire AFP team
On behalf of more than 975,000 Americans for Prosperity activists, we commend you for introducing a resolution of disapproval to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the Act was never designed to do. We urge your colleagues to become cosponsors of this resolution and stand with you to rein in the EPA.
Of the several onerous proposals to inject the federal government into global warming regulations, EPA’s plan is the worst. As you know, the agency’s endangerment finding will force millions of businesses, churches, schools and hospitals across the country to deal with the complex, time consuming and costly EPA permitting process for the first time. This proposal will quite literally shut down all new investment and development as the private sector struggles to assess its exposure to the new regulations. EPA’s plan would also cripple state permitting agencies, who would be forced to implement the new unfunded mandate.
Congress must step in and assert its authority to rein in this runaway executive agency. Your resolution of disapproval will help restore the proper balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, and we thank you for doing so.
We applaud your efforts to block EPA’s unacceptable regulatory overreach and urge your colleagues to support your efforts.
-- Peggy Venable, Texas director, Americans for Prosperity
and the entire AFP team
Jobs bill, ObamaCare, Congressional disapproval - oh, my
As home sales have dropped AGAIN, this news just in:
The Senate has approved a $15 billion jobs bill, 70 to 28. The next stop is the House where Democratic leaders are weighing whether to pass the Senate version or go to conference to reconcile it with the $154 billion jobs bill the House passed in December. (Washington Post)
Just a $100 BILLION difference?
“Let’s use reconciliation” – sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
This, as Congressional disapproval is now at 75%!!! http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob1.htm
And they wonder why the American taxpayer doesn’t approve of the job they are doing.
Now Obama is taking his ObamaCare #3 (the worst of the House and Senate healthcare bills) to the "showdown at Blair House" tomorrow. Join Americans for Prosperity's townhall meeting by going to www.AmericansForProsperiy.org and watch the "negotiations".
What are they thinking? Again, just what about “no” don’t you understand, President Obama, Reid and Pelosi?
Washington, D.C. politicians shouldn't take over our healthcare system and they can’t create jobs – they can provide tax cuts and step aside so employers create jobs, the economy to recover, and Americans to make their own health care choices.
Congress could learn a lot about how to create jobs from Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature. Go to: www.GoodNewsInTexas and see how Texas leaders have made the Lone Star State the best economy in the country.
The Senate has approved a $15 billion jobs bill, 70 to 28. The next stop is the House where Democratic leaders are weighing whether to pass the Senate version or go to conference to reconcile it with the $154 billion jobs bill the House passed in December. (Washington Post)
Just a $100 BILLION difference?
“Let’s use reconciliation” – sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
This, as Congressional disapproval is now at 75%!!! http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob1.htm
And they wonder why the American taxpayer doesn’t approve of the job they are doing.
Now Obama is taking his ObamaCare #3 (the worst of the House and Senate healthcare bills) to the "showdown at Blair House" tomorrow. Join Americans for Prosperity's townhall meeting by going to www.AmericansForProsperiy.org and watch the "negotiations".
What are they thinking? Again, just what about “no” don’t you understand, President Obama, Reid and Pelosi?
Washington, D.C. politicians shouldn't take over our healthcare system and they can’t create jobs – they can provide tax cuts and step aside so employers create jobs, the economy to recover, and Americans to make their own health care choices.
Congress could learn a lot about how to create jobs from Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature. Go to: www.GoodNewsInTexas and see how Texas leaders have made the Lone Star State the best economy in the country.
AFP's Phil Kerpen reveals Van Jones has resurfaced
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/22/phil-kerpen-van-jones-comeback-green-jobs-obama/
Updated February 22, 2010
Van Jones Returns
A speech in New Hampshire appears to be just the beginning of former green jobs czar Van Jones's comeback tour. But his environmental advocacy can't be separated from his political extremism.
By Phil Kerpen - FOXNews.com
Anthony K. “Van” Jones has surfaced. The disgraced former White House special green jobs adviser is making an appearance at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire tonight, apparently at the request of Democratic State Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan. Exeter promotes the event saying: “globally recognized, Jones will lead an evening talk and discussion about ‘green jobs. ’” This is just the start of his comeback tour; on March 8, Jones will again appear at a Democratic “green jobs” event, in New York with U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. That otherwise respectable people would come to “green jobs” events with Van Jones suggests that his “green jobs” advocacy is somehow separable from his political extremism. It isn’t.
Van Jones is a self-professed communist. In 2005 he explained his radicalization following the Rodney King verdict to the alternative San Francisco newspaper the East Bay Express: “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.” He went on to say that he had changed only his means, not his objectives: “I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”
In April of 2008 Jones explained to “Uprising Radio” that his push for green jobs was the kernel of a broader movement to destroy our capitalist economic system: “Inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether.”
Jones eventually resigned in disgrace from the White House, too radical even for the Obama administration that wants government control of health care, energy, and Wall Street.
Now Jones is back peddling that same kernel of the destruction of our free-market economy, starting tonight at Exeter, an elite boarding school.
While “green jobs” programs don’t create job growth, the verdict from Europe is that they are, unfortunately, deadly effective at laying the seeds of destruction of our market system. A trio of compelling studies from the Houston-based Institute for Energy Research reveals the facts.
In Germany, per worker subsidies for the solar industry now top $240K. The price of electricity has jumped 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, a 19.4% increase relative to average U.S. prices. In Denmark wind subsidies cost taxpayers $376M a year. Each Danish “green job” costs taxpayers $90K to $140K per year, which is 175-percent of country's average manufacturing wage. Despite all these subsidies, Denmark has the highest electricity prices in the European Union. Most significantly, in Spain, long touted as the model for Obama's policies, each “green job” created has destroyed on average 2.2 other jobs elsewhere in the economy. Since 2000, Spain has spent over $750K in subsidies for every “green job” created, and now has a 19.5 percent unemployment rate and is at risk of defaulting on its national debt.
The lessons from Europe are so stark that nobody can possibly believe these expensive programs will improve our economy. We know what Van Jones really believes—that economically ruinous subsidies, preferences, and make-work programs are a step towards total destruction of our free-market economy. Yet Democrats from President Obama on down continue to push “green jobs” programs. For the sake of our free market system, let’s hope they fail.
Mr. Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and was a frequent guest on Fox News Channel's “Glenn Beck” as the Van Jones scandal unfolded. He can be contacted through PhilKerpen.com.
Updated February 22, 2010
Van Jones Returns
A speech in New Hampshire appears to be just the beginning of former green jobs czar Van Jones's comeback tour. But his environmental advocacy can't be separated from his political extremism.
By Phil Kerpen - FOXNews.com
Anthony K. “Van” Jones has surfaced. The disgraced former White House special green jobs adviser is making an appearance at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire tonight, apparently at the request of Democratic State Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan. Exeter promotes the event saying: “globally recognized, Jones will lead an evening talk and discussion about ‘green jobs. ’” This is just the start of his comeback tour; on March 8, Jones will again appear at a Democratic “green jobs” event, in New York with U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. That otherwise respectable people would come to “green jobs” events with Van Jones suggests that his “green jobs” advocacy is somehow separable from his political extremism. It isn’t.
Van Jones is a self-professed communist. In 2005 he explained his radicalization following the Rodney King verdict to the alternative San Francisco newspaper the East Bay Express: “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.” He went on to say that he had changed only his means, not his objectives: “I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”
In April of 2008 Jones explained to “Uprising Radio” that his push for green jobs was the kernel of a broader movement to destroy our capitalist economic system: “Inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether.”
Jones eventually resigned in disgrace from the White House, too radical even for the Obama administration that wants government control of health care, energy, and Wall Street.
Now Jones is back peddling that same kernel of the destruction of our free-market economy, starting tonight at Exeter, an elite boarding school.
While “green jobs” programs don’t create job growth, the verdict from Europe is that they are, unfortunately, deadly effective at laying the seeds of destruction of our market system. A trio of compelling studies from the Houston-based Institute for Energy Research reveals the facts.
In Germany, per worker subsidies for the solar industry now top $240K. The price of electricity has jumped 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, a 19.4% increase relative to average U.S. prices. In Denmark wind subsidies cost taxpayers $376M a year. Each Danish “green job” costs taxpayers $90K to $140K per year, which is 175-percent of country's average manufacturing wage. Despite all these subsidies, Denmark has the highest electricity prices in the European Union. Most significantly, in Spain, long touted as the model for Obama's policies, each “green job” created has destroyed on average 2.2 other jobs elsewhere in the economy. Since 2000, Spain has spent over $750K in subsidies for every “green job” created, and now has a 19.5 percent unemployment rate and is at risk of defaulting on its national debt.
The lessons from Europe are so stark that nobody can possibly believe these expensive programs will improve our economy. We know what Van Jones really believes—that economically ruinous subsidies, preferences, and make-work programs are a step towards total destruction of our free-market economy. Yet Democrats from President Obama on down continue to push “green jobs” programs. For the sake of our free market system, let’s hope they fail.
Mr. Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and was a frequent guest on Fox News Channel's “Glenn Beck” as the Van Jones scandal unfolded. He can be contacted through PhilKerpen.com.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
It’s at the heart of the debate against Obama…American Exceptionalism
This from an article in National Review Online:
With the State Board of Education poised to make decisions on the social studies curriculum, it’s timely to again reiterate what we as conservatives want: to preserve the pillars of American Exceptionalism.
Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.
It’s worth a read for every citizen who loves America or wonders why we should:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=M2FhMTg4Njk0NTQwMmFlMmYzZDg2YzgyYjdmYjhhMzU
Thanks, NRO! -- Peggy Venable
With the State Board of Education poised to make decisions on the social studies curriculum, it’s timely to again reiterate what we as conservatives want: to preserve the pillars of American Exceptionalism.
Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.
It’s worth a read for every citizen who loves America or wonders why we should:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=M2FhMTg4Njk0NTQwMmFlMmYzZDg2YzgyYjdmYjhhMzU
Thanks, NRO! -- Peggy Venable
Monday, February 22, 2010
Global Warming Scientist Admits Earth Isn't Warming
Proponents of man-made global warming have suffered a serious blow as leading climate change scientist Phil Jones now acknowledges that the earth may have been warmer in medieval times than now.
Jones also conceded in an interview with the BBC that during the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming.
“The admissions will be seized on by skeptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely made-made,” Britain‘s Daily Mail observed.
Jones recently stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain after leaked e-mails indicated that scientists there were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming.
The data have been used to support efforts by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to urge governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to produce the “hockey stick graph” that shows temperatures relatively stable for centuries before rising sharply in recent decades.
Critics of global warming crusaders believe there is evidence that the world was warmer than today between about 800 and 1300 A.D., during the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), due to evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
“There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not,” Jones said in the interview.
“The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic, and Europe and parts of Asia.
“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
Marc Sheppard, environment editor of American Thinker, declares: “As the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.”
He also writes: “Indeed, we know that, during the MWP, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to settle a then comfortably warm Greenland, where colonies flourished for many centuries. Modern archaeologists digging through [Greenland’s] permafrost have uncovered bones and artifacts attesting to the villages established there.”
Despite his concession that there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, Jones still maintains that he is “100 percent confident” the climate has warmed and said “there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”
-- From NewsMax.com insider
Jones also conceded in an interview with the BBC that during the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming.
“The admissions will be seized on by skeptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely made-made,” Britain‘s Daily Mail observed.
Jones recently stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain after leaked e-mails indicated that scientists there were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming.
The data have been used to support efforts by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to urge governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to produce the “hockey stick graph” that shows temperatures relatively stable for centuries before rising sharply in recent decades.
Critics of global warming crusaders believe there is evidence that the world was warmer than today between about 800 and 1300 A.D., during the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), due to evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
“There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not,” Jones said in the interview.
“The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic, and Europe and parts of Asia.
“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
Marc Sheppard, environment editor of American Thinker, declares: “As the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.”
He also writes: “Indeed, we know that, during the MWP, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to settle a then comfortably warm Greenland, where colonies flourished for many centuries. Modern archaeologists digging through [Greenland’s] permafrost have uncovered bones and artifacts attesting to the villages established there.”
Despite his concession that there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, Jones still maintains that he is “100 percent confident” the climate has warmed and said “there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”
-- From NewsMax.com insider
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Carol Browner was against Nuclear before she was for it
Seems former EPA chief Carol Browner, now a czar in the Obama Administration, doesn't know where she stands on nuclear power.
