Wednesday, May 11, 2011

New Hampshire House Votes To Repeal Cap And Trade And Other Cap And Trade/Greenhouse Gas News

State by State Look at Cap And Trade News, EPA’s Greenhouse gas push On states, And A Supreme Court Oral Argument on Greenhouse Gas Emissions that is raising national concern

A.EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck (The Summary And 56 Page Detail Inside Look Into EPA’s Regulatory Push)

1. Page 8, Cramming Greenhouse Regulation On The States
“With time running out in 2010, EPA threatens states with construction bans for large industrial and manufacturing resources if the states did not make the necessary laws and regulatory changes”
2. Page 44 to 50, What You and The Legislatures Can Do
3. Page 51 to 52, State By State Look At EPA’s Regulatory Push

B. Supreme Court “Public Nuisance” Lawsuit (News Release And 84 Page Argument)

“The federal appellate court below called this case ‘an ordinary tort suit’ and ruled it could go forward. In fact, the case is unprecedented. The legal issues before the Supreme Court today are technical ones at this stage of the case. But if the appellate court decision is affirmed, it would eventually mean anyone could sue any entity – including individual humans – who emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”

Articles Of The Week

State Utilities Ask EPA To Boost Regional Cap And Trade

NH Votes To Repeal Cap And Trade

Climate Activists Target States With Lawsuits

Summary of EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck

EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck Provided By American Legislative Exchange Council

Reactions To A Supreme Court Global Warming Case

The Global Warming Nuisance Supreme Court Lawsuit

Other Climate Change News

RGGI News DE Wants Out, PA Doesn’t Want In, NH And NJ Making Progress

Bills To Bar EPA Green House Gas Rules

A New Front – What Is Happening State by State

New York RGGI: A Few Sighs Of Relief Over Cuomos Budget

California: State Cap And Trade Programs Under Fire

Massachusetts Cooling To Global Warming Alarmists

Record Cold Linked To Global Warming The Urban Legend Grows

Christie Considers Pulling Out Of RGGI

Global Warming Flatliners

EPA And Oil Production

Greenhouse Gases And The Courts

Maine Lawmaker Proposes To Withdraw State From RGGI

Reject RGGI

RGGI Cap And Trade

RGGI Is Not Causing High Energy Costs

Lawmakers Urged To Protect Ratepayers By Rejecting DEP Standards

Midwest Cap And Trade Is It Dead Or No?

Pew Global Center on Cap And Trade

Thursday, May 5, 2011

How To Protect Your Property Rights Against ICLEI/Sustainable Development

Concerns Over ICLEI/Sustainable Development Grows

Article Of The Week

March 2011 List Of ICLEI Cities (Updated List)

How To Fight Back Against Sustainable Development

ICLEI Can Not Be Constitutionally Joined By Any City Or Local Government

States Against ICLEI

Texas: A Threat To Personal Property Rights

Kansas: Jaco Tax Dollars and Agenda 21

Louisiana: Educating Towns On Agenda 21

In Utah: ICLEI Threatening Property Rights One Community At A Time

Washington State: Kick Iclei Out!!_20100410407/

South Carolina and Sustainable Development

The Anti ICLEI Movement In New York

Montgomery County Pennsylvania Rejects Agenda 21

Richmond VA: Remove ICLEI!!

New Mexico: How Sacred Is Your Property

Alaska: ICLEI Questions

In Texas: Agenda 21 stirs questions: Contention In Las Cruces

Washington State: Property Rights And Sustainability Groups Focus On FourC Forum

Democrats Against ICLEI

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Update On States Right To Work Legislation

Articles Of The Week

Business Roundtable Statement On NLRB Action Against Boeing

Obama Administration Attempting To Force Out CEO Over Marketing Violations

NLRB v Jones And Steel Corporation

“It also signaled an end to the Supreme Court's striking down New Deal laws that sought to reshape the national economy. From Jones onward the Court permitted the federal government to take a dominant role in matters of commerce. The balance of power between the federal government and state governments shifted dramatically in the years following this decision.”

