How they voted on the Buffett tax hike on job creation

The following senators voted to spread class warfare and implode any economic recovery by raise taxes on job-creating investment (the "Buffett rule.")

Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Mike Jackson for Congress campaign sputters, stalls

From today's Houston Chronicle:

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Mike Jackson‘s fundraising in CD36 has been less than impressive? Just over $200K total, with $50K of that being loans, and $75K on hand, for a veteran legislator who’s been running since the beginning and is the consensus favorite?...The guy who’s gonna win generally has no trouble raking in the dough. Anyone want to venture a theory about this?

Tax laws force Americans to give up citizenship to avoid divorce, jail

No man should have to leave the United States to seek freedom, but under our current tax regime that’s exactly what’s happening.

Last year nearly 1,800 Americans renounced their U.S. citizenship or handed over their green cards, Reuters reports.  They love the United States and consider themselves proud Americans, but complicated, uneven U.S. tax laws force many to renounce their citizenship to avoid being forced to divorce or go to jail for laws tax attorneys can’t even interpret.

That’s a record number since the Internal Revenue Service began publishing a list of those who renounced in 1998. It’s also almost eight times more than the number of citizens who renounced in 2008, and more than the total for 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined…

…The United States is one of the only countries to tax its citizens on income earned while they’re living abroad. And just as Americans stateside must file tax returns each April – this year, the deadline is Tuesday – an estimated 6.3 million U.S. citizens living abroad brace for what they describe as an even tougher process of reporting their income and foreign accounts to the IRS. For them, the deadline is June.

The National Taxpayer Advocate’s Office, part of the IRS, released a report in December that details the difficulties of filing taxes from overseas. It cites heavy paperwork, a lack of online filing options and a dearth of local and foreign-language resources.

For those wishing to legally escape the filing requirements, the only way is to formally renounce their U.S. citizenship. Last year, IRS records show that at least 1,788 people did, and that’s likely an underestimate. The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those who give up their citizenship, and some who renounced say they haven’t seen their name on the list yet…

…But those of more modest means renounce, too. They say leaving America is about more than money; it’s about privacy and red tape.

On April 7, 2011, Peter Dunn raised his right hand before a U.S. consular officer in Toronto and swore that he understood the consequences of giving up his U.S. citizenship. Dunn, a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen who has lived outside the United States since 1986, says he renounced because he felt American citizenship had become more of a liability than a privilege.

As an American, Dunn had to file tax returns and report all of his bank accounts – even joint accounts and his Canadian retirement fund. If he didn’t, he would be breaking U.S. law and could face penalties of up to $100,000 or 50 percent of his undeclared accounts, whichever is larger. Dunn says he was tired of tracking IRS policy changes, and he had no intention of returning to the United States. Renouncing his citizenship, as he puts it, was “a no-brainer.”

“If it was just me then it would be one thing,” says Dunn, a part-time investor who worried that having to share information with the IRS would deter future business partners – and upset his wife, who is Canadian. “Disclosing joint accounts I hold with my wife and anyone I ever want to do business with – that’s just too much. My wife’s account is none of their business.”…

…Around the world, American women’s clubs – known for promoting American culture overseas through Fourth of July celebrations and Thanksgiving dinners – are growing empathetic toward those who renounce.

The American Women’s Club in Dusseldorf, for instance, now links to renunciation information on its Website. The Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas has opposed new IRS rules, in part because the rules were pushing members to give up their citizenship. “The candidates are not tax-evaders or un-patriots,” reads the organization’s last annual report.

In Europe, American women say they feel pressure to renounce even from their husbands.
“American women married to non-Americans are only just now finding out that they have to disclose years and years of income and accounts,” says Lucy Stensland Laederich, a leader of the women’s club who lives in Bordeaux, France.

Laederich has been acting as the group’s liaison with politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and plans to attend a meeting to discuss expatriate tax issues with Maloney and Treasury Department officials on Tuesday.

“When they decide to come clean and report everything,” she says, “they have to go ask their husbands for all of their bank information, retirement funds, and investment accounts, everything.”

Some of their husbands, Laederich says, refuse to hand over information to the IRS. That leaves the women in difficult predicaments.

