The EPA Says "Bah, Humbug
By Timothy Lee
"Not even Ebenezer Scrooge had the stomach to fire people during the holidays.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, plans to move full speed ahead with new regulations on January 2 that will likely cost many Americans their jobs before the New Year’s Eve party hats have even been put away.
In a nutshell, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will treat emissions from renewable biomass energy the same as emissions from the use of fossil fuels, despite the fact that both policymakers and scientists have long considered biomass emissions to be carbon-neutral due to the life cycle of the forests from which biomass is produced.
This new rule and regulatory uncertainty could spell the end of the biomass energy industry by removing the carbon-neutral status of biomass and, consequently, the biggest incentive to continue investing in it. Recent estimates have shown that biomass generated from forest byproducts could supply as much as 15 percent of the nation’s renewable energy by 2021, yet this will likely never be realized if biomass producers are forced to comply with arbitrary, unfair and unnecessary regulations like those in the Tailoring Rule.
Unfortunately, the Tailoring Rule won’t just disincentivize the use of renewable biomass energy. It will also have widespread effects on our energy options, as well as jobs and the economy.
Forisk Consulting recently released a new study on the economic impact of the Tailoring Rule, which found that the regulations on biomass will result in the loss of over 134 renewable energy projects, up to 26,000 jobs, and $18 billion in capital investment. According to the study’s authors, 23 biomass energy projects have already been placed in limbo due to regulatory uncertainty. In Wisconsin, for example, Xcel Energy Inc. halted plans for a biomass energy plant that would have brought over 100 jobs to Ashland, Wisc., as well as a needed source of domestic power for the entire area. Xcel Energy cited the expected cost increases and regulatory uncertainty as reasons for canceling plans for the plant—and they are likely to be one of many energy companies doing the same.
The negative economic impact will be especially felt in Appalachia and rural parts of the South, the Pacific Northwest, and the Northeast, where biomass energy shows great promise as a source for domestic clean energy and innovative new jobs.
In addition to harming domestic renewable energy development and the economy, the EPA commits a crime that Mr. Scrooge would never commit: wasting money. In President Obama's “stimulus” program alone, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy have collectively spent more than $100 million of taxpayer money to promote biomass power production.
The new study by Forisk Consulting only further confirms what bipartisan governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives, state and local lawmakers, scientists, and forestry industry insiders have been saying all along—that the Tailoring Rule will hurt energy development, jobs, and the economy at a time when we need all three to be thriving.
Even Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN), the outgoing Chair of the House Agriculture, said before the election, “[The EPA is] screwing things up. They’re raising costs for people, they’re raising the price of food, and I don’t think they’re accomplishing anything.”
The intransigent EPA isn’t yet listening to the bipartisan, nationwide outcry against the Tailoring Rule. Perhaps they will finally begin to pay attention to this latest round of hard facts about the impact of their regulations before it’s too late."
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
God Bless Obama
Seriously!
We should all be very thankful that Obama won the November 2008 election instead of John McCain. Why? Because Americans would not have awakened. Progressive McCain would have lulled Americans to sleep while pursuing the Progressive agenda. Instead, Obama has shocked America into seeing that our fundamental beliefs and freedoms are under attack.
Obama has shown Americans that before we elect the next President that we should take the time to learn as much as possible about the man/woman that we are supporting for the Office. If Americans would have done their job, they would have learned that Obama was raised by Communist parents and mentored by Marxists while growing up. They would have also discovered that he was unqualified to become the leader of the free world because he lacked any management, leadership, or finance qualifications - let alone any foreign affairs experience whatsoever. Instead, Americans were fooled by a man who gives good speaches (much like Hitler and Mussolini did without teleprompters).
Americans would have also learned that Obama has spent most of his life as a community organizer being trained by radical Saul Alinsky and following the tennants of extremists Cloward & Piven. It is no surprise that he has surrounded himself with Communists (Van Jones), Marxists (Anita Dunn), and extreme radicals (Mark Lloyd and Cass Sustein) in his administration. What more could you expect knowing his biography? We would have also learned that he is a true Narcisist - a dangerous "quality" for a man of high power.