She was against it when working with Al Gore - and for it now that Obama embraced it in his State of the Union address.
Seems Carol changes her mind a lot - who knows where she stands?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125444
She was against it when working with Al Gore - and for it now that Obama embraced it in his State of the Union address.
Seems Carol changes her mind a lot - who knows where she stands?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125444
Taxpayers deserve to know what they are paying for at UNT
Why is higher ed so expensive?
Could part of it be because decisions are made, without informing the paying public, and we will “never know” But we will be paying for it.
Last week, the President of the Univeristy of North Texas announced her departure. The UNT Chancellor refuses to tell why the board and the President mutually agreed to her departure.
Moreover, we learn that the departing president, Gretchen Bataille, leaves with a package worth about $1 million, including severance pay. She can receive up to $20,000 for legal fees and costs "incurred with the preparation of this agreement."
http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1977202.html
This from the Ft Worth Star-Telegram: University of North Texas students and faculty members voiced frustrations Wednesday after meeting with UNT System Chancellor Lee Jackson and other officials, who would not answer questions about why President Gretchen Bataille resigned suddenly last week. Some also wondered whether Provost Wendy Wilkins, who received a standing ovation during the forum, will stay at UNT. UNT junior Valerie Gonzalez said officials "danced around our questions" regarding Bataille's resignation. http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1977202.html
The Dallas Morning News is right to say taxpayers deserve some answers:
We still don't know exactly what's behind this University of North Texas mess, the one that resulted in President Gretchen Bataille abruptly resigning after a routine meeting this month with Chancellor Lee Jackson. We do know this: Texas taxpayers fund much of UNT's freight, and they deserve a clearer explanation. Jackson insists that Bataille's resignation after a little more than three years as president has nothing to do with the school's goal of becoming a leading research university. It instead involves internal management operations.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-bataille_0218edi.State.Edition1.28302c4.html
This blogger is wondering: Could it have anything to do with the President’s lobbying legislators in favor of the “local option” gas tax? http://www.lonestarreport.org/Management/BlogManagement/tabid/62/EntryId/415/UNT-President-endorses-transit-tax-hike-on-state-stationery.aspx
Here’s the bottom line: either a public official leaves empty-handed or the public is informed if we are paying for their departure. It’s a simple as that.
Could part of it be because decisions are made, without informing the paying public, and we will “never know” But we will be paying for it.
Last week, the President of the Univeristy of North Texas announced her departure. The UNT Chancellor refuses to tell why the board and the President mutually agreed to her departure.
Moreover, we learn that the departing president, Gretchen Bataille, leaves with a package worth about $1 million, including severance pay. She can receive up to $20,000 for legal fees and costs "incurred with the preparation of this agreement."
http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1977202.html
This from the Ft Worth Star-Telegram: University of North Texas students and faculty members voiced frustrations Wednesday after meeting with UNT System Chancellor Lee Jackson and other officials, who would not answer questions about why President Gretchen Bataille resigned suddenly last week. Some also wondered whether Provost Wendy Wilkins, who received a standing ovation during the forum, will stay at UNT. UNT junior Valerie Gonzalez said officials "danced around our questions" regarding Bataille's resignation. http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1977202.html
The Dallas Morning News is right to say taxpayers deserve some answers:
We still don't know exactly what's behind this University of North Texas mess, the one that resulted in President Gretchen Bataille abruptly resigning after a routine meeting this month with Chancellor Lee Jackson. We do know this: Texas taxpayers fund much of UNT's freight, and they deserve a clearer explanation. Jackson insists that Bataille's resignation after a little more than three years as president has nothing to do with the school's goal of becoming a leading research university. It instead involves internal management operations.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-bataille_0218edi.State.Edition1.28302c4.html
This blogger is wondering: Could it have anything to do with the President’s lobbying legislators in favor of the “local option” gas tax? http://www.lonestarreport.org/Management/BlogManagement/tabid/62/EntryId/415/UNT-President-endorses-transit-tax-hike-on-state-stationery.aspx
Here’s the bottom line: either a public official leaves empty-handed or the public is informed if we are paying for their departure. It’s a simple as that.
As the Scam is Unraveling, the Scum is Scrambling
I heard it in the news today: TOP UN CLIMATE OFFICIAL RESIGNS
That's right, Yvo de Boer, the top U.N. climate change official, told The Associated Press Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal. His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fgw-un-climate-deboer18-2010feb18,0,164469.story
You can fool some of the people some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln observed, and you even can fool all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time. Al Gore and his friends got so excited about points one and especially point two that they forgot point three. Not everybody is on to the global-warming scam, not yet, but all the people — or enough of them — are getting there. "Global warming," or even "climate change" as Al's marketing men now insist that it be called, is becoming the stuff of jests and jokes. Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican, built an igloo of that hot stuff that buried Washington last week on the Capitol lawn and dubbed it "Al Gore's new home."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/?feat=home_top5_read
Meanwhile, our Texas leaders are fighting the EPA in court: "Show me the Science!" I anticipate we'll see a lot of junk science, and the "global warming" scientists will be left scrambling for cover.
That's right, Yvo de Boer, the top U.N. climate change official, told The Associated Press Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal. His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fgw-un-climate-deboer18-2010feb18,0,164469.story
You can fool some of the people some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln observed, and you even can fool all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time. Al Gore and his friends got so excited about points one and especially point two that they forgot point three. Not everybody is on to the global-warming scam, not yet, but all the people — or enough of them — are getting there. "Global warming," or even "climate change" as Al's marketing men now insist that it be called, is becoming the stuff of jests and jokes. Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican, built an igloo of that hot stuff that buried Washington last week on the Capitol lawn and dubbed it "Al Gore's new home."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/?feat=home_top5_read
Meanwhile, our Texas leaders are fighting the EPA in court: "Show me the Science!" I anticipate we'll see a lot of junk science, and the "global warming" scientists will be left scrambling for cover.
Tea Party Patriots Chart a Bold Course
Tea Party’s “Contract With America” a good idea. The ideas include common-sense measures to increase transparency, government accountability, economic recovery, require a constitutional basis for legislation, stopping federal agencies from making end-runs around Congress, among other things.
I have been working to get one specific measure enacted for five years -- Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
AFP has also been a leader in ending earmarks – having sponsored the Ending Earmarks Express national tour.
We may dicker over some aspects of the proposed “contract” but the 22 measures which may be proposed today are fairly all-encompassing.
Here are what I understand may be in the Tea Party Contract:
• Amending the constitution to require a balanced budget and a two-thirds majority for any tax hike.
• Permanently repealing all tax hikes scheduled to begin in 2011.
• Requiring every bill in Congress to be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill to be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.
• Requiring each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
• Permitting all health insurance plans to be sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines. Allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.
• Adopting a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and “replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.”
• Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
• Allowing Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account “they own, control and can leave to whomever they choose.”
• Preventing any regulation or tax on the Internet.
• Improving education by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school and improving the affordability of higher education.
• Authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.
• Prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
• Creating a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs.
• Blocking state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
• Preventing the EPA from implementing costly new regulations.
• Placing a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent. Also requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark.
• Making all lawmaking regulators, including presidential appointed czars, be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.
• Audit the Federal Reserve System.
• Making sure the federal government does not bail out private companies. The government should also immediately divest itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.
• Amending the constitution to require congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.
• Making all regulations “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by congressional vote.
• Broadcasting all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet.
This is something many of us can "sink our teeth into" and run with. Americans for Prosperity has been a leading organization pushing for spending limits which empower taxpayers, for ending earmarks and improving transparency, as well as stopping the EPA and FCC as well as other agencies from rogue activities like regulations which are end-runs around Congress.
We can roll up our sleeves and work together to get elements of this plan passed. It will require all of us on the Right to make it happen - and require that we check our egos at the door. After all, Ronald Reagan "It's amazing what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't care who gets the credit."
-- Peggy Venable, pvenable@afptx.org
I have been working to get one specific measure enacted for five years -- Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
AFP has also been a leader in ending earmarks – having sponsored the Ending Earmarks Express national tour.
We may dicker over some aspects of the proposed “contract” but the 22 measures which may be proposed today are fairly all-encompassing.
Here are what I understand may be in the Tea Party Contract:
• Amending the constitution to require a balanced budget and a two-thirds majority for any tax hike.
• Permanently repealing all tax hikes scheduled to begin in 2011.
• Requiring every bill in Congress to be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill to be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.
• Requiring each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
• Permitting all health insurance plans to be sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines. Allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.
• Adopting a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and “replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.”
• Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
• Allowing Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account “they own, control and can leave to whomever they choose.”
• Preventing any regulation or tax on the Internet.
• Improving education by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school and improving the affordability of higher education.
• Authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.
• Prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
• Creating a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs.
• Blocking state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
• Preventing the EPA from implementing costly new regulations.
• Placing a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent. Also requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark.
• Making all lawmaking regulators, including presidential appointed czars, be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.
• Audit the Federal Reserve System.
• Making sure the federal government does not bail out private companies. The government should also immediately divest itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.
• Amending the constitution to require congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.
• Making all regulations “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by congressional vote.
• Broadcasting all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet.
This is something many of us can "sink our teeth into" and run with. Americans for Prosperity has been a leading organization pushing for spending limits which empower taxpayers, for ending earmarks and improving transparency, as well as stopping the EPA and FCC as well as other agencies from rogue activities like regulations which are end-runs around Congress.
We can roll up our sleeves and work together to get elements of this plan passed. It will require all of us on the Right to make it happen - and require that we check our egos at the door. After all, Ronald Reagan "It's amazing what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't care who gets the credit."
-- Peggy Venable, pvenable@afptx.org
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Another Texas #1 – this time in Williamson County
The County Health Rankings—the first set of reports to rank the overall health of every county in all 50 states—were released today by the University of Wisconsin’s Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation at a briefing in Washington, D.C. Williamson County ranked first among Texas Counties in the health outcomes category (how healthy people are and how long they live) and fifth overall in health factors (how healthy they can be) with regards to key factors that affect health such as smoking, obesity, binge drinking, access to primary care providers, rates of high school graduation, rates of violent crime, air pollution levels, access to healthy foods, unemployment rates and number of children living in poverty.
Dr. Chip Riggins, Executive Director and Health Authority for the Williamson Cities and County Health District (WCCHD), admits the rankings show that people who live in healthier counties tend to have higher education levels, are more likely to be employed, have access to more health care providers, and have more access to healthier foods, parks and recreational facilities. “But we also know that health doesn’t happen by accident. It’s not just the resources your community has, but how they are used that make the difference. Good policy decisions by elected officials, good governance by a board of health and productive public-private collaborations over the years have undoubtedly contributed to this ranking.”
One example is Williamson County’s designation as an ACHIEVE (Action Communities for Health, Innovation, and EnVironmental changE) community by the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD) in 2009. As a result, the Healthy Hearts Coalition was formed and its mission is to empower the people of Williamson County to lead healthy lifestyles by promoting a safe environment through public and private initiatives. Members of the Coalition represent 18 different organizations and include elected officials; local directors of public health boards; business leaders from various industries; and leaders of local schools, parks and recreation departments, physicians, hospitals, and other community and service organizations. “Achieving a healthy community is a journey, not a destination. Formal and informal leaders from across this community are committed to an ongoing process that has great potential to make and keep our cities and county as healthy as they can be,” said Dr. Riggins.
Researchers used five measures to assess the level of overall health or “health outcomes” by county: the rate of people dying before age 75; the percentage of people who reported being in fair or poor health; the number of days people reported being in poor physical health; number of days in poor mental health; and the rate of low-birth weight infants. Researchers then looked at factors that affect people’s health within four categories: health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment.
The online Rankings, available at www.countyhealthrankings.org/texas/williamson, include snapshots of U.S. counties with a color-coded map that compares each county’s overall health with other counties in each of the 50 states.
The County Health Rankings is a good tool to start discussions about the health of a community and how to maximize strengths and address challenges. However, the WCCHD also maintains its own community health statistics which are much more local and specific for use with community health improvement efforts.