“Your options are to ignore the IRS and stick your head in the sand; take your name off of all the accounts and live in a completely cash economy; divorce; or renounce U.S. citizenship,” Laederich says. “We’ve seen all of these things happen.”

Originally posted at the LNCC

Democrats celebrate Ann Romney's birthday with misogynist slurs, calls for her death.

Twitchy reports: "After GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney wished his wife Ann a happy birthday on Twitter this morning,  liberals quickly responded with the new tone-y vitriol we’ve come to expect. They also attacked Mrs. Romney for saying, 'It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother.'"

Read them all here.

Obama campaign endorses Romney?

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod: "The choice in this election is between economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we are on..."

Vindicated Vitter vows to block pay hike for energy-blocking Salazar

A liberal assault on Sen. David Vitter’s attempt to block a pay raise for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has failed, because liberals simply made up the charges.

“The committee found that there was no substantial credible evidence that you violated the law or Senate rules,” the Senate Ethics Committee ruled.

A vindicated Vitter will continue to seek a block of Salazar’s raise.

“I’m glad that I killed Ken Salazar’s salary increase — he has completely failed us on energy policy,” Vitter said. “And I’ll absolutely place a hold on any raise for him in the future.”

But Senate Democrats, and some Republicans, oppose the move.

“Salazar makes about $19,600 less than other Cabinet secretaries because the Constitution prohibits a House or Senate member from being appointed to an executive branch job whose pay has risen during the lawmaker’s term. As a senator from Colorado, Salazar had voted to increase the salary for the Interior secretary. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted a lower salary for her post for the same reason,” The Hill reports.

Keith Olbermann's statement on his firing from Current TV

My full statement: 
I'd like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.

Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I've been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.

It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa

In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.

The four best legal arguments against ObamaCare

Damon W. Root, senior editor of Reason magazine and Reason.com, lays out the case:

1: The Individual Mandate Violates the Original Meaning of the Constitution

2. The Individual Mandate Rests on an Unbounded and Unprincipled Assertion of Federal Power

3. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Justified Under Existing Supreme Court Precedent

4. The Individual Mandate Threatens the Foundations of Contract Law

Rep. Gohmert: Breitbart's death a loss to ‘nation and freedom’ - The Hill's Video

Rep. Gohmert: Breitbart's death a loss to ‘nation and freedom’ - The Hill's Video

Obama bank rules mean no free checking for the poor

“Bank of America Corp. is working on sweeping changes that would require many users of basic checking accounts to pay a monthly fee unless they agree to bank online, buy more products or maintain certain balances,” The Wall Street Journal reports this morning.

“The search for new sources of income is especially pressing at Bank of America, where 2011 revenue dropped by $26.2 billion, or 22%, from its 2009 level.”

Why is revenue dropping?

“The fee experiments exemplify some unintended consequences of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulation overhaul, which clamped down on certain revenue sources of banks and motivated them to seek ways to make up the difference,” the Journal reports.

“The overdraft decision came just months before the Dodd-Frank law halved what financial institutions could charge merchants for accepting credit and debit cards. That took away $2 billion in annual revenue from the bank,” the Journal reports.

“The double hit prompted bank executives to look for new revenue ideas that could be fast-tracked because the outlook for the bank’s consumer operations was so bleak, said one person familiar with the planning. That was when it came up with the idea of a $5 monthly fee on certain customers who used their debit cards. It was a plan that could be implemented quickly and wouldn’t require a lot of new technology.”

Banks’ offers of free checking were intended to attract younger customers, but benefitted the poor at large.  Banks continued to offer it despite the loss because many account holders kept their business at that bank once they became more affluent as they got older.  Customers who once had free checking accounts would take out loans, purchase CDs and move up to charged checking accounts with more services. That’s where the banks made their money.

But unable under Dodd-Frank to make any more money off more affluent customers, which Obama saw as “profiteering,” banks are now forced to soak the young and poor to stay in business.

Thanks, Obama.

Suits in Strange Places: Take My Word For It, Gilhooley’s Is The Real Deal

Suits in Strange Places: Take My Word For It, Gilhooley’s Is The Real Deal: Gilhooley’s 221 9th St. San Leon, TX Eight line machine and a sailor's daughter Somethin' makes 'em crazy growin' up on t...