Give Thanks
We owe Obama a big THANK YOU for making Americans aware that his agenda is out to destroy America ASAP by spending us into oblivion. We also learned that one man cannot do the job, even though he's trying as hard as possible. We also appreciate that he has some of the most powerful people in the world (George Soros) helping him to "Fundamentally Change America." John McCain would have been like Obama "Lite." Another Progressive with a much less ambitious agenda.
Thank Obama for giving us the Tea Party. Without him, it would never have come to pass. Now the Tea Party has become a strong political force and will remain so for some time. People have organized all over the USA to unit against Obama's "mild" form of tryanny. Now Americans are watching Washington closely and not permitting the old BS to continue any longer. Ironic that it took THIS President to actually make Congress accountable!! Thank YOU!
As we settle down to celebrate the birth of Christ, be thankful for what we have and remember to stand-up and fight for it.
We should all be very thankful that Obama won the November 2008 election instead of John McCain. Why? Because Americans would not have awakened. Progressive McCain would have lulled Americans to sleep while pursuing the Progressive agenda. Instead, Obama has shocked America into seeing that our fundamental beliefs and freedoms are under attack.
Obama has shown Americans that before we elect the next President that we should take the time to learn as much as possible about the man/woman that we are supporting for the Office. If Americans would have done their job, they would have learned that Obama was raised by Communist parents and mentored by Marxists while growing up. They would have also discovered that he was unqualified to become the leader of the free world because he lacked any management, leadership, or finance qualifications - let alone any foreign affairs experience whatsoever. Instead, Americans were fooled by a man who gives good speaches (much like Hitler and Mussolini did without teleprompters).
Americans would have also learned that Obama has spent most of his life as a community organizer being trained by radical Saul Alinsky and following the tennants of extremists Cloward & Piven. It is no surprise that he has surrounded himself with Communists (Van Jones), Marxists (Anita Dunn), and extreme radicals (Mark Lloyd and Cass Sustein) in his administration. What more could you expect knowing his biography? We would have also learned that he is a true Narcisist - a dangerous "quality" for a man of high power.
Give Thanks
We owe Obama a big THANK YOU for making Americans aware that his agenda is out to destroy America ASAP by spending us into oblivion. We also learned that one man cannot do the job, even though he's trying as hard as possible. We also appreciate that he has some of the most powerful people in the world (George Soros) helping him to "Fundamentally Change America." John McCain would have been like Obama "Lite." Another Progressive with a much less ambitious agenda.
Thank Obama for giving us the Tea Party. Without him, it would never have come to pass. Now the Tea Party has become a strong political force and will remain so for some time. People have organized all over the USA to unit against Obama's "mild" form of tryanny. Now Americans are watching Washington closely and not permitting the old BS to continue any longer. Ironic that it took THIS President to actually make Congress accountable!! Thank YOU!
As we settle down to celebrate the birth of Christ, be thankful for what we have and remember to stand-up and fight for it.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
More Checks & Balances Coming!
Good News Folks
Roughly 6 Red States will pick up new House of Representative Seats because of the 2010 Census results. Our nation's population is growing in the Red states in the South and the West.
The Census report indicated that our population is growing by about 9-10 percent in ten years since the last Census. That's dropped from 13-14% in the last Census.
What the Numbers Mean
What this boils down to is that several states will gain seats and a few will loose seats.The States to gain include Texas, Arizona, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Ohio and New York will loose two House Seats while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will each loose one seat. There are rumors circulating that Barney Frank's Congressional District may take a hit as well as Dennis Kucinich (D, OH). Gee, that's a real shame if it's true. We could loose two long-term Progressives without worrying. Barney Frank has been in office for over 30 years. That's WAY TOO LONG for the guy who was partly responsible for the mortgage and housing market failures!