For more information about Williamson County health statistics, the Williamson County Board of Health or WCCHD services, visit your public health department website at http://www.wcchd.org/Services.htm
Dr. Chip Riggins, Executive Director and Health Authority for the Williamson Cities and County Health District (WCCHD), admits the rankings show that people who live in healthier counties tend to have higher education levels, are more likely to be employed, have access to more health care providers, and have more access to healthier foods, parks and recreational facilities. “But we also know that health doesn’t happen by accident. It’s not just the resources your community has, but how they are used that make the difference. Good policy decisions by elected officials, good governance by a board of health and productive public-private collaborations over the years have undoubtedly contributed to this ranking.”
One example is Williamson County’s designation as an ACHIEVE (Action Communities for Health, Innovation, and EnVironmental changE) community by the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD) in 2009. As a result, the Healthy Hearts Coalition was formed and its mission is to empower the people of Williamson County to lead healthy lifestyles by promoting a safe environment through public and private initiatives. Members of the Coalition represent 18 different organizations and include elected officials; local directors of public health boards; business leaders from various industries; and leaders of local schools, parks and recreation departments, physicians, hospitals, and other community and service organizations. “Achieving a healthy community is a journey, not a destination. Formal and informal leaders from across this community are committed to an ongoing process that has great potential to make and keep our cities and county as healthy as they can be,” said Dr. Riggins.
Researchers used five measures to assess the level of overall health or “health outcomes” by county: the rate of people dying before age 75; the percentage of people who reported being in fair or poor health; the number of days people reported being in poor physical health; number of days in poor mental health; and the rate of low-birth weight infants. Researchers then looked at factors that affect people’s health within four categories: health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment.
The online Rankings, available at www.countyhealthrankings.org/texas/williamson, include snapshots of U.S. counties with a color-coded map that compares each county’s overall health with other counties in each of the 50 states.
The County Health Rankings is a good tool to start discussions about the health of a community and how to maximize strengths and address challenges. However, the WCCHD also maintains its own community health statistics which are much more local and specific for use with community health improvement efforts.
For more information about Williamson County health statistics, the Williamson County Board of Health or WCCHD services, visit your public health department website at http://www.wcchd.org/Services.htm
Should Congress Be Subject to the Laws They Pass?
What a dumb question, you ask?
Here is the proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens
of the United States".
Now, the 28th amendment proposal is a good idea, but recall that this was one of the foundational elements of the Contract with America.
It was introduced as H.R. 1 in the 104th Congress and titled the “Congressional Accountability Act of 1995". Sadly, it didn't become law because it got lodged in the Senate.
House and Senate versions of the health care bill included provisions to exempt Congress from coverage, though....Cong. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) supported H.Res. 615 that would have required "that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option."
If you agree this makes sense, let us know!
Here is the proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens
of the United States".
Now, the 28th amendment proposal is a good idea, but recall that this was one of the foundational elements of the Contract with America.
It was introduced as H.R. 1 in the 104th Congress and titled the “Congressional Accountability Act of 1995". Sadly, it didn't become law because it got lodged in the Senate.
House and Senate versions of the health care bill included provisions to exempt Congress from coverage, though....Cong. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) supported H.Res. 615 that would have required "that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option."
If you agree this makes sense, let us know!
Texas Suing the EPA
The leadership came from Gov. Perry, AG Abbott and Ag Comm Staples. But John Dunn is who came to AFP and suggested the science being used would not hold up in court.
It is amazing that the EPA would "outsource" the science and that ClimateGate opened the doors to the manipulation taking place by scientists in numerous "prestigious" organizations.
I am surprised but relieved that now the EPA will have to prove the science behind this ridiculous and dangerous regulatory action.
That having been said, we also want the Congress to take action and stop the EPA. States and organizations should not have to sue the EPA for actions they don’t have the authority to take.
If the Congress fails to take action, they are abdicating their responsibilities.
The Administration is “outsourcing” their dirty work to the EPA. And it's not the first time they have circumvented Congress. When they could not get Card Check, they decided to try using the National Labor Relations Board, and when they could not get net neutrality (regulating the internet), they went to the FCC.
This Administration is bypassing the Congress, ignoring the Constitution, letting bureaucrats write the laws, and subverting the system. Congress must also take action to stop them.
It is amazing that the EPA would "outsource" the science and that ClimateGate opened the doors to the manipulation taking place by scientists in numerous "prestigious" organizations.
I am surprised but relieved that now the EPA will have to prove the science behind this ridiculous and dangerous regulatory action.
That having been said, we also want the Congress to take action and stop the EPA. States and organizations should not have to sue the EPA for actions they don’t have the authority to take.
If the Congress fails to take action, they are abdicating their responsibilities.
The Administration is “outsourcing” their dirty work to the EPA. And it's not the first time they have circumvented Congress. When they could not get Card Check, they decided to try using the National Labor Relations Board, and when they could not get net neutrality (regulating the internet), they went to the FCC.
This Administration is bypassing the Congress, ignoring the Constitution, letting bureaucrats write the laws, and subverting the system. Congress must also take action to stop them.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Texas among many to file lawsuits against EPA
Today was the last day to file a lawsuit against the EPA on their endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases.
Lawsuits are still flowing in. Many of the suits are not from states but from industry or coalitions. At first blush it appears there are lawsuits filed by the state of Texas, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy Company, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., Industrial Minerals Association – North America, Great Northern Project Development, L.P., National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Rosebud Mining Company, Massey Energy Company, and Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.
Virginia also filed a lawsuit today, but not on the same grounds as the Texas suit. Louisiana filed suit a couple of weeks ago.
Lawsuits are still flowing in. Many of the suits are not from states but from industry or coalitions. At first blush it appears there are lawsuits filed by the state of Texas, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy Company, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., Industrial Minerals Association – North America, Great Northern Project Development, L.P., National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Rosebud Mining Company, Massey Energy Company, and Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.
Virginia also filed a lawsuit today, but not on the same grounds as the Texas suit. Louisiana filed suit a couple of weeks ago.
EPA's effort to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
Americans for Prosperity brief -
The EPA is advancing a three-piece regulatory strategy to implement greenhouse gas regulations (GHG) under the Clean Air Act (CAA.) These actions would have devastating consequences for the economy. Although cap-and-trade appears imperiled in the Senate for 2010, EPA’s actions remain the greatest threat to affordable energy and economic liberty on the horizon.
Regulatory Proceedings
Endangerment Finding: EPA has issued an endangerment finding for GHGS, which must be in place before any final regulations can be issued. EPA issued a Final Agency Action on December 15, 2009, officially classifying GHGs as likely to “endanger the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are now officially regarded as pollution by the federal government.
Petitions for judicial review that wish to challenge the agency’s findings are due by February 16, 2010. Several private firms and association groups are expected to file suit. The public comment period for this agency action is closed; however, more than 17,000 AFP activists put comments in the docket.
Light-Duty Vehicle Rule: EPA and the Department of Transportation issued a joint proposed rulemaking on September 28, 2009 to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. This action is largely a response to both Massachusetts v. EPA and California’s request for a CAA waiver so it could issue state-level vehicle emission regulations, a petition that was denied by the Bush Administration and subsequently approved by the Obama Administration on July 8, 2009.
The public comment period for this proposed rule is closed. A final rule is expected in March 2010, a date that would allow the new regulations to cover model year 2012. There will still be an opportunity for public comments on the final rule.
Tailoring Rule: The third piece of EPA’s effort is a facilitating action, which is designed to lessen the impact of the endangerment finding on stationary sources that will be required to obtain prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and title V permits for the first time.
The proposed rule envisions a phased approach wherein during the first six years EPA would raise the applicability threshold for PSD and title V permits from the statutorily mandated 100-250 tons per year (tpy) (depending on source category) to 25,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for GHGs only. Five years later in the next phase, EPA would conduct a second round of rulemaking to issue “revised applicability and significance level thresholds and other streamlining techniques,” lowering the thresholds and regulating more sources as EPA finds “administratively feasible.”
There are serious legal concerns about EPA’s ability to unilaterally rewrite the applicability thresholds. The agency claims “administrative necessity” and “absurd results” allow it to deviate from the clearly expressed statutory language. Legal challenges will most certainly come from both environmental groups seeking a strict application of the CAA and from business groups seeking to vacate the rule.
The period for public comments on the proposed rule is closed. However, AFP activists submitted more than 18,000 public comments. There will be another opportunity for public comments when a final rule is issued, which may coincide with the March 2010 timetable for the light-duty vehicle rule.
Legislative Remedies
At this point in the regulatory process AFP believes that without congressional intervention it is more likely than not that EPA’s efforts to regulate GHGs will become law. The combination of the Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and an aggressive Obama Administration will likely provide enough support to enact and sustain the regulations. Congress must step in and exercise its authority to define EPA’s limitations under the CAA.
House of Representatives: There are currently four pieces of legislation that have been introduced that would preempt EPA’s ability to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
• UPDATE: Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Ike Skelton ( D-Mo.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) introduced a new piece of legislation, H.R. 4572, on February 3, 2010, which would block EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA.
However, this significant bipartisan effort to stop EPA is not a clean bill. The bill also includes changes to the way EPA calculates the greenhouse gas footprint of biofuels. Ethanol—and related biofuels—have increasingly come under fire because if you add the impact of land use changes to their greenhouse gas totals, they actually contribute more to GHG emissions than traditional fuels. This new bill would bar EPA from counting the full impact of biofuels. It’s a huge giveaway to the ethanol lobby.
• Blackburn Bill: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced H.R. 391, which would both bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and clarifying that nothing in the CAA shall be construed as authorizing EPA to regulate climate change or global warming in the future.
The Blackburn Bill currently has 150 cosponsors, including Democrat Dan Boren from Oklahoma. Additionally, 121 representatives have signed a discharge petition to force the bill out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and get a vote on the House floor; 218 signatures are needed to discharge the bill.
• Pomeroy Bill: Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) introduced H.R. 4396, which would also bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and includes a Sense of Congress that the CAA was never intended to handle GHGs. The Pomeroy language is slightly weaker than the Blackburn; however, it would likely succeed in blocking EPA. There are no cosponsors or legislative activities on Pomeroy’s bill.
• Waxman-Markey: The House-passed climate bill also contains language that would bar EPA from expanding its regulatory portfolio. Sections 831-35 restrict EPA by stating in various forms that “no greenhouse gas may be added to the list … on the basis of its effect on global climate change.” However, it appears unlikely that companion legislation will pass the Senate and it is unknown whether this preemption language would survive a conference committee.
Senate: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act on January 21, 2010. The bill is S.J.Res.26, and it has already attracted 40 cosponsors.
• Congressional Review Act: The CRA was established in 1996 during the Contract with America. It provides a “fast track” method for Congress to invalidate Executive regulations of which Congress does not approve. In order to block a new regulation—such as EPA’s GHG efforts—from taking effect, Congress must take action no later than 60 days after the final rule is filed. The CRA requires a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, the CRA provides for a 30-signature threshold to discharge it from committee and a simple majority vote (51) to pass once it is on the floor. In the House, a disapproval resolution would require 218 signatures to discharge and 218 votes to pass.
It appears likely that Sen. Murkowski has the 51 votes needed to pass the resolution in the Senate, although if she does not, she will not offer the proposal. Opponents of EPA’s actions still have significant work to do in the House to reach 218 votes.
Additionally, if the resolution does pass both chambers, it would require President Obama’s signature to overturn EPA’s proposed rule. AFP believes it would be very difficult for the president to issue his first veto against his own party’s Congress. If he did so, Obama would politically own any adverse consequences that arise from EPA’s regulations.
Conclusion
There remain several avenues, mainly legislative or judicial, that could stop EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA. AFP believes that Congress must act swiftly to block EPA. In order for Congress to act, AFP must help continue to create public awareness and political accountability on this issue. The Blackburn Bill in the House, and the disapproval resolution in the Senate are free market advocates best hope for congressional intervention.
The EPA is advancing a three-piece regulatory strategy to implement greenhouse gas regulations (GHG) under the Clean Air Act (CAA.) These actions would have devastating consequences for the economy. Although cap-and-trade appears imperiled in the Senate for 2010, EPA’s actions remain the greatest threat to affordable energy and economic liberty on the horizon.
Regulatory Proceedings
Endangerment Finding: EPA has issued an endangerment finding for GHGS, which must be in place before any final regulations can be issued. EPA issued a Final Agency Action on December 15, 2009, officially classifying GHGs as likely to “endanger the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are now officially regarded as pollution by the federal government.