New ad mocks the failing, flammable Obama Volt

A new parody of the ad for the hideously expensive, poor-selling and oft-flammable Chevy Volt mocks the vehicle's massive government subsidies, its habit of bursting into flames and its ties to Barack Obama.

Go here to see the ad on YouTube, where it has already racked up over 300,000 views.  That's about how many taxpayer dollars it costs to produce just one Volt.

Tweet or share this by clicking below.

Obama Expensive Gas rule could hike gas prices by $0.25 a gallon

A new study by the independent consulting firm Baker & O'Brien finds a new Obama Expensive Gas Rule that Barack Obama is pushing through the EPA, which demanding the use of low-sulfur gasoline, would send gas prices skyrocketing, shut down as many as seven refineries, significantly decrease U.S. gasoline production and double reliance on foreign imports.

Along with the thousand of workers who would lose their jobs under the Obama rule, the study also finds gas prices could increase by as much as $0.25 a gallon, on top of the 200% increase in gas prices seen under the Obama administration.

"Obama's Expensive Gas Rule is a nuclear weapon in his ongoing war on your pocketbook," said American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald Ferguson.  "Obama is pushing this through his EPA cronies, instead of through Congress, because he knows accountable lawmakers would never let him get away with exploding the price of gas."

"This is why American Tradition Partnership has made passing the REINS Act a top priority," said Ferguson.

"Under REINS, any proposed rule with an impact greater than $100 million would need to be voted on by Congress.  The idea of having laws voted on my lawmakers instead of imposed by royal decree makes Obama and Gang Green explode with rage, but it's what the Constitution requires.  There would be no Obama Expensive Gas Rule under the REINS Act."

Go here to chip in $10 or more to support ATP's efforts to stop the Obama Expensive Gas Rule.

You don't have to be a bitter hypocrite to be liberal, but it helps

Granholm 2012: "Blaming the President for high gas prices is like blaming Rudy Giuliani for 9/11." http://ow.ly/1hEyJ5

Granholm 2005: Granholm demands Bush lower gas prices http://www.michigan.gov/granholm/0,4587,7-168-23442_21974-126331--,00.html

ATP wins yet another case against speech suppression by Mont. politicians

U.S. District court hands ATP latest legal victory, overturning vote record disclosure law

In American Tradition Partnership’s latest victory over Montana’s anti-speech campaign finances laws, in a Friday ruling U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell blocked Montana state laws requiring authors of political election materials disclose another candidate’s voting record.  Under the law, any vote cited by a challenger to an elected official must also cite other votes around the same time, without defining what that may be.  Intended to protect incumbents, it placed any challenger under threat of prosecution.

“There’s a reason American Tradition Partnership continues to win in court, and why Attorney General Bullock loses time and time again.  The Constitution is on our side,” said American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald Ferguson. “The political establishment in Helena has written these laws to suppress criticism of elected officials, which flies in the face of our founding principles.”

“Why are Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock doing everything they can to pass laws restricting what you can say about elected officials?  Could it have something to do with the endless tales of corruption and unethical behavior pouring out of their administration, which has seen one Commissioner of Political Practices forced to resign under investigation and another reprimanded by a federal court for the ‘petty bureaucratic harassment’ of conservatives?,” said Ferguson.

“There’s a reason every objective court sides with American Tradition Partnership.  The law is on our side.  We are fighting the corrupt political establishment strangling Montana. If Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock wants to get corruption out of Helena, they can start by cleaning up their own administration.”

The ruling was made in a suit brought against Attorney General Steve Bullock by American Tradition Partnership, a grassroots-based organization with wide membership across Montana.  It was heard by Judge Lovell of the United States District Court for the District of Montana in Helena.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court blocked enforcement of Montana laws prohibiting corporations from engaging in independent expenditures. ATP had won a victory on that suit in state court, only to see it overturned by the Montana State Supreme Court in a ruling that admittedly openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. ATP appealed the state Supreme Court ruling to the Supreme Court and won an injunction.