Redistricting
These shifts in population growth will favor the Republicans and the Tea Party movement. This in-turn will have a strong effect on the 2012 Presidential election as well. Remember that the President is elected by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote. With this change in direction, the President will have to campaign more in the Red states because that's where the power has shifted in the Electoral College. Obama literally ignore the bulk of these places and devoted most of his time and money campaigning in the large coastal cities. This strategy will have to change in 2012.
The Census Bureau will begging releasing the new state apportionment numbers in February. This will cause states to re-draw Congressional Districts and decide who comes and who goes.
HOT DOG! We can't wait!
Roughly 6 Red States will pick up new House of Representative Seats because of the 2010 Census results. Our nation's population is growing in the Red states in the South and the West.
The Census report indicated that our population is growing by about 9-10 percent in ten years since the last Census. That's dropped from 13-14% in the last Census.
What the Numbers Mean
What this boils down to is that several states will gain seats and a few will loose seats.The States to gain include Texas, Arizona, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Ohio and New York will loose two House Seats while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will each loose one seat. There are rumors circulating that Barney Frank's Congressional District may take a hit as well as Dennis Kucinich (D, OH). Gee, that's a real shame if it's true. We could loose two long-term Progressives without worrying. Barney Frank has been in office for over 30 years. That's WAY TOO LONG for the guy who was partly responsible for the mortgage and housing market failures!
Redistricting
These shifts in population growth will favor the Republicans and the Tea Party movement. This in-turn will have a strong effect on the 2012 Presidential election as well. Remember that the President is elected by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote. With this change in direction, the President will have to campaign more in the Red states because that's where the power has shifted in the Electoral College. Obama literally ignore the bulk of these places and devoted most of his time and money campaigning in the large coastal cities. This strategy will have to change in 2012.
The Census Bureau will begging releasing the new state apportionment numbers in February. This will cause states to re-draw Congressional Districts and decide who comes and who goes.
HOT DOG! We can't wait!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Food for Thought
Never Forget This
We get our rights from God and NOT from the government. For example: Government healthcare is NOT an unalienable right granted by the government.
We are endowed by our creator of certain inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There's no guarantee that we will achieve this, but it can be possible if we try. Congress has no power whatsoever to grant you ANY rights - nor does the President. Congress can only pass laws. It's in the Constitution. Learn it well.
Government = The BIG Ripoff
Government promises:
Big Government Makes Life Worse
Big government is a force whether you like what they do or not. They steal your money so they can spend it the way they deem fit. If you don't like it, want it, or believe their Progressive bunk, you still have to pay for it. If not, they come for you with guns and put you in jail. Big government makes you pay for whatever they are selling. They don't earn money they take it from you. This is wrong.
Seek Freedom
Remember this is still America. The people are the Masters of the government - regardless of whatever Big Government thinks. In Europe, the government is the Master of the people. Do you want it this way or the way the Founders established it? It IS YOUR choice!
The people are the protectors of freedom and the guardians of liberty. This is YOUR JOB! Question the government. Demand straight answers. Expect the truth and not more lies.
Do nothing and watch your liberties go away forever. Speak your voice loudly and hold Big Government accountable to the laws of the land.
We get our rights from God and NOT from the government. For example: Government healthcare is NOT an unalienable right granted by the government.
We are endowed by our creator of certain inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There's no guarantee that we will achieve this, but it can be possible if we try. Congress has no power whatsoever to grant you ANY rights - nor does the President. Congress can only pass laws. It's in the Constitution. Learn it well.
Government = The BIG Ripoff
Government promises:
- Fiscal responsibility and then spends us into bankruptcy
- Accountability and then ignores its constituents
- Transparency and then promotes laws behind closed doors making secret deals
- Integrity and then is scandalized with ethics violations that never get punished
Big Government Makes Life Worse
Big government is a force whether you like what they do or not. They steal your money so they can spend it the way they deem fit. If you don't like it, want it, or believe their Progressive bunk, you still have to pay for it. If not, they come for you with guns and put you in jail. Big government makes you pay for whatever they are selling. They don't earn money they take it from you. This is wrong.