Petitions for judicial review that wish to challenge the agency’s findings are due by February 16, 2010. Several private firms and association groups are expected to file suit. The public comment period for this agency action is closed; however, more than 17,000 AFP activists put comments in the docket.
Light-Duty Vehicle Rule: EPA and the Department of Transportation issued a joint proposed rulemaking on September 28, 2009 to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. This action is largely a response to both Massachusetts v. EPA and California’s request for a CAA waiver so it could issue state-level vehicle emission regulations, a petition that was denied by the Bush Administration and subsequently approved by the Obama Administration on July 8, 2009.
The public comment period for this proposed rule is closed. A final rule is expected in March 2010, a date that would allow the new regulations to cover model year 2012. There will still be an opportunity for public comments on the final rule.
Tailoring Rule: The third piece of EPA’s effort is a facilitating action, which is designed to lessen the impact of the endangerment finding on stationary sources that will be required to obtain prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and title V permits for the first time.
The proposed rule envisions a phased approach wherein during the first six years EPA would raise the applicability threshold for PSD and title V permits from the statutorily mandated 100-250 tons per year (tpy) (depending on source category) to 25,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for GHGs only. Five years later in the next phase, EPA would conduct a second round of rulemaking to issue “revised applicability and significance level thresholds and other streamlining techniques,” lowering the thresholds and regulating more sources as EPA finds “administratively feasible.”
There are serious legal concerns about EPA’s ability to unilaterally rewrite the applicability thresholds. The agency claims “administrative necessity” and “absurd results” allow it to deviate from the clearly expressed statutory language. Legal challenges will most certainly come from both environmental groups seeking a strict application of the CAA and from business groups seeking to vacate the rule.
The period for public comments on the proposed rule is closed. However, AFP activists submitted more than 18,000 public comments. There will be another opportunity for public comments when a final rule is issued, which may coincide with the March 2010 timetable for the light-duty vehicle rule.
Legislative Remedies
At this point in the regulatory process AFP believes that without congressional intervention it is more likely than not that EPA’s efforts to regulate GHGs will become law. The combination of the Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and an aggressive Obama Administration will likely provide enough support to enact and sustain the regulations. Congress must step in and exercise its authority to define EPA’s limitations under the CAA.
House of Representatives: There are currently four pieces of legislation that have been introduced that would preempt EPA’s ability to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
• UPDATE: Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Ike Skelton ( D-Mo.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) introduced a new piece of legislation, H.R. 4572, on February 3, 2010, which would block EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA.
However, this significant bipartisan effort to stop EPA is not a clean bill. The bill also includes changes to the way EPA calculates the greenhouse gas footprint of biofuels. Ethanol—and related biofuels—have increasingly come under fire because if you add the impact of land use changes to their greenhouse gas totals, they actually contribute more to GHG emissions than traditional fuels. This new bill would bar EPA from counting the full impact of biofuels. It’s a huge giveaway to the ethanol lobby.
• Blackburn Bill: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced H.R. 391, which would both bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and clarifying that nothing in the CAA shall be construed as authorizing EPA to regulate climate change or global warming in the future.
The Blackburn Bill currently has 150 cosponsors, including Democrat Dan Boren from Oklahoma. Additionally, 121 representatives have signed a discharge petition to force the bill out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and get a vote on the House floor; 218 signatures are needed to discharge the bill.
• Pomeroy Bill: Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) introduced H.R. 4396, which would also bar EPA from classifying GHGs as pollutants (nullifying the endangerment finding) and includes a Sense of Congress that the CAA was never intended to handle GHGs. The Pomeroy language is slightly weaker than the Blackburn; however, it would likely succeed in blocking EPA. There are no cosponsors or legislative activities on Pomeroy’s bill.
• Waxman-Markey: The House-passed climate bill also contains language that would bar EPA from expanding its regulatory portfolio. Sections 831-35 restrict EPA by stating in various forms that “no greenhouse gas may be added to the list … on the basis of its effect on global climate change.” However, it appears unlikely that companion legislation will pass the Senate and it is unknown whether this preemption language would survive a conference committee.
Senate: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act on January 21, 2010. The bill is S.J.Res.26, and it has already attracted 40 cosponsors.
• Congressional Review Act: The CRA was established in 1996 during the Contract with America. It provides a “fast track” method for Congress to invalidate Executive regulations of which Congress does not approve. In order to block a new regulation—such as EPA’s GHG efforts—from taking effect, Congress must take action no later than 60 days after the final rule is filed. The CRA requires a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, the CRA provides for a 30-signature threshold to discharge it from committee and a simple majority vote (51) to pass once it is on the floor. In the House, a disapproval resolution would require 218 signatures to discharge and 218 votes to pass.
It appears likely that Sen. Murkowski has the 51 votes needed to pass the resolution in the Senate, although if she does not, she will not offer the proposal. Opponents of EPA’s actions still have significant work to do in the House to reach 218 votes.
Additionally, if the resolution does pass both chambers, it would require President Obama’s signature to overturn EPA’s proposed rule. AFP believes it would be very difficult for the president to issue his first veto against his own party’s Congress. If he did so, Obama would politically own any adverse consequences that arise from EPA’s regulations.
Conclusion
There remain several avenues, mainly legislative or judicial, that could stop EPA from regulating GHGs under the CAA. AFP believes that Congress must act swiftly to block EPA. In order for Congress to act, AFP must help continue to create public awareness and political accountability on this issue. The Blackburn Bill in the House, and the disapproval resolution in the Senate are free market advocates best hope for congressional intervention.
Hutchison Statement On EPA Endangerment Finding: ME TOO!!!
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is supporting the Texas challenge to the EPA:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison released the following statement concerning the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases that pose great risk to Texas’ economy:
“The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases has begun a regulatory process that will lead to disaster for the Texas economy. I am proud to be part of the fight to overturn this badly misguided plan by the Obama administration. In Texas, we have long recognized that we can both grow our economy while protecting our environment. This overreach by the EPA is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the many who have rightfully stood up against cap and trade legislation also being pushed by this administration. The EPA’s actions represent a sweeping mandate that will cost jobs and cannot stand.”
On January 21, 2010, Senator Hutchison joined with Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in a joint resolution (S.J.Res.26) disapproving of the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
not from the editor: Actually, KBH had signed onto legislation which would stop the EPA, not just express disapproval. - Peggy V.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison released the following statement concerning the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases that pose great risk to Texas’ economy:
“The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases has begun a regulatory process that will lead to disaster for the Texas economy. I am proud to be part of the fight to overturn this badly misguided plan by the Obama administration. In Texas, we have long recognized that we can both grow our economy while protecting our environment. This overreach by the EPA is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the many who have rightfully stood up against cap and trade legislation also being pushed by this administration. The EPA’s actions represent a sweeping mandate that will cost jobs and cannot stand.”
On January 21, 2010, Senator Hutchison joined with Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in a joint resolution (S.J.Res.26) disapproving of the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
not from the editor: Actually, KBH had signed onto legislation which would stop the EPA, not just express disapproval. - Peggy V.
Texas Takes on the Environmental Protection Agency
I am so proud. Texas is taking the EPA to court over Global Warming regs.
Hats off to Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples for this action – they are protecting citizens in challenging this rogue agency’s actions which do not fall within the EPA’s jurisdiction. It is regulation without representation and represents an end-run around Congress. I had suggested this action in the 1-29-10 Lone Star Report article “The Feds are Messing With Texas” (http://www.lonestarreport.org/CurrentNewsletter/FeaturedArticles/tabid/85/ctl/Detail/mid/462/xmid/320/xmfid/1/Default.aspx
It is a proud day in Texas, indeed! -- Peggy Venable
Texas Takes Legal Action Against Federal Government Over EPA CO2 Mandates
February 16, 2010
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples today announced that the state is taking legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
“Texas is aggressively seeking its future in alternative energy through incentives and innovation, not mandates and overreaching regulation,” Gov. Perry said. “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ. This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”
The state has filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and will also file a Petition for Reconsideration with the Environmental Protection Agency, asking the administrator to review her decision. The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.
Texas has a record of working proactively to protect natural resources and improve environmental quality. We have reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 46 percent, cut ozone levels by 22 percent and reduced carbon dioxide emissions more than nearly every other state, all without government mandates or extravagant fines. Rather than making traditional energy sources more expensive, Texas leaders continue to support making alternative energy technologies less expensive, thereby encouraging widespread commercial use and removing barriers to innovation and competition.
“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” Attorney General Abbott said. “Prominent climate scientists associated with the IPCC were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data. In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the IPCC cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science – so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy.”
As noted in comments to the EPA filed by Gov. Perry last year, the agency’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will impose a tremendous regulatory and financial burden on farmers and ranchers, small businesses, and an energy sector that hundreds of thousands of Texans depend upon for their jobs — not to mention Texas families who face an estimated $1,200 in increased annual living costs during a down economy.
Texas’ agriculture industry, which accounts for $106 billion – or approximately 9.5 percent of Texas’ total gross state product – would be disproportionately damaged by the proposed regulations. Fully 80 percent of the land in Texas is used in some form of agricultural production. Additionally, 97 percent of Texas’ agricultural operations are run by individuals or families, and one out of seven working Texans is employed in some form of agriculture.
“EPA’s move to regulate greenhouse gases would impose devastating rules on those Texans who fuel one of our state’s largest economic sectors – farmers and ranchers,” Commissioner Staples said. “As a regulatory agency, the Texas Department of Agriculture is required to impose rules based on sound science – not political science. Not only does state law require this, but it is also a fundamental principle by which regulators all across the U.S. have always lived. EPA has ignored extensive research on greenhouse gas emissions and based this significant regulation on faulty data.”
Diversifying the state’s energy portfolio continues to be a priority for Gov. Perry. Texas has installed more wind power than any other state, and all but four countries, and has provided new transmission lines that will move more than 18,000 megawatts across the state. Texas has also attracted more than 9,000 megawatts of energy from the development of next-generation nuclear power plants. The state is also looking to add new clean coal plants that will capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions, or use the carbon dioxide to increase production from Texas oil fields.
To view the legal petition, please click the link below.
Attached File: Petition for Reconsideration of Endangerment Cause Petition for Review
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/14253/
Hats off to Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples for this action – they are protecting citizens in challenging this rogue agency’s actions which do not fall within the EPA’s jurisdiction. It is regulation without representation and represents an end-run around Congress. I had suggested this action in the 1-29-10 Lone Star Report article “The Feds are Messing With Texas” (http://www.lonestarreport.org/CurrentNewsletter/FeaturedArticles/tabid/85/ctl/Detail/mid/462/xmid/320/xmfid/1/Default.aspx
It is a proud day in Texas, indeed! -- Peggy Venable
Texas Takes Legal Action Against Federal Government Over EPA CO2 Mandates
February 16, 2010
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples today announced that the state is taking legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
“Texas is aggressively seeking its future in alternative energy through incentives and innovation, not mandates and overreaching regulation,” Gov. Perry said. “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ. This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”
The state has filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and will also file a Petition for Reconsideration with the Environmental Protection Agency, asking the administrator to review her decision. The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.
Texas has a record of working proactively to protect natural resources and improve environmental quality. We have reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 46 percent, cut ozone levels by 22 percent and reduced carbon dioxide emissions more than nearly every other state, all without government mandates or extravagant fines. Rather than making traditional energy sources more expensive, Texas leaders continue to support making alternative energy technologies less expensive, thereby encouraging widespread commercial use and removing barriers to innovation and competition.
“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” Attorney General Abbott said. “Prominent climate scientists associated with the IPCC were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data. In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the IPCC cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science – so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy.”
As noted in comments to the EPA filed by Gov. Perry last year, the agency’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will impose a tremendous regulatory and financial burden on farmers and ranchers, small businesses, and an energy sector that hundreds of thousands of Texans depend upon for their jobs — not to mention Texas families who face an estimated $1,200 in increased annual living costs during a down economy.
Texas’ agriculture industry, which accounts for $106 billion – or approximately 9.5 percent of Texas’ total gross state product – would be disproportionately damaged by the proposed regulations. Fully 80 percent of the land in Texas is used in some form of agricultural production. Additionally, 97 percent of Texas’ agricultural operations are run by individuals or families, and one out of seven working Texans is employed in some form of agriculture.