PHOTOS, VIDEO: Santorum stands with Arlen at Specter's stridently pro-abortion 1996 presidential announcement

Santorum occupied the place of honor next to the podium at Arlen Specter's 1996 presidential campaign announcement, where Specter says he's running to "protect a woman's right to choose," proclaims his outright opposition to social conservatism and vocally declares he's running to make the GOP pro-choice.

Watch the video here.

Santorum, occupying the seat of honor next to the podium at Arlen Specter's stridently pro-choice 1996 campaign announcement (March 30, 1995).

Santorum, occupying the seat of honor next to the podium at Arlen Specter's stridently pro-choice 1996 campaign announcement (March 30, 1995).

Santorum applauding in front of a "Republicans for Choice" sign.

Santorum and a "Pro Choice - Pro Specter" sign at the speech intended to declare war on pro-lifers.

Specter, with Santorum at his side: 

"In 1996, I intend to win the other house -- the White House -- with ten commitments to America...to champion tolerance and freedom, including a woman's right to choose...

"...Even though we have this historic opportunity for these achievements, there are those in our party who would lead us down a different path -- and squander this unique moment in our nation's history -- by using our political capital -- to pursue a radical social agenda -- that would end a woman's right to choose -- and mandate school prayer.

 

"When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, -- I say he is wrong. The First Amendment freedom of religion is as important today -- as when the Bill of Rights was written.


"When Pat Buchanan calls for a Holy War in our society, -- I say he is wrong. We don't need holy wars, -- we need tolerance and simple humanity.


"When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isn't qualified to be our President, -- I say the Republican Party will not be blackmailed. I and millions of other pro-choice Republicans -- will not be disenfranchised.


"I believe there is an important place in public life -- for people with deep religious and moral convictions. I am one of them. When I look at teenage pregnancies, -- the high crime rate, -- the fact that many high school graduates cannot read their own diplomas, -- there is no doubt that people with deep religious and moral convictions must be active in the political process. But it is not Christian, -- or religious, -- or Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics; -- or to advocate the intolerance and exclusion.


"I think Jack Kemp put it best -- when he said when it comes to moral values -- we must seek to persuade rather than impose. I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues -- and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women -- not by big government.


"I will lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform -- and replace it with language that respects human life, -- but also respects the diversity of opinion within our own Party on this issue. Let me say it as plainly as I can: Neither this nation -- nor this Party can afford a Republican candidate so captive to the demands of the intolerant right that we end up reelecting a president of the incompetent left.


(CROWD APPLAUDS. SANTORUM SMILES AND NODS)


"Ladies and gentlemen, that's a core line that bears repeating. Neither this nation -- it got the most applause -- nor this Party can afford a Republican candidate so captive to the demands of the intolerant right we end up reelecting a president of the incompetent left....I say it a third time. It got more applause the second time...."


Yes.  That was the televised announcement and speech Rick Santorum was sitting next to the podium for.

 

Obama supporter: 'The Cost of President Obama's Keystone XL Dithering'

From U.S. News & World Report's Mort Zuckerman, an avowed Obama supporter who is no conservative.

"... in Machiavelli's dictum, the president has been willing to wound but afraid to strike. He has contrived an excuse to delay a decision yet again. An environmental impact statement was issued by the State Department on Aug. 26, 2011, the conclusion of three years of reviews and negotiation...

"...The original Keystone pipeline won approval after two years and is operational. But in 2013, the Keystone XL (extension) will be in its fourth year of review, a Great Dither not justified when the State Department conducted three consecutive environmental reviews to reach its conclusion of minimal environmental impact. In that time, there have been many public hearings to satisfy local communities and private property owners. More than a dozen alternative routes have been surveyed, and TransCanada Corp., the builder, agreed to 57 special conditions beyond current federal pipeline regulations.

"The president wants a relatively short section of the route from Alberta through Nebraska reconsidered. It means the State Department will have to agree to a new understanding with Nebraska and secure the governor's approval. Given the long history of Keystone XL, that is not a big deal. By all accounts, it could be done within a couple of months. Yet after three years of satisfying intense reviews, the president says that decision will not come until 2013. Hello? That wouldn't have anything to do, would it, with appeasing a particular left-wing environmental lobby until after the general election?

