Keep in mind that we’re not taking a position on climate science. We simply believe the EPA has no constitutional authority to regulate greenhouse gases without specific legislation from Congress. In addition, the EPA’s proposed regulations violate the intent of the Clean Air Act at the cost of harming the economy. Finally, as the letter below shows, CO2 emissions are already falling, without government involvement!
You can copy of borrow from my sample letter . . .
Please do not entangle us in more top-down federal regulation. Specifically, oppose the attempt to attach Amendment 4174 to the latest appropriations bill (H.R. 4899), or to any other bill for that matter.
This amendment would force local governments to unionize their police and firefighting employees. This is a decision that MUST be made by local ELECTED governments, and NOT by the increasingly dictatorial federal government.
I would add to this that the unionization of supposed public servants appears to be a real problem. Government employees seem to be looting the taxpayers they are supposed to serve. For instance, according to the New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/27v8jbq
1. Roughly 3,700 retired “public servants” in New York are receiving pensions in excess of $100,000 a year
2. 22 retirees receive more than $200,000 per year, and one receives more than $300,000 Read More »
* trillion-dollar deficits will make Congress reluctant to create more tax-and-spend programs
* yet they will want to keep their power and influence
* which means they will likely impose more requirements and regulations on states, business, and even YOU
We think we are witnessing a fundamental change in the way Americans interact with their government. In years gone by citizens were submissive. When the politicians spoke, we listened. When they told us to jump, we asked them how high. When they proclaimed an issue settled, we meekly accepted their dictate. But not any longer.
Americans are increasingly fighting against Statist proposals not only before they pass, but also after. The REAL ID scheme for a national identity card was an early example (and DownsizeDC.org was the first to call for repeal). Now the healthcare bill is another example. But . . .
This change in the American people still has a long way to go. Please consider . . .
How many of the 58% who desire repeal will actually take the time to inform their elected representatives of this?
We expect that the number is still relatively small — maybe a few hundred thousand out of the 174 million Americans reflected in the number 58%. But . . .
Be of good cheer. There are many silver linings in what may seem to be a completely dark cloud. Let’s think about what just happened . . .
* Statist Democrats have waited three decades to take over healthcare
* Their last attempt, in 1993-94, was a bust
* And aside from those two years, they haven’t controlled Congress and the White House since the Carter years
* Now, it’s already fairly obvious that their current control won’t last long
After all . . .
* The American electorate leans conservative/libertarian and libertarian/liberal, NOT Statist Liberal
* Public dislike for Statism is why the Statist Republicans got fired in 2008, and it will likely cause many Statist Democrats to be fired too, starting this year
We think this explains the Democrats’ suicidal determination to pass their healthcare bill now, at all costs, in spite of the massive public opposition . . .
It was now or never!
Even so, public pressure, including tens of thousands of letters from DC Downsizers, forced the Statist Democrats to make major changes . . .
They had to drop their “deem and pass self-executing rule,” by which they hoped to make the Senate healthcare bill the law of the land, without ever voting for it.
You made the House Democrats do something they didn’t want to do. You made them cast a direct vote for the hated Senate bill.
Tax-funded bribery is also becoming a major issue. Witness the furor over the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. Public pressure made the Statist politicians retreat on this issue as well.
You also killed the so-called “public option,” which would have put us on the fast track to fully Socialist healthcare. As it stands now, the bill Congress actually passed more resembles Socialism’s kissing-cousin, Corporate Fascism. This is why . . .
This series addresses the War on Terror. While my stances on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are very clear, in this piece I will propose what to do with Guantanamo Bay and its prisoners. In Part 1, I explained the history of Guantanamo for knowing its history is key to understanding what should be done with this military base. In this piece, I will dissect a recent editorial published in the local newspaper by the incumbent Congressman and then propose my solutions on how to handle Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Following this, no current discussion on terror would be complete without discussing the controversial body scanning and I will add my comments and solutions on airline safety. The last part will summarize border security and just how dangerous the war on terror is – not only to our soldiers who risk their lives everyday and avoiding financial ruin as a country, but also to our liberties as a free society.
Readers should be aware that the incumbent, Congressman Dent, in my congressional race sits on Homeland Security and is a rabid supporter of the Bush and Obama administrations’ War on Terror. While I do not question his motives to protect the American people, I do very much oppose his actions and ineffective solutions. Our country’s leaders have not only plunged our nation into expensive, preemptive, and unjust wars for the past decade, but have embarked on a vast extension of a modern-day police state. It is the duty of every citizen to question whether these new restraints over our lives are, in fact, beneficial. I view the infringement of civil liberties that are protected by our Constitution as not only illegal but unnecessary and immoral.
The original source has been moved to the Morning Call archives here, but a modified version is available on Politico. In quotation marks are quotes from the Congressman, followed by my comments explaining my logic.
A fellow citizen contacted me this morning concerning your recent vote to approve the spending of $503 million in HR 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, last week with a 422-5 vote. This individual was distraught that Congress intends in the future to restrict the freedom of the internet, and after further review I believe her concerns are not unwarranted.
This $503 million-dollar bill enlarges and expands the funding of the existing Cyber Security Research and Development program in a time where overspending is a key concern. Section 105 tags $395 million for ‘Computer and Network Security Research Grants’ for the building of new buildings and research grants dedicated to subsidizing education and post-doctoral research. Another $108 million is tagged in Section 107 for the ‘Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service’ program which doles out free tuition in exchange for requiring recipients to work for the federal government.
HR 4061 copies section 11 and 12 of the highly controversial S 773 bill sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. This draconian bill, in section 18, gives broad executive power to the President to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” I see HR 4061 as part of a slow, stepwise progression to the possible licensing, regulation, seizure, and censuring of the internet.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling — which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions — and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.
The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.
The Judge later appeared on Fox Business News with David Asman to discuss the topic. Check it out below. It appears that Justice Alito’s “Not true” was more right than the snake oil salesman Obama would ever admit.
The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) requires that every bill must specify its source of Constitutional authority. Since our previous report in December, four more Representatives have signed on as sponsors of the EPA.