“EPA’s move to regulate greenhouse gases would impose devastating rules on those Texans who fuel one of our state’s largest economic sectors – farmers and ranchers,” Commissioner Staples said. “As a regulatory agency, the Texas Department of Agriculture is required to impose rules based on sound science – not political science. Not only does state law require this, but it is also a fundamental principle by which regulators all across the U.S. have always lived. EPA has ignored extensive research on greenhouse gas emissions and based this significant regulation on faulty data.”
Diversifying the state’s energy portfolio continues to be a priority for Gov. Perry. Texas has installed more wind power than any other state, and all but four countries, and has provided new transmission lines that will move more than 18,000 megawatts across the state. Texas has also attracted more than 9,000 megawatts of energy from the development of next-generation nuclear power plants. The state is also looking to add new clean coal plants that will capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions, or use the carbon dioxide to increase production from Texas oil fields.
To view the legal petition, please click the link below.
Attached File: Petition for Reconsideration of Endangerment Cause Petition for Review
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/14253/
Monday, February 15, 2010
Gov Perry and Judge Napolitano headline luncheon
TX Gov Rick Perry is speaking to the 10th Amendment Town Hall in Plano saying
people in Washington are spending money they don't have on problems they don't understand. I think it is to make us more dependent upon them. Govt needs to get out of the way and allow the private sector to do what it does best - create wealth. I've called for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution because it works. Now, those in DC do not have the pressure to make those hard decisions. It takes courageous people to do that. In 2003, courageous legislators did the right thing, and cut $10 billion and ended up later with an $8 billion budget surplus. America should follow the Texas model and time for Texas to send the message. The time has come for us to assert our rights - they are there to serve the states, not the other way around. want limited government and a return to our constitutional basis? Are you fed up? On your cell phone, text to FEDUP to 9563. Texas is still the land of opportunity. Introduced Napolitano as a principled jurist...
Judge Andrew Napolitano said Gov. Perry runs the best state in the union. Said KBH has been on Fox News many time, and have known Debra Medina for years. Eloquently explained how our rights are not bestowed by gov't. These are natural to our humanity. The Bill of Rights assures us that government nor the people can abridge our natural rights of freedom. Choose freedom over power, our government has chosen power over freedom. Our Founding Fathers were more interested in liberty. What the federal government can get away with, it does. Money is the mothers milk of politics. The feds know they can buy away the sovereignty of any state if they dangle enough money in front of it. Referenced Constitutional Chaos - a book Napolitano wrote.
Did Patrick Henry say "give me safety or give me death"? NO
Government should obey its own laws including and especially the Constitution of the US.
The Patriot Act authorized federal agents who work for us to bypass the Constitution. No human beings should been trusted with all that power...you never know who will be running government.
This is the maximum hour of danger - you are the generation - now is that moment. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
Jackson summed it up - when the people fear the government, when the government fears the people, there is liberty. God bless you - and thank you!
__________________________
Petition: Support the Call for a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
Please join the members of the Texas Conservative Coalition in their support for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
TCC Letter: Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
Because federal spending is unsustainable, potentially ruining the country's long-term fiscal stability and weakening our economy, the time has come to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. Forty-nine members of the Texas Conservative Coalition have signed a letter to Governor Perry, supporting his call for the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
go to: TXCC.org for more information
___________________________
Thanks, Texas Conservative Coalition, for a great event!
-- Peggy Venable, Texas Director, Americans for Prosperity
people in Washington are spending money they don't have on problems they don't understand. I think it is to make us more dependent upon them. Govt needs to get out of the way and allow the private sector to do what it does best - create wealth. I've called for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution because it works. Now, those in DC do not have the pressure to make those hard decisions. It takes courageous people to do that. In 2003, courageous legislators did the right thing, and cut $10 billion and ended up later with an $8 billion budget surplus. America should follow the Texas model and time for Texas to send the message. The time has come for us to assert our rights - they are there to serve the states, not the other way around. want limited government and a return to our constitutional basis? Are you fed up? On your cell phone, text to FEDUP to 9563. Texas is still the land of opportunity. Introduced Napolitano as a principled jurist...
Judge Andrew Napolitano said Gov. Perry runs the best state in the union. Said KBH has been on Fox News many time, and have known Debra Medina for years. Eloquently explained how our rights are not bestowed by gov't. These are natural to our humanity. The Bill of Rights assures us that government nor the people can abridge our natural rights of freedom. Choose freedom over power, our government has chosen power over freedom. Our Founding Fathers were more interested in liberty. What the federal government can get away with, it does. Money is the mothers milk of politics. The feds know they can buy away the sovereignty of any state if they dangle enough money in front of it. Referenced Constitutional Chaos - a book Napolitano wrote.
Did Patrick Henry say "give me safety or give me death"? NO
Government should obey its own laws including and especially the Constitution of the US.
The Patriot Act authorized federal agents who work for us to bypass the Constitution. No human beings should been trusted with all that power...you never know who will be running government.
This is the maximum hour of danger - you are the generation - now is that moment. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
Jackson summed it up - when the people fear the government, when the government fears the people, there is liberty. God bless you - and thank you!
__________________________
Petition: Support the Call for a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
Please join the members of the Texas Conservative Coalition in their support for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
TCC Letter: Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
Because federal spending is unsustainable, potentially ruining the country's long-term fiscal stability and weakening our economy, the time has come to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. Forty-nine members of the Texas Conservative Coalition have signed a letter to Governor Perry, supporting his call for the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
go to: TXCC.org for more information
___________________________
Thanks, Texas Conservative Coalition, for a great event!
-- Peggy Venable, Texas Director, Americans for Prosperity
Requiring Congress to Balance the Budget
Requiring Congress to Balance the Budget was a good panel discussion.
Cong. Louis Gohmert hit a home run with the crowd at the 10th Amendment Town Hall.
33 states have petitioned the federal government for a balanced budget, said St Rep Linda Harper-Brown (Irving). And Fed Govt should meet only every 2 years!
St Rep Ken Paxton said the framers probably never realized we would be as irresponsible as we have been the last 75 years. TX called for a balanced budget amendment in the 1970’s, and TX has a state limit which has not worked well. In 1975, the TX budget was $10 billion – and was $30 billion in10 years – in 10 more years $70 billion and $140 Billion in We’d have an extra $35 billion if we had enacted a TABOR, and could eliminate local school property taxes. A nation can’t spend its way into prosperity.
Michael Quinn Sullivan – today is Constitution Day and we ratified our state constitution 134 years ago. Balanced budget amendments force prioritization. Force gov’t to only spend the dollars that are coming in.
Greg Coleman, Partner in Yetter Warden & Coleman L.L.P., we had become a nation of debtors. If you compare the national debt vs the amount we bring in on taxes, we owe 4-5 times what the gov’t brings in. We spend most of it on interest and entitlements.
Cong. Louis Gohmert hit a home run with the crowd at the 10th Amendment Town Hall.
33 states have petitioned the federal government for a balanced budget, said St Rep Linda Harper-Brown (Irving). And Fed Govt should meet only every 2 years!
St Rep Ken Paxton said the framers probably never realized we would be as irresponsible as we have been the last 75 years. TX called for a balanced budget amendment in the 1970’s, and TX has a state limit which has not worked well. In 1975, the TX budget was $10 billion – and was $30 billion in10 years – in 10 more years $70 billion and $140 Billion in We’d have an extra $35 billion if we had enacted a TABOR, and could eliminate local school property taxes. A nation can’t spend its way into prosperity.
Michael Quinn Sullivan – today is Constitution Day and we ratified our state constitution 134 years ago. Balanced budget amendments force prioritization. Force gov’t to only spend the dollars that are coming in.
Greg Coleman, Partner in Yetter Warden & Coleman L.L.P., we had become a nation of debtors. If you compare the national debt vs the amount we bring in on taxes, we owe 4-5 times what the gov’t brings in. We spend most of it on interest and entitlements.
Nullification - what it means
TCC Town Hall on 10th Amendment panel discussion:
Nullification – what it means and is it an option for states?
Robert L. Flourney, atty; Greg Holloway, Atty and co-founder of Common Sense Texans Network; Hiram Sasser, Director of Litigation for Liberty Legal Institute; and Dan Moreenoff, Atty at K&L Gates are the panelists at this TCC townhall.
Texas will stand up to this rogue Administration – Flournoy.
Litigation, nullification and amendment – topics discussed by Holloway.
Sasser - rely on individual freedom and not on government – Hiram Sasser has recently been on Fox News as the lead atty trying to get a Texan out of prison in Haiti.
Nullification – what it means and is it an option for states?
Robert L. Flourney, atty; Greg Holloway, Atty and co-founder of Common Sense Texans Network; Hiram Sasser, Director of Litigation for Liberty Legal Institute; and Dan Moreenoff, Atty at K&L Gates are the panelists at this TCC townhall.
Texas will stand up to this rogue Administration – Flournoy.
Litigation, nullification and amendment – topics discussed by Holloway.
Sasser - rely on individual freedom and not on government – Hiram Sasser has recently been on Fox News as the lead atty trying to get a Texan out of prison in Haiti.
Congress' health care bills
Health care legislstion which passed the Senate will cost the State of Texas about $3 billion a year, according to Rep. Phil King. We need patient-centered, not gov't centered health care reforms.
What can states do?
Tx St Rep Bryan Hughes (Mineola) discussed what we can do to amend the constitution - by Congress with 2/3 vote by both Congressional Houses and then states approval, or 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a constitutional Convention to amend the constitution (but open question whether we can limit the scope of that) - 3/4 of the states would need to ratify.
If Cap and Trade were to be made law, TX could say "no" to highway molney to refuse to comply. If TX and a few states did that, the Congress would need to take notice.
Ken Emanuelson, atty and co-founder of the Dallas Tea Party and Common Sense Texans Network, is concerned that the Intertate Commerce Clause is interpreted that almost everything falls under interstate commerce. Should question Sup Ct judges - what will they do about interstate commerce?
Rachel Brand, Atty, WilmerHale; former Asst Atty Gen, said state legislators should be explaining why it is not appropriate to call Congressional members on every proglem. Criminal laws should be enforced at the state level - it's about accountability. Congress should not try to fix every problem that comes up.
Matt Miller , Attorney at Institute for Justice, Texas Chapter - IJ regularly sues bureaucrats. Government power limits individual rights. We should focus on individual rights, not on government controlling every aspect of our lives. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government, and the 10th Amendment limits the federal government. States need to "step up" and represent citizens and states rights - act like a grownup, States, and take action.
If Cap and Trade were to be made law, TX could say "no" to highway molney to refuse to comply. If TX and a few states did that, the Congress would need to take notice.
Ken Emanuelson, atty and co-founder of the Dallas Tea Party and Common Sense Texans Network, is concerned that the Intertate Commerce Clause is interpreted that almost everything falls under interstate commerce. Should question Sup Ct judges - what will they do about interstate commerce?
Rachel Brand, Atty, WilmerHale; former Asst Atty Gen, said state legislators should be explaining why it is not appropriate to call Congressional members on every proglem. Criminal laws should be enforced at the state level - it's about accountability. Congress should not try to fix every problem that comes up.
Matt Miller , Attorney at Institute for Justice, Texas Chapter - IJ regularly sues bureaucrats. Government power limits individual rights. We should focus on individual rights, not on government controlling every aspect of our lives. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government, and the 10th Amendment limits the federal government. States need to "step up" and represent citizens and states rights - act like a grownup, States, and take action.
States Rights
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indifinite." - James Madison, Federalist No 45
"The Constitution was from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and inumerated powers, and not of generaland limited powers." - Justice Joseph Story, 1833
"The Constitution was from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and inumerated powers, and not of generaland limited powers." - Justice Joseph Story, 1833
Plano Townhall on States Rights
Around 400 people are gathered at the Plano Convention Center for the Teas Conservative Coalition townhall meeting on States Rights. Texas State Reps Brandon Creighton (Conroe), Phil King (Weatherford), Bryan Hughes (Mineola), Linda Harper-Brown (Irving), Ken Paxton (McKinney) and Wayne Christian (Center) are all participating on the program. TX Atty Gen Greg Abbott, TX Sup Court Justice Don R.Willett are key speakers along with Keynote speakers Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Judge Andrew Napolitano, Author and Fox News Contributor. is blogging on
TXCC.org is offering to bring this to your community - contact your state legislator and ask that they be invited!!!