"It's a calculation which assumes that the voters concerned about the energy future that Obama paraded will be less active than the more extreme environmental lobbyists—who, in fact, will never be satisfied with anything to do with villainous Big Oil. Throwing a sop to the leftist anti-oil campaigners and "four more years" are apparently more important to the president and his campaign advisers than reducing our dependence on those unstable regions he mentioned and maintaining the momentum of the small improvement in the lamentable unemployment totals.

"Notably, the Great Keystone Dither does not appeal to labor or indeed to all Democrats. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia put it well: "I'd rather buy from our closest ally and create jobs in America than push Canada to build a pipeline out to the West Coast of North America so that it ends up going to China. There is no question, this pipeline is a job creator with support of both labor and business. It needs to be built not for the benefit of one political party or one state, but for the benefit of America."

"A final go-ahead for the $7 billion shovel-ready project would have supported tens of thousands of jobs now: 20,000 in new, direct well-paid construction and manufacturing jobs, and roughly 100,000 in indirect jobs along the pipeline, according to the developer, TransCanada. But the president's political concerns seem more important than enraging the Canadians, than giving China more edge in economic competition, than the defense and national security interests of truly independent energy..."

Read the full article here.

RT @AKaczynski1 This totally should have been everyone's Mike DeWine photo for their articles.

ObamaCare mandate forces Wash. residents to pay for abortions

"(Washington state) lawmakers passed a bill requiring health insurers covering maternity care to also pay for abortions," the Associated Press reports this morning.

"Supporters said the bill would ensure that existing abortion coverage will be preserved once federal health insurance rules come into effect under the Affordable Care Act in 2014."

That statement is misleading, however.  Health insurers don't print their money, they get it from consumers.

So in reality, the employers and residents of Washington state are now forced to finance abortions.

First it was Obama threatening to shut down the entire federal government if even one penny of Planned Parenthood funding was touched.

Next, it was Planned Parenthood radicals bullying and threatening a women's cancer charity for suspending 0.07% of their billion-dollar empire, going so far to phone in death threats to cancer volunteers.

Now its leftists lawmakers forcing residents to finance abortions, a good chunk of which will find its way into the pockets of leftist lawmakers via the abortion industry's multi-million dollar political finance regime.

If we're learning one thing this year, it's that it's Democrats who are obsessed with social issues and willing to use force and threats to mandate compliance with their narrow (anti) religious views.

Welfare state continues to expand, and it's not all Obama's fault

“More than one in three Americans lived in households that received Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance in mid-2010,” CNN reports Tuesday.


“And when Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are included, nearly half of the nation lived in a household that received a government check, according to the analysis of third-quarter 2010 Census data done by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian-leaning think tank. That’s more than 148 million Americans,” CNN reports.

The culprit?  Democrat and Republican lawmakers, such as defeated Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who supported George W. Bush’s budget-busting plan to buy votes with a new Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

“Whether we like it or not, we know it’s not fiscally sustainable,” Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at Mercatus, tells CNN. “The bigger these programs, the bigger the voting block is against reform.”

Why are independent voters turning libertarian?

Aside from the fact we're right on everything 100% of the time.

Matt Welch looks at the growing phenomenon of independent voters backing libertarian candidates in this month's issue of Reason.

He writes, in part:

But even after the initial Iowa caucuses, exit polls showed something extraordinary: Independents are making up for the enthusiasm gap created by the declining rolls of Republicans, and they are breaking hard for the only libertarian in the race, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

The Iowa Republican caucuses had virtually the same voter turnout this year (122,000) as in 2008 (119,000), leading to many headlines like “Why the GOP Still Has an Enthusiasm Problem” (as Talking Points Memo put it). If anything, the problem for Republicans is worse than those numbers suggest.

In 2008 exit polls showed that 86 percent of Iowa caucusers self-identified as Republicans. In 2012 that share was down to 75 percent. The difference? Again, independents, whose ranks grew from 13 percent to 23 percent. And who did they favor? By more than 2 to 1, Ron Paul.

Paul received 43 percent of the independent vote, compared to 19 percent for runner-up Mitt Romney. He also led the field among those who had never previously voted in an Iowa Republican caucus (33 percent, compared to Rick Santorum’s 23 percent) and dominated among voters under 30 (48 percent to Santorum’s 23 percent)...