Seek Freedom
Remember this is still America. The people are the Masters of the government - regardless of whatever Big Government thinks. In Europe, the government is the Master of the people. Do you want it this way or the way the Founders established it? It IS YOUR choice!
The people are the protectors of freedom and the guardians of liberty. This is YOUR JOB! Question the government. Demand straight answers. Expect the truth and not more lies.
Do nothing and watch your liberties go away forever. Speak your voice loudly and hold Big Government accountable to the laws of the land.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Internet Takeover Today
Why Aren't Americans Paying Attention?
Don't Americans believe that their government is slowly taking away personal freedoms? Are they too busy with Christmas? Can't they see that the FCC is beginning a bold new move to CENSOR Internet content? Today marks the initiation of the government grabbing the Internet so it can give us "Net Neutrality."
That's just another name for the "Fairness Doctrine" which was the government's way of censoring content. Ask yourself this question: Why is the FCC allowed to control the content of radio and TV broadcasts? That's interfering with the 1st Amendment (free speech). The FCC is ILLEGAL. Has anyone ever protest this? Now because they have being "regulating" radio and TV waves for so long (illegally) they think that they can just take control over the Internet. They have no Constutional power to do this!
Where's the Outrage?
Don't you give a care about freedom? Are you just sitting back watching freedom disappear just like it did under the Nationalist Socialist Party (Nazi Party in Germany) in the 1930s? Are Americans THAT complacent? Apparently so.
There have been no loud voices speaking-out about what this government (and what the United Nations) are doing with regards to the Internet. This is disgusting and quite frightening! If Americans don't stand-up for their rights and freedoms, they will be lost and gone forever!
Action To Take
If you love your country, you have to speak-out against these BIG Government take-overs. Don't just watch as your freedoms are grabbed-up under the guise of "protection." That's how totalitarian government come into being. The people in Germany did nothing and look what happened to them. Stop being complacent and tell your government to stop this insanity.
Don't Americans believe that their government is slowly taking away personal freedoms? Are they too busy with Christmas? Can't they see that the FCC is beginning a bold new move to CENSOR Internet content? Today marks the initiation of the government grabbing the Internet so it can give us "Net Neutrality."
That's just another name for the "Fairness Doctrine" which was the government's way of censoring content. Ask yourself this question: Why is the FCC allowed to control the content of radio and TV broadcasts? That's interfering with the 1st Amendment (free speech). The FCC is ILLEGAL. Has anyone ever protest this? Now because they have being "regulating" radio and TV waves for so long (illegally) they think that they can just take control over the Internet. They have no Constutional power to do this!
Where's the Outrage?
Don't you give a care about freedom? Are you just sitting back watching freedom disappear just like it did under the Nationalist Socialist Party (Nazi Party in Germany) in the 1930s? Are Americans THAT complacent? Apparently so.
There have been no loud voices speaking-out about what this government (and what the United Nations) are doing with regards to the Internet. This is disgusting and quite frightening! If Americans don't stand-up for their rights and freedoms, they will be lost and gone forever!
Action To Take
If you love your country, you have to speak-out against these BIG Government take-overs. Don't just watch as your freedoms are grabbed-up under the guise of "protection." That's how totalitarian government come into being. The people in Germany did nothing and look what happened to them. Stop being complacent and tell your government to stop this insanity.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Guest Article: 1st Amendment is DEAD!
The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom
By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL: McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
"Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
How did the FCC get here?
For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.
Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.
Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.
It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.
Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.
In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.
Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by... consensus.
After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.
Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?
To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom." [my emphasis]
Action To Take
This is nothing more than the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Scream loudly before your Internet voices are silenced once and for all. Progressives want to control your speech and this is a giant step in this direction! Let your representatives know that you believe that this action is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, the FCC is unconswtitutional because it "regulates" (censors) speech over the airwaves! Think about that!