Lou Ann Anderson - www.EstateofDenial.com - is blogginng as are we at Voice of the Taxpayer. - Peggy Venable
TXCC.org is offering to bring this to your community - contact your state legislator and ask that they be invited!!!
Lou Ann Anderson - www.EstateofDenial.com - is blogginng as are we at Voice of the Taxpayer. - Peggy Venable
logging from TCC's States Rights Town Hall in Plano
TX Sup Court Justice Don Willett is speaking at the Plano Towhhall meeting sponsored by the Texas Conservative Coalition supporting what AG Abbott has said, that theCongress has overstepped its constitutional boundaries in the health care bills passed by the House and the Senate.
In '92, the Court ruled 603 in NY vs US, one thing for Congres to encourage or entice the to participate inn a federal program and that focing them prohibits a core Constitutional rights.
The Court also ruled that the Brady Act violates the 10th Amendment.
States can be enticed to be an instrument of federal policy, but cannot force states to implement programs directly.
The Commerce Clause is consistently used by people who want to broaden the federal government rights.
We all need to get re-acquainted with our Constitution. May you and your family enjoy the blessings of liberty.
In '92, the Court ruled 603 in NY vs US, one thing for Congres to encourage or entice the to participate inn a federal program and that focing them prohibits a core Constitutional rights.
The Court also ruled that the Brady Act violates the 10th Amendment.
States can be enticed to be an instrument of federal policy, but cannot force states to implement programs directly.
The Commerce Clause is consistently used by people who want to broaden the federal government rights.
We all need to get re-acquainted with our Constitution. May you and your family enjoy the blessings of liberty.
Blogging from TCC's States Rights Town Hall in Plano
Texas Atty Gen Greg Abbott is speaking and said the Congressional health care bills that have passed are unconstitutional. He cited two specific areas;
Nebraska Compromise (Cornhusker kickback) - worst example of vote buying we have seen in the US Congress
Individual mandate – historically and literally unprecedented. The fed gov’t has never required people to buy a good or service as lawful residence inn the US.
Congress has limited powers – limited by Article 1, /Section 8 – Congress is using the Commerce Clause. But here Congress attempts to regulate inactivity, not activity. Congress may regulate activities Americans CHOOSE to participate in, but not inactivity.
Pres doesn’t take an oath of office to protect us against GW, or to force us to
But to protect and defend the Constitutional of the US of America. We intend to hold him accountable to that oath of office.
We have drawn a line in the sand – if they proceed, we will take them to court and stop this unprecedented expansion of federal government.
Let’s remember why we are here today – because deep inside us we are believers in the American Dream – it lies in the heart of each of us. We must not forget the future of America is not centered on the actions of government, but on the hopes, dreams and sweat of the American people. All Americans inherit the birthright to chart your own course, pursue your dreams if you are willing to work hard. That is why people world round risk their lives to come to this country to raise their children here. America is synonymous to opportunity, and the promise is open to all. This flows from the genius of the Constitution which maximizes the freedom which are God-given.
We are focused on making sure this is a reality for you and for generations to come.
Nebraska Compromise (Cornhusker kickback) - worst example of vote buying we have seen in the US Congress
Individual mandate – historically and literally unprecedented. The fed gov’t has never required people to buy a good or service as lawful residence inn the US.
Congress has limited powers – limited by Article 1, /Section 8 – Congress is using the Commerce Clause. But here Congress attempts to regulate inactivity, not activity. Congress may regulate activities Americans CHOOSE to participate in, but not inactivity.
Pres doesn’t take an oath of office to protect us against GW, or to force us to
But to protect and defend the Constitutional of the US of America. We intend to hold him accountable to that oath of office.
We have drawn a line in the sand – if they proceed, we will take them to court and stop this unprecedented expansion of federal government.
Let’s remember why we are here today – because deep inside us we are believers in the American Dream – it lies in the heart of each of us. We must not forget the future of America is not centered on the actions of government, but on the hopes, dreams and sweat of the American people. All Americans inherit the birthright to chart your own course, pursue your dreams if you are willing to work hard. That is why people world round risk their lives to come to this country to raise their children here. America is synonymous to opportunity, and the promise is open to all. This flows from the genius of the Constitution which maximizes the freedom which are God-given.
We are focused on making sure this is a reality for you and for generations to come.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Legacy of debt
We have been railing on the legacy of debt we are leaving our children with tax-and-spend government officials.
The federal deficit was $161 billion in 2007 and looms at more than $1,600 billion next year. Hugh Hewitt’s column today is a good read:
http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2010/02/12/no,_senator_grassley_just_say_no
Texas Workforce Commissioner Tom Pauken wrote:
In late January, the U.S. Senate voted to raise the United States’ debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, or $45,000 for every man, woman, and child living in America. Our massive federal deficit levels should send up warning flares to all who are interested in the short- and long-term health of our nation’s economy.
Economists have taken notice of what is happening on the government debt front. Recently, Barron’s Magazine published the first part of its annual Roundtable talks of 2010 on the nation’s economy. Many of the participants warned of the long term consequences to the American economy of the explosion of government debt over the last decade. The total debt (the sum of government and privately held debt) of the United States doubled from 2000 to the present from $26 trillion to $53 trillion. This drove the debt (both public and private) to 370 percent of GDP or Gross Domestic Product, the highest since the Great Depression. Excessive government borrowing reduces resources available for private investment, prolongs the economic recession and sets the stage for a “jobless recovery” -- that is, if the economy recovers at all.
Read Pauken’s’ piece here on the DallasBlog: http://www.dallasblog.com/201002111006125/tom-pauken/growing-government-debt-hurts-small-businesses.html
The federal deficit was $161 billion in 2007 and looms at more than $1,600 billion next year. Hugh Hewitt’s column today is a good read:
http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2010/02/12/no,_senator_grassley_just_say_no
Texas Workforce Commissioner Tom Pauken wrote:
In late January, the U.S. Senate voted to raise the United States’ debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, or $45,000 for every man, woman, and child living in America. Our massive federal deficit levels should send up warning flares to all who are interested in the short- and long-term health of our nation’s economy.
Economists have taken notice of what is happening on the government debt front. Recently, Barron’s Magazine published the first part of its annual Roundtable talks of 2010 on the nation’s economy. Many of the participants warned of the long term consequences to the American economy of the explosion of government debt over the last decade. The total debt (the sum of government and privately held debt) of the United States doubled from 2000 to the present from $26 trillion to $53 trillion. This drove the debt (both public and private) to 370 percent of GDP or Gross Domestic Product, the highest since the Great Depression. Excessive government borrowing reduces resources available for private investment, prolongs the economic recession and sets the stage for a “jobless recovery” -- that is, if the economy recovers at all.
Read Pauken’s’ piece here on the DallasBlog: http://www.dallasblog.com/201002111006125/tom-pauken/growing-government-debt-hurts-small-businesses.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Texas textbook war again in NYT
The New York Times has again printed an article about the textbook wars in Texas. This article focuses on religion, but the latest battle was really go get American Exceptionalism in the social studies textbooks. Was America founded by Christians? Absolutely. And America is an exceptional country because we enjoy the freedom to be able to debate what is in our students’ textbooks.
It is a shame they quote the Texas Anti-Freedom Network and not the hard working citizens who showed up to express their support for American exceptionalism and against politically-correct revisionism history.
Read it here: The article is How "Christian Were the Founders?” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?hp
BTW- I might recommend you read the comments only if you have no history of heart problems. It is full of comments by very liberal, likely anti-American NYT readers.
It is a shame they quote the Texas Anti-Freedom Network and not the hard working citizens who showed up to express their support for American exceptionalism and against politically-correct revisionism history.
Read it here: The article is How "Christian Were the Founders?” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?hp
BTW- I might recommend you read the comments only if you have no history of heart problems. It is full of comments by very liberal, likely anti-American NYT readers.
The importance of the District 5 SBOE Primary
There are two Republican candidates for the District 5 State Board of Education Seat. Both candidates want you to believe that they are true conservatives and will uphold those values if elected to the board. But only one of them adheres to the party's platform, and can be called the "true conservative" in this race.
Let's take a look at both:
Ken Mercer is the incumbent in the race. He has made a name for himself as a conservative member of the SBOE.
In 2008, left-wing lobbyists fought to keep true phonics out of Texas classrooms, but Mercer fought for the more rigorous education standards and won. In 2009, the same lefty lobbyists did not want to allow Texas high school students to ask questions about the theories of evolution and global warming. Mercer upheld the conservative platform and again was victorious.
This year, some left-wing "experts" have tried to remove American traditions, holidays and the idea of America's exceptionalism from social studies curriculum. But Mercer has been fighting for accurate American History that places the emphasis on the work of our Founding Fathers and the importance of our traditions and does not diminish the greatness of the United States and its free market system.
Mercer is also a former Texas State Representative, and served as a Member of the State House Committees on Higher Education, Transportation, and Administration.
Tim Tuggey is challenging Mercer for his SBOE seat and claims he is a "21st Century Conservative." What, exactly is a "21st Century Conservative" ? Actions speak louder than words, so let's take a look at what Tuggey means by his actions over the past few years:
First, Tuggey has been listed on the Department of Justice Criminal Division website* at least 70 times as a "Registered Foreign Agent for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
* U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, 2009, http://www.justice.gov/criminal
Why would Tuggey actively seek out and represent Saudi Arabia as a Foreign Agent? Within months of the September 11 attacks, Tuggey's lawfirm (Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey) aggressively pursued and was retained by the dictatorship known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The firm was paid $840,000 to provide public relations, communications advice, and to lobby on trade issues for the Saudis (12.6.02). Tuggey's firm was paid another $420,000 by the Saudis in 2003.
The New York Sun (a) reported that Saudi Arabia hired a lobbyist "in part to promote the Kingdom's bid for accession to the World Trade Organization."
The World Trade Organization was skeptical of Saudi Arabia. To change its image, Saudi Arabia hired Tuggey's high-priced lawfirm. The Saudis needed a makeover of their image. The same day the Saudis hired Tuggey's lawfirm, the Associated Press summarized the situation in its headline: "Congressional critics fault Saudis for failing to fight terrorists, return children." (c)
On Oct. 29, 2003, the Minneapolis Star Tribune (b) reported, "Since 9/11, Saudis have spent millions on image in the U.S. Three Washington firms have been hired to counter criticism of government, religion and culture."
The Loeffler Group, of which Tim Tuggey was the Managing Partner, was named as one of the three firms.
The money paid to these public relations firms: "soared to $17.6 million after the 9/11 terror attacks, Justice Department records show. The increase followed revelations that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and that the Saudi government was failing in its responsibility to fight terrorism."
Should Tim Tuggey, with his lobbyist connections to the Saudis, be elected to the SBOE?
Secondly, Tuggey is a registered lobbyist who supports the “Open Source Textbook Bill." Check out this article from Texas Insider that details more what the Open Source Textbook Bill would do to our education standards. Tuggey's firm, GrayLoeffler, LLC, details is "education consulting" (aka - lobbying) activities on its website, and the Austin American-Statesman recently looked into his education lobbying ties.
Tuggey is also endorsed by Texas Parent PAC, which supports higher taxes, bigger government and limiting the ability of parents and taxpayers to hold school officials accountable. They've also pushed heavily for open-source textbooks.
Finally, Tuggey has donated more than $40,000 to Democrat candidates like Charles Rangel, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar and Chet Edwards over the past 8 years.
Voters can decide for themselves who the real conservative is in this important race, but voters need to know the lobby interests of challenger Tuggey.
===================================
(a) The New York Sun
July 22, 2003
Saudis Spent $420,000 on WTO Lobbying
Author: - Staff Reporter of the Sun
Saudi Arabia spent $420,000 in a six-month period on a lobbyist hired in part to promote the kingdom's bid for accession to the World Trade Organization.
The firm of Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey signed up to provide communications advice and to lobby on trade issues for the Saudis last December to the tune of $840,000 a year.
According to documents filed with the Department of Justice on June 23, a partner at the firm, Thomas Loeffler - a high-powered Republican with close ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney - held several meetings with influential politicians for his client. Mr. Loeffler met with House Speaker Hastert; the House Majority Leader, Rep. Tom DeLay; the Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, and Senator Daschle, amongst others.