States That have Passed Right To Work Laws

Mass Democrats Vote To Restrict Public Sector Union Collective Bargaining

Done: Scott Walker Signs Union Regulation Bill

NH Senate Passes Right To Work Bill By A Veto Proof Majority

Ohio Senate Passes Bill TO Cut Bloated Union Salaries And Benefits

Indiana House Passes Right To Work Law

Other Union News

Forced Unionism Hot In West Viriginia (Gov. Manchin and Obama Support Union Monopoly Bargaining)

New Jersey: Workers Rights Are At Stake In Labor Battles Nationwide, Not In The Way Union Bosses Claim

Gary Jason: California Needs Right To Work Laws

Do Not Pass Go: Missouri Rallies Halts Republicans Anti Union Bills

Debate Over Right To Work laws Rages In Maine

Vermont Union Facts

Rhode Island Considers Collective Bargaining bill

Right To Work On The March In Statehouses

What Unions Are Saying

AFCME international Passes Battle For Workers Rights Resolution

SEUI: Right To Work Legislation Doesn’t Build The Economy

AFL-CIO: SO Called Right To Work Legislation Don’t Boost Jobs

Thursday, April 21, 2011

State Referendums And Initiatives

Video Of The Week

Steve Wynn On The State Of The Economy And Obama

State Initiatives And Referendums

I have received several emails on initiative and referendum questions. There is no easy answer since each states constitution and requirements are different. Below is information provided on this subject. Communities will have to come together to research and understand laws as well as understand referendums, initiatives and community concerns.

Each Secretary of States website should provide a manual to help you understand the procedures for any initiative or referendums process within the state depending on the states Constitution. The link, Initiative And Referendum Institute below will get you started on what to look for and what to do for each of the 50 states.

Defining Initiatives And Referendums From The Legal Dictionary

The right reserved to the people to approve or reject an act of the legislature, or the right of the people to approve or reject legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature.

The referendum power is created by state constitutions and is conferred on the citizens of a state or a local subdivision of the state. Referendum provides the people with a means of expressing their opinion on proposed legislation before it becomes operative as a law. The power of referendum does not permit the people to invalidate a law that is already operative but suspends or annuls a law that has not yet gone into effect. In this sense, referendum is similar to a governor's Veto power. Also, by referendum the people may reinstate an act that the legislature has expressly repealed.

The referendum, along with the initiative, are the two forms of direct legislation adopted by many states during the direct democracy movement of the early twentieth century. Referendum allows the people to state their opinion on laws that have been enacted by the legislature, and the initiative allows the people to propose their own laws. Thus, in the states that have adopted the initiative and referendum, the people essentially form another branch of the legislature, having the ability both to enact laws and to overturn laws passed by the elected legislature but not yet in effect. An initiative or a referendum passed by the people has the same force and effect as any act of the legislature. A referendum may be challenged on constitutional grounds, on grounds that proper procedures were not followed in the referendum process and election, or on grounds that the referendum or initiative was outside the scope of authority granted by the state constitution. Also, in some states the governor may veto an initiative or referendum.

The general initiative and referendum were first adopted in the United States in South Dakota in 1898, and many states soon followed. The movement toward direct legislation did not grow from a desire of the people to exercise the legislative function directly. Rather, many people distrusted their legislative bodies, believing that large corporations and powerful groups of individuals were corrupting legislation. The power of referendum made most legislation subject to the will of the people.