...The bad news for this legacy GOP is that voters have fresh memories of what big-government conservatism looks like, and they disdain it. The good news for those of us who share that disdain is that our numbers are growing.

ATP lauds their attorney, Jim Bopp, for passing resolution exposing Agenda 21

WASHINGTON – American Tradition Partnership, America’s largest grassroots advocate of rational environmental and energy policy is lauding its attorney, Jim Bopp, for his role in passing a Republican National Committee resolution exposing the dangers of using of the United Nation’s “Agenda 21” scheme in federal, state and local land use planning.

Jim Bopp, a Republican National Committeeman for Indiana, is representing American Tradition Partnership in its U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a Montana Supreme Court decision overturning a lower court’s ruling declaring that state’s ban on independent political expenditures unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v FEC ruling.

“Agenda 21 was written by foreign nations where people are property, for foreign nations where people are property.  It does not recognize, and if fact detests, your right to own a home, drive a car or have private property.  It achieves the phony goal of ‘sustainable development’ by declaring much of the United States off-limits to human use,” said American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald E. Ferguson.

“It is radical environmentalism in its purest form, a guttural hatred of humanity expressed in international policy jargon.  It has no place in any American state, county, city or town."

“Sustainable development is the new label they slapped over the old, faded word ‘socialism’ when it become too ugly to use,” said Ferguson. “So-called ‘sustainable development’ is just a plan to return the Earth to its Stone Age state by attacking modern nations through a campaign of intentional worldwide poverty.”

“This isn’t some dark conspiracy where UN lawyers drop into small town America and rewrite laws.  This is typical liberalism, where American liberals look to socialist-leaning international bodies that share their hate of the American ideals of private property and individual prosperity and adopt their teachings.  Incorporating U.N guidelines into their local planning authority is just their way of sneering down their noses at neighbors they consider inferior.  It’s typical abusive liberal arrogance, and it’s targeting your right to own property, a home and a car.” said Ferguson.

Agenda 21 is a land use planning mechanism developed by the United Nations to guide national and local policymakers in creating so-called “sustainable development.”

It does not recognize private property rights, restrictions on government abuse of eminent domain or other restrictions on government power Americans enjoy under the United States Constitution.

Despite that, American policymakers at the national, state and local levels are inserting portions of the abusive plan into local land use planning frameworks.  ATP staff and volunteer have defeated attempts to incorporate Agenda 21 language into local government plans in places like Sweet Grass County, Montana and Loudoun County, Virginia.

The text of the resolution follows:

 RNC Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
Helen Van Etten
Republican National Committeewoman for Kansas
Co-Sponsors:Carolyn McLarty
Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma
Kim Lehman
Republican National Committeewoman for Iowa
Paul Reynolds
Republican National Committeeman for Alabama
Demetra DeMonte
Republican national Committeewoman for Illinois
Solomon Yue
Republican National Committeewoman for Oregon
Donna Cain
Republican National Committeewoman for Oregon
Cindy Costa
Republican National Committeewoman for South Carolina
John Sigler
Republican State Chairman for Delaware
Steve Scheffler
Republican National Committeeman for Iowa
Peggy Lambert
Republican National Committeewoman for Tennessee
Jim Bopp
Republican National Committeeman for Indiana
Bruce Ash
Republican National Committeeman for Arizona
DeMarus Carlson
Republican National Committeewoman for Nebraska

Okla. nannystater targets 'violence'...with force and redistribution

Why do we need Libertarians in state legislatures?

For one, to stop government bullies from using bullying to stop bullying.

Follow me, here.

Unfortunately-named Oklahoma State Rep. William Fourkiller believes video games are responsible for obesity, violent behavior and bullying among kids, and he's going to do something about it.

The Stilwell Democrat is proposing a one percent statewide tax on so-called "violent videogames."

The money he would forcibly take from Oklahomans through the threat of arrest of businessowners who don't comply would be used to expand the size of government...to combat bullies and obesity.  Half of the money confiscated from Oklahomans would be funneled into the so-called “Bullying Prevention Revolving Fund.” The other half would be divvied up by bureaucrats in the “Childhood Outdoor Education Revolving Fund.”