Also on the Saudi front, Rep. Doug Ose, a Republican of California, yesterday announced that he would offer an amendment this week to deny funding that will be used for issuance of visas to international child abductors and relatives of child abductors. Mr. Ose is a member of the House Committee on Government
Reform that last year investigated the issue of child abductions to Saudi Arabia.
====================
(b) Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN)
October 29, 2003
Since 9/11, Saudis have spent millions on image in U.S. Three Washington firms have been hired to counter criticismof government, religion and culture.
Author: Joe CareyAssociated Press
Saudi Arabia's spending on public relations, advertising and lobbying in the United States soared to $17.6 million after the 9/11 terror attacks, Justice Department records show.
The increase followed revelations that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and criticism that the Saudi government was failing in its responsibility to fight terrorism.
By comparison, in 2001 the Saudis spent $655,000 on public relations in the United States.
"The main purpose of the campaign is to get our voice out to the American people" and counter criticism of the Saudi government, religion and culture, said Nail al-Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi Embassy.
Television ads on CNN, ESPN, MSNBC and Fox News since May 2002 have depicted Saudi Arabia as a modern nation aligned with American interests. In a two-week period last November, 1,541 Saudi-sponsored ads ran on American television.
The Saudi strategy is clear: Spend large amounts on media advertising, book time with TV news shows, lobby congressional leaders and monitor policies coming out of Washington.
The Saudis have hired three well-connected Washington lobbying and law firms to advance their case. One firm, paid $420,000 so far this year, is headed by former Rep. Thomas Loeffler, a top contributor to President Bush when Bush was governor of Texas and a major fundraiser in Bush's presidential campaigns.
Foreign Agent Registration Act filings reviewed by the Associated Press show that Loeffler and his wife contributed $8,000 this year to the reelection campaign of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has criticized the Saudi response to terrorism. The couple also sent $2,000 to the Bush campaign.
Lobbyists are required to report contributions they make while working for a foreign government. Saudi officials said Loeffler's contributions were not made on behalf of the kingdom.
The Saudis also paid $456,000 last year to one of Washington's best known law firms, Patton Boggs, to lobby on Capitol Hill. They paid the law firm Dutton & Dutton $625,000 to monitor congressional and administration policies.
About $16 million of the Saudi money went for television, radio and print ads in the top 20 markets across the country. The ads, according to Saudi officials, were designed to impress upon the American people that Saudis really are allies against terror.
Around the first anniversary of the attacks, the Saudis bought ads in USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report and other print media.
The Saudi campaign, however, hasn't quieted its critics.
"We can't get over the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia," said Shelby, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said the Saudis have a long way to go to prove their commitment to fighting terrorism.
The State Department renewed a warning Monday to defer travel to the kingdom because of "indications of terrorist threats aimed at American and Western interests."
=======================
(c) Associated Press Archive
December 5, 2002
Congressional critics fault Saudis for failing to fight terrorists, return children
Author: CONNIE CASS; Associated Press Writer
Saudi Arabia's effort to bolster its image as an ally in the war on terrorism met with skepticism Wednesday from lawmakers who complained the Saudis have failed to curb Islamic radicalism and refused to help return U.S.-born children abducted by Saudi parents.
Critics pointed to a recent Kuwaiti newspaper report quoting Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef as suggesting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were instigated by Zionists instead of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi Arabian.
"The interior minister's comments only serve to confirm American suspicions about the Saudi government's commitment to the war on terror," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote to the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
Schumer urged the Saudi government to cut off funding of extremist Islamic schools that the senator called "the root of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world."
Another New York Democrat, Rep. Eliot Engel, said "the Saudis have shown again and again their complicity in some of the most vitriolic forms of anti-American, anti-Semitic rhetoric that leads to deadly terrorist attacks."
Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, accused the Saudi government of aiding and harboring Saudi parents, mostly fathers, who have abducted their children from the United States in violation of custody orders issued by U.S. courts.
Girls kidnapped to Saudi Arabia may never be allowed to return, even when they reach adulthood, Burton said, because women cannot leave that country without the permission of their male relatives.
Burton denounced the Saudis for refusing to turn over documents his committee subpoenaed from some of the embassy's U.S. lobbyists and lawyers, as well as Qorvis Communications, a public relations firm that Burton said is paid $200,000 per month by the Saudis.
The records could shed light on child custody cases and accusations that the embassy aided the abductors, Burton said. "If they're an ally of the United States, then they should work with us to return American citizens to the United States," said Burton, R-Ind.
Amid the criticism of Qorvis Communications' work for the Saudis, three of its founding partners announced Wednesday they were leaving for another firm. One of them, JimWeber, said they were joining Clark and Weinstock primarily for better business opportunities, but the Saudi work was also a factor.
"There was some concern on our part that the Saudi account was becoming dominant inside Qorvis and that could have some impact on our ability to market our services more broadly," he said.
President Bush has called on the Saudis to do more toward combatting terrorism, as well as returning U.S. citizens who were taken in defiance of court orders. But dealings with the oil-rich nation are delicate, especially as Bush tries to persuade the Saudis to support a possible war with Iraq.
The committee hearing came one day after Saudi Arabia launched a public relations blitz defending its efforts to fight terrorism and announcing new measures to deny financing to terror groups.
In a rare news conference representing the Saudi Embassy, Crown Prince Abdullah's foreign policy adviser, Adel al-Jubeir, said his nation also was a target of al-Qaida and eager to defeat terrorists. Saudi Arabia has been "unfairly maligned" and subjected to a campaign that "borders on hate," al-Jubeir said.
Asked about the child custody cases, al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia has worked to resolve the disputes and offered to negotiate a treaty with the United States to deal with the legal issues involved. "Is Chairman Burton serious about dealing with child custody cases or is he engaging in a publicity stunt?" al-Jubeir said Tuesday.
On Tuesday night, the Government Reform Committee tried to serve subpoenas on a lawyer, a lobbyist and a public relations consultant who have worked with the Saudi Embassy on the child custody issue. Burton said none of them could be found by U.S. marshals. "They've been hiding," he said.
The representatives of Patton Boggs law firm, The Gallagher Group and Qorvis Communications declined to appear at the hearing voluntarily but denied evading subpoenas.
Patton Boggs has no objection to partner Jack Deschauer appearing if the firm is "given adequate notice and adequate explanation of the scope of the questions committee wants to ask," said managing partner Stuart Pape.
Maureen Mahoney, a lawyer representing the Saudi Embassy, said the committee isn't entitled under international law to documents held by the embassy's consultants.
Let's take a look at both:
Ken Mercer is the incumbent in the race. He has made a name for himself as a conservative member of the SBOE.
In 2008, left-wing lobbyists fought to keep true phonics out of Texas classrooms, but Mercer fought for the more rigorous education standards and won. In 2009, the same lefty lobbyists did not want to allow Texas high school students to ask questions about the theories of evolution and global warming. Mercer upheld the conservative platform and again was victorious.
This year, some left-wing "experts" have tried to remove American traditions, holidays and the idea of America's exceptionalism from social studies curriculum. But Mercer has been fighting for accurate American History that places the emphasis on the work of our Founding Fathers and the importance of our traditions and does not diminish the greatness of the United States and its free market system.
Mercer is also a former Texas State Representative, and served as a Member of the State House Committees on Higher Education, Transportation, and Administration.
Tim Tuggey is challenging Mercer for his SBOE seat and claims he is a "21st Century Conservative." What, exactly is a "21st Century Conservative" ? Actions speak louder than words, so let's take a look at what Tuggey means by his actions over the past few years:
First, Tuggey has been listed on the Department of Justice Criminal Division website* at least 70 times as a "Registered Foreign Agent for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
* U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, 2009, http://www.justice.gov/criminal
Why would Tuggey actively seek out and represent Saudi Arabia as a Foreign Agent? Within months of the September 11 attacks, Tuggey's lawfirm (Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey) aggressively pursued and was retained by the dictatorship known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The firm was paid $840,000 to provide public relations, communications advice, and to lobby on trade issues for the Saudis (12.6.02). Tuggey's firm was paid another $420,000 by the Saudis in 2003.
The New York Sun (a) reported that Saudi Arabia hired a lobbyist "in part to promote the Kingdom's bid for accession to the World Trade Organization."
The World Trade Organization was skeptical of Saudi Arabia. To change its image, Saudi Arabia hired Tuggey's high-priced lawfirm. The Saudis needed a makeover of their image. The same day the Saudis hired Tuggey's lawfirm, the Associated Press summarized the situation in its headline: "Congressional critics fault Saudis for failing to fight terrorists, return children." (c)
On Oct. 29, 2003, the Minneapolis Star Tribune (b) reported, "Since 9/11, Saudis have spent millions on image in the U.S. Three Washington firms have been hired to counter criticism of government, religion and culture."
The Loeffler Group, of which Tim Tuggey was the Managing Partner, was named as one of the three firms.
The money paid to these public relations firms: "soared to $17.6 million after the 9/11 terror attacks, Justice Department records show. The increase followed revelations that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and that the Saudi government was failing in its responsibility to fight terrorism."
Should Tim Tuggey, with his lobbyist connections to the Saudis, be elected to the SBOE?
Secondly, Tuggey is a registered lobbyist who supports the “Open Source Textbook Bill." Check out this article from Texas Insider that details more what the Open Source Textbook Bill would do to our education standards. Tuggey's firm, GrayLoeffler, LLC, details is "education consulting" (aka - lobbying) activities on its website, and the Austin American-Statesman recently looked into his education lobbying ties.
Tuggey is also endorsed by Texas Parent PAC, which supports higher taxes, bigger government and limiting the ability of parents and taxpayers to hold school officials accountable. They've also pushed heavily for open-source textbooks.
Finally, Tuggey has donated more than $40,000 to Democrat candidates like Charles Rangel, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar and Chet Edwards over the past 8 years.
Voters can decide for themselves who the real conservative is in this important race, but voters need to know the lobby interests of challenger Tuggey.
===================================
(a) The New York Sun
July 22, 2003
Saudis Spent $420,000 on WTO Lobbying
Author: - Staff Reporter of the Sun
Saudi Arabia spent $420,000 in a six-month period on a lobbyist hired in part to promote the kingdom's bid for accession to the World Trade Organization.
The firm of Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey signed up to provide communications advice and to lobby on trade issues for the Saudis last December to the tune of $840,000 a year.
According to documents filed with the Department of Justice on June 23, a partner at the firm, Thomas Loeffler - a high-powered Republican with close ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney - held several meetings with influential politicians for his client. Mr. Loeffler met with House Speaker Hastert; the House Majority Leader, Rep. Tom DeLay; the Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, and Senator Daschle, amongst others.
Also on the Saudi front, Rep. Doug Ose, a Republican of California, yesterday announced that he would offer an amendment this week to deny funding that will be used for issuance of visas to international child abductors and relatives of child abductors. Mr. Ose is a member of the House Committee on Government
Reform that last year investigated the issue of child abductions to Saudi Arabia.
====================
(b) Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN)
October 29, 2003
Since 9/11, Saudis have spent millions on image in U.S. Three Washington firms have been hired to counter criticismof government, religion and culture.
Author: Joe CareyAssociated Press
Saudi Arabia's spending on public relations, advertising and lobbying in the United States soared to $17.6 million after the 9/11 terror attacks, Justice Department records show.
The increase followed revelations that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and criticism that the Saudi government was failing in its responsibility to fight terrorism.
By comparison, in 2001 the Saudis spent $655,000 on public relations in the United States.
"The main purpose of the campaign is to get our voice out to the American people" and counter criticism of the Saudi government, religion and culture, said Nail al-Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi Embassy.
Television ads on CNN, ESPN, MSNBC and Fox News since May 2002 have depicted Saudi Arabia as a modern nation aligned with American interests. In a two-week period last November, 1,541 Saudi-sponsored ads ran on American television.
The Saudi strategy is clear: Spend large amounts on media advertising, book time with TV news shows, lobby congressional leaders and monitor policies coming out of Washington.
The Saudis have hired three well-connected Washington lobbying and law firms to advance their case. One firm, paid $420,000 so far this year, is headed by former Rep. Thomas Loeffler, a top contributor to President Bush when Bush was governor of Texas and a major fundraiser in Bush's presidential campaigns.
Foreign Agent Registration Act filings reviewed by the Associated Press show that Loeffler and his wife contributed $8,000 this year to the reelection campaign of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has criticized the Saudi response to terrorism. The couple also sent $2,000 to the Bush campaign.