The referendum power is derived solely from a state's constitution and applies to that state's laws; people do not have the right to challenge federal legislation by referendum. The right of referendum and the procedure to be followed in exercising the referendum right are set forth in the state's constitution and statutes. The referendum process is essentially the same in every state. First, there must be a petition for referendum that states, among other things, the title and nature of the legislative act the petition seeks to have submitted for referendum. The petition is then circulated for signatures. Generally, anyone eligible to vote may sign a petition for referendum, even if he or she is not registered to vote. When the required number of signatures is collected, the petition is filed. If the petition is certified as sufficient, the referendum measure is placed on the election ballot for approval or rejection by the people. If the required number of votes, usually a majority of the votes cast, are in favor of the referendum, it passes. Usually, the people vote on a referendum measure during the general election, but special referendum elections also may be held.

In some states there is no limit on the referendum power, and any law may be challenged by referendum. In many states, however, the constitution creates exceptions to the referendum power for certain types of legislation. Commonly, constitutional provisions regarding referendums create an exception for laws necessary for the support of the state government and state or public institutions, because a referendum on any such measure might cause a branch of the government to cease to function. This exception applies mainly to tax and appropriation measures. Also, most states create an exception to the referendum power for laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, thereby allowing the legislature to exercise the Police Power unimpaired. Finally, measures declared by the legislature to be emergency measures are usually not subject to referendum.

Define a State Referendum

Initiative And Referendum Institute

More on initiatives and Referendums

Thursday, April 14, 2011

The Slight Of Hand Budget Deal

What The history of Municipality Bankruptcy looks like, The “slight of hand” budget deal, Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget Spending Plan, Boehner’s statement on the $38 billion deal and the bullet point plan to cut the budget, Paul Ryan’s 10 Year Budget Plan, Rand Paul’s Five Year Budget Plan, George Soros and some Democrats say keep spending…AHHHH…One Big Happy Spending Dysfunctional Family!!!

House Speaker John Boehner is correct when he said, “It is not a revenue problem…It is a spending problem.”

Rand Paul’s Shutdown Prevention Act

Videos of The Week

Rep. Jason Chaffetz – The Budget Shell Game

George Soros Says The US Can Take On More Debt (US Debt is $14.2 Trillion with another $1 trillion to be spent by October of this year in 2011…Huh!!…)

Article of The Week

The History Of Municipality Bankruptcy: The Bankruptcy That Isn’t (Interesting Read!!)

The Slight Of Hand Numbers In The Budget Deal Provided By

Smoke. Mirrors. Sleight of hand. Sleight of mouth. Lies.

The budget deal of 2011 is voodoo on the American people. You have lied to us about the true size of the cuts this budget deal supposedly contains.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the cuts were an "historic" $78.5 billion. But that was based on hoped for spending, not real spending.
Then the story changed. The reported number was $38.5 billion in ACTUAL cuts. Most of you politicians agreed that this was still "historic," but it was really just more hocus pocus . . .

The claimed $38.5 billion is really just a magic trick. Another lie.
The National Journal reports that the real cuts to the discretionary programs the GOP was supposedly targeting amount to a mere $14.7 billion.

In other words, the remaining $23.8 billion were MAGICAL cuts, NOT real cuts! But beware, because I know how your bad magic works . . .

The Associated Press reports that you simply failed to renew spending associated with the economic crisis that WASN'T supposed to be repeated anyway! For instance, Congressional leaders gave themselves credit for . . .

* $350 million from a 2009 program for dairy farmers who were then suffering from low milk prices
* $650 million that had been a one-time infusion into highway programs
* $1.5 billion in "savings" relative to last year because you gave the President only $1 billion in "high-speed" rail grants
The Associated Press further reports that another $5 billion came from an arcane bookkeeping rule that allows you to claim an entire victim compensation fund as a cut, just because you put a cap on payments out of that fund. Neat trick.
But I have to wonder if it will lead to members of Congress being prosecuted for accounting fraud under the Sarbanes-Oxley law?

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, the law doesn't apply to the magicians of Capitol Hill. I'm not allowed to do your accounting gimmicks.

But the illusions continue. Congressional leaders also gave themselves credit for . . .