He apparently doesn't recognize irony of using bullying tactics and obese government to battle bullying and obesity, but he does believe parents are incapable of raising their own children, and it's up to a larger army of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats to raise the state's children.

Fourkiller's real goal?  To create new government employees who can be relied upon turn out to vote for more government, and to create new government paychecks that government employee unions can skim off of to fund pro-government political campaigns.

Fact-checking Obama's State of the Union energy lies

There’s a gulf of facts between what Barack Obama said last night, and what the truth really is.  And like any gulf of resources, Obama doesn’t want you exploring it.

American Tradition Partnership drills down to the truth for you.  Obama’s claims on energy are in bold, and they are all false.  The truth follows his statements.

“Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”

Classic Obama sleight of hand.  Like his radical Gang Green campaign bankrollers, Obama opposes energy development.  But he knows that position will kill his campaign.  His solution?  Open land to permission to develop so he looks pro-jobs, but refuse to grant the permits so he shuts down jobs.

“…last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.”


As even the reliably liberal Washington Post notes, “The Energy Department cited a host of reasons why foreign oil imports have declined, noting the main reason was “a significant contraction in consumption” because of the poor economy and changes in efficiency that began “two years before the 2008 crisis” — i.e., before Obama took office.”

“But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.”

A lie.  Many experts say the U.S. has around 10 percent of the world’s reserves, and American oil is often of a higher quality and easier to develop than other countries.  The U.S. has enough oil to last over a century.

“This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

Through shutting down granting of permits on land, a moratorium on deep-sea development followed by a virtual moratorium by not approving permits and now attempting to kill the Keystone energy pipeline, Obama has consistently opposed oil and gas development, our most efficient source of energy and a key driver of new jobs and prosperity.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

Obama has worked to stop the permitting of gas wells, and his EPA cronies are working to outlaw the 60-year-old safe practice of “clean water extraction,” known as “fracking.”

“And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock…”

Clean water extraction, or “fracking” is a 60-year-old technology.  It is not a product of Jimmy Carter-era government spending.

“Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.”

So-called “renewable” energy relies almost solely on “federal investments” (spending of taxpayer money) because it is too inefficient and expensive to be a practical source of power.  Being forced to double wasteful spending to keep it alive and enrich his campaign donors is noting to brag about.

And research has shown so-called “green power,” backed only by government mandates and spending, destroys more jobs than it creates.

“We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.”

The so-called “oil subsidy” he refers to is the business equipment depreciation deduction that ALL businesses get.  What he proposes is to monkey with federal tax law to target just oil companies for a tax hike, then redistribute their money to his campaign bankrollers in the “green” energy racket.

“Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.”

Like many of Obama’s failed proposals, he assumes private businesses do not know how to create profits, but his government planners do.  In reality, this is just a scheme to transfer taxpayers’ money to his campaign supporters who have invested heavily in failed green businesses.

That's the truth.  Help me hold Obama accountable for his job-killing campaign of lies.

Sincerely,

Donald Ferguson
Executive Director
American Tradition Partnership

P.S.  Help me hold Obama accountable to voters.  Go here to chip in $10 to stop Obama’s campaign of job-killing radicalism.

NCAA Baseball Preseason Rankings (A&M #7)

Texas A&M baseball will start the season ranked #7, according to Baseball America.

The Aggies start the season Feb. 17 against Illinois-Chicago at a renovated Olsen Field.  They start their final season in the Big 12 as the conference's top-ranked preseason team.

Baseball America's 2012 NCAA Baseball Preseason Rankings

1.     Florida
2.     Stanford
3.     South Carolina
4.     Arkansas
5.     Arizona
6.     Rice
7.     Texas A&M
8.     Louisiana State
9.     North Carolina
10.     Vanderbilt
11.     Georgia
12.     Georgia Tech
13.     Texas
14.     UCLA
15.     Texas Christian
16.     Clemson
17.     Arizona State
18.     Miami
19.     Oklahoma
20.     Florida State
21.     Central Florida
22.     Mississippi
23.     Oregon State
24.     Louisville
25.     Cal State Fullerton