By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL: McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
"Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
How did the FCC get here?
For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.
Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.
Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.
It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.
Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.
In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.
Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by... consensus.
After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.
Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?
To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom." [my emphasis]
Action To Take
This is nothing more than the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Scream loudly before your Internet voices are silenced once and for all. Progressives want to control your speech and this is a giant step in this direction! Let your representatives know that you believe that this action is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, the FCC is unconswtitutional because it "regulates" (censors) speech over the airwaves! Think about that!
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Govt Attacks Free Speech (Yet Again)
Federal Reserve Oversteps Authority
When Oklahoma Federal Reserve Bank Examiners ordered Payne County Bank officials to take-down all religious items (Christmas decorations) from public view on Friday, they were in effect, CENSORING free speech. Just because the examiners didn't like the religious overtone of the bank decorations, didn't give them ANY authority to order the removal of those items. That act was a direct assault on a religious freedom here in America. It was performed by representatives of the Federal Reserve Bank. The bank examiner claimed that "the religious items could discourage a person from seeking an application." Just the idea that they thought they could tell the ban what to do is appalling. If I don't like the Christmas decorations on YOUR house, I cannot order you to take them down. This is America - Remember? This country was founded on Judaeo-Christian beliefs.
Items Banned
The Federal Reserve banned the following:
Representatives Object
Both Senator James Inhofe (R, OK) and Representative Frank Lucas (R, OK) wrote Ben Bernanke a letter stating: "This is an all out assault on the faith, values, and rights of the bank, its employees and the people of Perkins they serve." God bless these two representatives for defending their constituents!
How Dare the Fed!
If the Oklahoma representatives had said nothing, the bank would have complied to the government MISUSE of power. Instead, the government backed-down and withdrew their demands from the bank after hearing the opposition to their blatant abuse of power.
It must be clear that Progressives have infiltrated all parts of our government (including the Federal Reserve Bank) and that they are imposing "THEIR" views on OUR lives from every angle possible. This is what Political Correctness is all about.
We MUST stop them every time they try this. If we don't our freedoms will be lost.
KEEP UP THE FIGHT America it is relentless!
and...
Merry Christmas!
When Oklahoma Federal Reserve Bank Examiners ordered Payne County Bank officials to take-down all religious items (Christmas decorations) from public view on Friday, they were in effect, CENSORING free speech. Just because the examiners didn't like the religious overtone of the bank decorations, didn't give them ANY authority to order the removal of those items. That act was a direct assault on a religious freedom here in America. It was performed by representatives of the Federal Reserve Bank. The bank examiner claimed that "the religious items could discourage a person from seeking an application." Just the idea that they thought they could tell the ban what to do is appalling. If I don't like the Christmas decorations on YOUR house, I cannot order you to take them down. This is America - Remember? This country was founded on Judaeo-Christian beliefs.
Items Banned
The Federal Reserve banned the following:
- Signs
- Biblical verses
- Religious crosses
- Christmas pins
- Web Site Links
- "Religious themed messages" including personal jewelry
Representatives Object
Both Senator James Inhofe (R, OK) and Representative Frank Lucas (R, OK) wrote Ben Bernanke a letter stating: "This is an all out assault on the faith, values, and rights of the bank, its employees and the people of Perkins they serve." God bless these two representatives for defending their constituents!
How Dare the Fed!
If the Oklahoma representatives had said nothing, the bank would have complied to the government MISUSE of power. Instead, the government backed-down and withdrew their demands from the bank after hearing the opposition to their blatant abuse of power.
It must be clear that Progressives have infiltrated all parts of our government (including the Federal Reserve Bank) and that they are imposing "THEIR" views on OUR lives from every angle possible. This is what Political Correctness is all about.
We MUST stop them every time they try this. If we don't our freedoms will be lost.
KEEP UP THE FIGHT America it is relentless!
and...
Merry Christmas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