* Cuts to earmarked money piles, when the House had already banned earmarks back in January
* Four czars the President had already eliminated
* Other items PREVIOUSLY scheduled to be de-funded
* $2.5 billion that could NOT possibly be spent this year on highway repairs
* A $3.5 billion surplus from a program that provides health care to children of low-income families

A statement provided by House Speaker John Boehner (Thanks to a fellow concerned citizen for sharing the information)

• THE LARGEST SPENDING CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would mean zero cuts.
• HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDING CUTS OVER THE NEXT DECADE. The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.
• OFFICIALLY ENDS THE “STIMULUS” SPENDING BINGE. The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment.
• SETS STAGE FOR TRILLIONS MORE IN SPENDING CUTS. Clears the way for congressional action on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget – The Path to Prosperity – which cuts trillions in spending and offers a long-term blueprint for American job creation.
• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE ON REPEAL OF OBAMACARE. The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.
• NEW TOOLS IN THE FIGHT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE. The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions - who can't meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what's happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.
• DENIES ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE IRS. The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues. This increased funding is denied in the agreement.
• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE & DEBATE ON DE-FUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD. The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
• BANS TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The agreement includes a complete ban on federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment (“D.C. Hyde”).
• MANDATORY AUDITS OF THE NEW JOB-CRUSHING BUREAUCRACY SET UP UNDER DODD-FRANK. The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings.


• The American people have just won the largest real dollar spending cut in American history. To help create a better environment for job creation, House Republicans successfully negotiated $38.5 billion in Washington spending cuts for this year just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would mean zero cuts.
• These cuts are historic. They represent the largest year-to-year spending cut since World War II.
• The cuts in spending for this year represent almost two-thirds of those contained in H.R. 1. The agreement shows the American people that the Republicans they sent to Washington did what they said they would do by fighting President Obama and Senator Harry Reid over the spending trajectory in this country.
• This agreement cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade.
• While these cuts are historic, they are woefully inadequate to cure our nation’s spending-drive debt crisis because they represent only a fraction of the problem. However, House Republicans have struck a historic blow to the culture of spending in Washington.
• These cuts are critical because they represent the first step to taking our nation off the path to national bankruptcy, to giving employers the confidence they need to expand their businesses, and to sparing our children of lives indebted to the Chinese.
• The reality is that House Republicans control one-half of three branches of government in Washington, and President Obama and Washington Democrats have fought our efforts to cut spending every step of the way.
• We fought to keep the government open so we could cut spending. They wanted to shut the government down to keep spending money we don’t have.
• We have to stop spending money we don’t have. We have to stop borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.
• If families across America have to tighten their belts, Washington should do the same.

• We didn’t get into this crisis overnight, and we will not get out of it overnight. That is why House Republicans will now advance our fight from saving billions of dollars to saving trillions of dollars as we turn our focus in earnest to Chairman Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity budget.

Additional Debt And Budget News

Barack Obama’s Budget Plan

Representative Paul Ryan Budget Plan

Rand Pauls Budget Proposal">">

White House Details Cuts Made In Proposal

Debt Jumped $54 Billion In Eight Days

Looming Debt Ceiling

Actual Federal Expenditure Topped $1 Trillion

Friday, April 8, 2011

The Necessary And Proper Clause


Samples debates from the book The Origins Of The Necessary And Proper Clause

“Why, then, have the clause? It made clear that Congress would have the power to carry out the ends entrusted to it. But this did not mean Congress could do anything it chose to do. If the necessary and proper clause has often been referred to as the “elastic clause,” or the “sweeping clause” because it recognized incidental powers, this did not necessarily entail casting off all limits to its scope.”