Lobbyists are required to report contributions they make while working for a foreign government. Saudi officials said Loeffler's contributions were not made on behalf of the kingdom.
The Saudis also paid $456,000 last year to one of Washington's best known law firms, Patton Boggs, to lobby on Capitol Hill. They paid the law firm Dutton & Dutton $625,000 to monitor congressional and administration policies.
About $16 million of the Saudi money went for television, radio and print ads in the top 20 markets across the country. The ads, according to Saudi officials, were designed to impress upon the American people that Saudis really are allies against terror.
Around the first anniversary of the attacks, the Saudis bought ads in USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report and other print media.
The Saudi campaign, however, hasn't quieted its critics.
"We can't get over the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia," said Shelby, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said the Saudis have a long way to go to prove their commitment to fighting terrorism.
The State Department renewed a warning Monday to defer travel to the kingdom because of "indications of terrorist threats aimed at American and Western interests."
=======================
(c) Associated Press Archive
December 5, 2002
Congressional critics fault Saudis for failing to fight terrorists, return children
Author: CONNIE CASS; Associated Press Writer
Saudi Arabia's effort to bolster its image as an ally in the war on terrorism met with skepticism Wednesday from lawmakers who complained the Saudis have failed to curb Islamic radicalism and refused to help return U.S.-born children abducted by Saudi parents.
Critics pointed to a recent Kuwaiti newspaper report quoting Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef as suggesting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were instigated by Zionists instead of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi Arabian.
"The interior minister's comments only serve to confirm American suspicions about the Saudi government's commitment to the war on terror," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote to the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
Schumer urged the Saudi government to cut off funding of extremist Islamic schools that the senator called "the root of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world."
Another New York Democrat, Rep. Eliot Engel, said "the Saudis have shown again and again their complicity in some of the most vitriolic forms of anti-American, anti-Semitic rhetoric that leads to deadly terrorist attacks."
Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, accused the Saudi government of aiding and harboring Saudi parents, mostly fathers, who have abducted their children from the United States in violation of custody orders issued by U.S. courts.
Girls kidnapped to Saudi Arabia may never be allowed to return, even when they reach adulthood, Burton said, because women cannot leave that country without the permission of their male relatives.
Burton denounced the Saudis for refusing to turn over documents his committee subpoenaed from some of the embassy's U.S. lobbyists and lawyers, as well as Qorvis Communications, a public relations firm that Burton said is paid $200,000 per month by the Saudis.
The records could shed light on child custody cases and accusations that the embassy aided the abductors, Burton said. "If they're an ally of the United States, then they should work with us to return American citizens to the United States," said Burton, R-Ind.
Amid the criticism of Qorvis Communications' work for the Saudis, three of its founding partners announced Wednesday they were leaving for another firm. One of them, JimWeber, said they were joining Clark and Weinstock primarily for better business opportunities, but the Saudi work was also a factor.
"There was some concern on our part that the Saudi account was becoming dominant inside Qorvis and that could have some impact on our ability to market our services more broadly," he said.
President Bush has called on the Saudis to do more toward combatting terrorism, as well as returning U.S. citizens who were taken in defiance of court orders. But dealings with the oil-rich nation are delicate, especially as Bush tries to persuade the Saudis to support a possible war with Iraq.
The committee hearing came one day after Saudi Arabia launched a public relations blitz defending its efforts to fight terrorism and announcing new measures to deny financing to terror groups.
In a rare news conference representing the Saudi Embassy, Crown Prince Abdullah's foreign policy adviser, Adel al-Jubeir, said his nation also was a target of al-Qaida and eager to defeat terrorists. Saudi Arabia has been "unfairly maligned" and subjected to a campaign that "borders on hate," al-Jubeir said.
Asked about the child custody cases, al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia has worked to resolve the disputes and offered to negotiate a treaty with the United States to deal with the legal issues involved. "Is Chairman Burton serious about dealing with child custody cases or is he engaging in a publicity stunt?" al-Jubeir said Tuesday.
On Tuesday night, the Government Reform Committee tried to serve subpoenas on a lawyer, a lobbyist and a public relations consultant who have worked with the Saudi Embassy on the child custody issue. Burton said none of them could be found by U.S. marshals. "They've been hiding," he said.
The representatives of Patton Boggs law firm, The Gallagher Group and Qorvis Communications declined to appear at the hearing voluntarily but denied evading subpoenas.
Patton Boggs has no objection to partner Jack Deschauer appearing if the firm is "given adequate notice and adequate explanation of the scope of the questions committee wants to ask," said managing partner Stuart Pape.
Maureen Mahoney, a lawyer representing the Saudi Embassy, said the committee isn't entitled under international law to documents held by the embassy's consultants.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Let it snow
As the nation’s Capitol is under several feet of snow, the Obama Administration comes out with a new agency on global warming. No kidding!
Having lived in Washington, D.C., I understand shutting down the government. When a budget wasn’t passed and the federal government was shut down, I was naive enough to have considered myself “essential staff”. Wrong! Though I was White House Liaison to the U.S. Department of Education, I was quickly told I wasn’t essential. So much for work ethics.
I also was working that the Department of Interior when every employee was sent home. Being smarter than everyone else, I decided to stay and work and leave after the rush. Fortunately, a few of my friends had the same idea. Also fortunately, someone had the key to the Secretary’s kitchen and permission for us to help ourselves to contents of the refrigerator and we had a mighty fine meal.
But a snow that shuts Congress down – now that’s something to cheer about. It’s costing taxpayers $100,000 a day – so the media claims. But I anticipate it’s saving us money. If the federal government isn’t operating and Congress isn’t spending more money they don’t have, I anticipate we might just be saving money.
Let is snow,
Let it snow,
Let it snow.
Having lived in Washington, D.C., I understand shutting down the government. When a budget wasn’t passed and the federal government was shut down, I was naive enough to have considered myself “essential staff”. Wrong! Though I was White House Liaison to the U.S. Department of Education, I was quickly told I wasn’t essential. So much for work ethics.
I also was working that the Department of Interior when every employee was sent home. Being smarter than everyone else, I decided to stay and work and leave after the rush. Fortunately, a few of my friends had the same idea. Also fortunately, someone had the key to the Secretary’s kitchen and permission for us to help ourselves to contents of the refrigerator and we had a mighty fine meal.
But a snow that shuts Congress down – now that’s something to cheer about. It’s costing taxpayers $100,000 a day – so the media claims. But I anticipate it’s saving us money. If the federal government isn’t operating and Congress isn’t spending more money they don’t have, I anticipate we might just be saving money.
Let is snow,
Let it snow,
Let it snow.
Monday, February 8, 2010
New global warming agency? Obama just doesn't get it
Obama just doesn't get it. Now that Climategate is open and all the government-funded scientists are scurrying for cover as more scandals come to light, Obama wants to name a new government agency dedicated to "addressing the impending doom of global warming." http://townhall.com/blog/g/a1cda50e-91c0-4843-be69-d3c72f574b50?comments=true&commentsSortDirection=Descending It's the economy, Obama - back off cap and trade, global warming, and creating new government agencies.
While the Washington, D.C. is shoveling out of record snow with more to come. It's clear Obama just doesn't get it.
While the Washington, D.C. is shoveling out of record snow with more to come. It's clear Obama just doesn't get it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Scientific Fraud – the Global Warming Hoax
Climategate opens the door to more lies and manipulation of data…scientific fraud!
Here is a must-read from AFP Board Member Walther Williams which appeared in TownHall this week:
“John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.”
Those of us in the “real world” don’t worship at the altar of scientists or the planet as do the global warming hysteria cults. And more Americans are learning that global warming isn’t man made, but the global warming hype is. Here’s how Williams puts it:
“Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake.”
Read it all here at: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming_update
Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
Here is a must-read from AFP Board Member Walther Williams which appeared in TownHall this week:
“John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.”
Those of us in the “real world” don’t worship at the altar of scientists or the planet as do the global warming hysteria cults. And more Americans are learning that global warming isn’t man made, but the global warming hype is. Here’s how Williams puts it:
“Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake.”
Read it all here at: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming_update
Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
Texas’ curriculum program earns an “A”
Here we go - bragging again. Well, with so much going wrong with government, it's time we focus on some positive news. And the Lone Star State is tops for positive news.
Education Week released its Quality Counts annual report mid-January putting Texas on top. That's right - Texas earned an "A".
The report confirms that Texas does a superior job in crafting its own curriculum standards, which were created by the State Board of Education with input from thousands of Texans.
You might recall that Texas, along with Alaska, has refused to join the so-called "Race to the Top" effort this year to create national standards. We applaud Gov. Perry's standing firm not to fall into that black hole. If we wanted Texas kids educated like those in Washington, D.C., we'd be on that race (to the bottom).
Education Week released its annual Quality Counts report Jan 15, 2010, which this year focuses on the national standards debate and examines the quality of work states have done independently preparing their own standards.
Texas earned a grade of ‘A’ on standards, assessment and accountability, and ranked sixth in the country. The state earned a grade of 100 for both its standards and school accountability systems, and received a score of 86.7 for its student tests.
The report noted that 11 states said they had used the Texas standards when crafting their own standards.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=7784
Full Quality Counts information is available at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2010/01/14/index.html .
Education Week released its Quality Counts annual report mid-January putting Texas on top. That's right - Texas earned an "A".
The report confirms that Texas does a superior job in crafting its own curriculum standards, which were created by the State Board of Education with input from thousands of Texans.
You might recall that Texas, along with Alaska, has refused to join the so-called "Race to the Top" effort this year to create national standards. We applaud Gov. Perry's standing firm not to fall into that black hole. If we wanted Texas kids educated like those in Washington, D.C., we'd be on that race (to the bottom).
Education Week released its annual Quality Counts report Jan 15, 2010, which this year focuses on the national standards debate and examines the quality of work states have done independently preparing their own standards.
Texas earned a grade of ‘A’ on standards, assessment and accountability, and ranked sixth in the country. The state earned a grade of 100 for both its standards and school accountability systems, and received a score of 86.7 for its student tests.
The report noted that 11 states said they had used the Texas standards when crafting their own standards.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=7784
Full Quality Counts information is available at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2010/01/14/index.html .
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Athletic Turf Firm Paid Waxahachie ISD Facilities Director for German ‘Vacation’ to Tour its Sports Work
Mike Wright, a former Cedar Hill ISD facilities official who is now the director of facilities at Waxahachie ISD, was given a paid vacation to Cologne, Germany to attend a conference that showcased athletic upgrades and other sports facilities.
The revelation comes at an ironic time: WISD school board trustees heard at their January board meeting that there was an estimated $16-22 million upgrade estimate for athletic facility improvements — some of which would include a sizable upgrade to Lumpkins Stadium, where the Waxahachie Indians football team plays.
My red flags started going off when the Waxahachie Daily Light published their "Crystal Ball" predictions for 2010 that hinted at a May 2010 bond election to pay for an athletic-and-school renovation and upgrade package that reached an estimate of $80 million, according to Joey G. Dauben, the publisher of The Ellis County Observer and news editor at The Ellis County Press, to date the only publication to report about the controversy.
The director of The Ponder Group, the company who paid for Wright's trip to Germany, apologized to WISD for any bad publicity the trip might have caused, according to an e-mail obtained in an open records request.
The direct link to the documents: http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/?p=11360
The revelation comes at an ironic time: WISD school board trustees heard at their January board meeting that there was an estimated $16-22 million upgrade estimate for athletic facility improvements — some of which would include a sizable upgrade to Lumpkins Stadium, where the Waxahachie Indians football team plays.
My red flags started going off when the Waxahachie Daily Light published their "Crystal Ball" predictions for 2010 that hinted at a May 2010 bond election to pay for an athletic-and-school renovation and upgrade package that reached an estimate of $80 million, according to Joey G. Dauben, the publisher of The Ellis County Observer and news editor at The Ellis County Press, to date the only publication to report about the controversy.
"When I inquired about the May bond election, one trustee had no idea about it," Dauben said. "The more digging I did, the more this push for a bond package unraveled."
The director of The Ponder Group, the company who paid for Wright's trip to Germany, apologized to WISD for any bad publicity the trip might have caused, according to an e-mail obtained in an open records request.
The direct link to the documents: http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/?p=11360
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)