“THE ORIGINS OF THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE begins with a sweeping survey of British statutes from the eighteenth century that granted power to illustrate, essentially, that they had little influence on American practice. Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman conclude that American practice is an “ocean apart” from British practice. The larger point of this preliminary and thorough analysis is to demonstrate “a care in drafting” statutes and constitutions in America that did not clearly exist across the ocean (p.47). This also reveals that “language mattered” and those who first interpreted the necessary and proper clause – Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Marshall – all acted “on that assumption” (p.51). This leads the authors to conclude that the American Constitution “was a carefully constructed instrument” (p.51). This being so, the authors turn in a more focused manner to the riddle of “necessary” and “proper.””

“Turning to the drafting of the Constitution, Natelson argues that members of the Convention had not only been exposed to the ideal of fiduciary trust, but tended to think of government in terms of agency. This may be particularly so of the Committee of Detail as all but one of its members were lawyers. The crucial aspect of this analysis is that “proper” was not simply thrown in as a reiteration of “necessary.” As Natelson argues, “The word ‘necessary’ was inserted into the proposed Constitution to communicate that Congress would enjoy incidental powers. The separate insertion of the word ‘proper’ strongly suggests it had a meaning separate from necessary, and almost certainly a restrictive one” (p.93). And, in this case, proper was a reference to Congress’ fiduciary responsibilities. Thus even if it had implied powers, it needed to exercise them in a manner consistent with its delegation of powers – that is, in a “proper” fashion.”

The Origin Of The Necessary And Proper Clause

If You Would Like To Purchase The Origins Of The Necessary And Proper Clause

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Transformation Of The Educational System

Thanks to the hard work of Michael Chapman who descibes in detail how the UN and the United States Government has changed the Educational System in the United States.(the video is 60 minutes) I broke down the video and provided the links discussed to back up the information.

It is hard to believe that something like this is possible, but it is. Fortunately, parents are able to choose the schools they want their children to attend.

Continue to educate each other.

How is Sustainable Development and Education tied together? Through The No Child Left Behind passed by George W. Bush and is being reinitiated by Barack Obama:

Some Highlights From The Video

-March 26th MN Governor Signs The Declaration Of World Citizenship
-The Department Of Educations in partnership with OERI (Office Of Education and Research And Improvement) by design is to Implement World Citizenship ideology and Sustainable Development in the schools
-8th Grade School Book, A More Perfect Union - is teaching that the Constitution can CHANGE WITHOUT AMENDMENT - "The Constitution is not a rigid document"
-The Declaration Of Independence is now being taught as a document that limits the people instead of it being taught as the foundations of our freedom
-The 9th and 10th amendment is not taught in schools
-National Council For Socials Studies Had this to say
1.Total Transformation Of Our Society
2.Facts and Information (Knowledge) no longer primary purpose of education
3.Connection between economic (sustainable)development and human capitol (labor)
-Education of Sustainable Development equals preparation for Global Citizenship (Agenda 21)
-The Challenge Of Governance - "Zoning is the system of land control that gives the government the power to define the use of land in certain areas"
-National Content And Standards in Economics says Government often defines and protects property rights
-2003, Then Senator Steve Kelly said "The Declaration has no legal status in defining peoples rights and privileges
- The UN has Declared 2005 to 2015 The Decade Of Education on Sustainable Development and had designated UNESCO as the lead agency to promote and Integrate Sustainable Development in all levels of Education.

Video Of The Week

Michael Chapman - All About Education

No Child Left behind ties together the Workman Investment Act, Educate America Act, and The School To Work Act. Here are the links:

No Child Left Behind

Workforce Investment Act

Goal 2000 - Educate America Act

The School To Work Act in 1994

Sustainable Development, Education, And The Economy

Agenda 21 Chapter 36: Promoting Education, Public Awareness, And Training

In The ESD Toolkit says: World Citizenship encompasses the values, constellation of principles, attitudes and behaviors that the people of the world must embrace if sustainable development is to be realized.

Regional Education Laboratory Program

National Council Of Social Studies

What Democracy Means To Ninth Graders

National Council For Education

8th Grade School Book - A More Perfect Union

The Challenge Of Governance