Thursday, July 24, 2014

Rapacious Government

Government at all levels is on a tear to take over everything legally controlled by private citizens and property owners. They are in relentless pursuit of our water, timber, fishing, harvesting, mineral and property rights.  They are ignoring the potholes because they don’t want us to drive our trucks and cars.  They want to shut down 70% of our hydro and coal-fired electrical generating power plants.  They have adopted the extreme environmentalist goals and want to increase our electricity bills 5-fold with unaffordable “green energy”. They are crashing our economy and making the dollar worthless to reduce the number of “owners”, so that their cronies can seize our property.  They are pushing for a glut of apartment rental units that can only be filled by excessive immigration. They are aggressively implementing UN Agenda 21 in the U.S., based on the “global warming” hoax.  They are removing our ability to support ourselves by signing on to bad treaties and trade agreements and excessive immigration and money printing.  Federal agencies and their allies are guilty of sabotage and treason.
 
EPA Overreach on Water
The Supreme Court has refused to side with the EPA and has suggested that the EPA consult the Congress to legitimize its overreaching grab to control all water in the U.S. with its regulations.  Citizens are invited to comment on the Clean Water Act on the website listed below: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-0001;p=1
See posting below:
Clean Water Act; Definitions: Waters of the United States
Bill Gainey posted in New Georgia Republican Leadership for Principles above Politicians
This is the EPA's summary for this proposed rule: "After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of 'waters of the US' protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for 'waters of
the United States.' As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of 'waters of the United States.' However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining
whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act."
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court limited the EPA's power in these decisions. Because the agency's power isn't as broad as it had previously assumed, this limitation of its power has led to "considerable debate and uncertainty." If the EPA believes it needs more clarification on how to implement its regulations, the EPA should seek this clarification through lawmaking by the elected
representatives of the American people instead of through rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats. The Supreme Court made it clear that Congress should clarify which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act. This is one of the many reasons the EPA needs to Ditch The Rule
You can leave your public comment on this regulation here:
http://www.facebook.com/l/mAQGJJsAvAQGkRtcNOaQu6oCko6uip4WToxJOJrcgGcB4uw/www.regulations.gov/%23!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880
The EPA's Attempt to Seize Western Water
http://www.facebook.com/l/3AQF67eLgAQG29HEERRdOT0X6K-O5S-7iG39r4wXnifDqcA/youtu.be/PR4DdhynGss
The Environmental Protection Agency's new proposed rule for Waters of the United States (WOTUS) will allow the agency to regulate every ditch, stream, canal, etc.
 
This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 328
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401
[EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880; FRL-9901-47-OW]
RIN 2040-AF30
Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act
Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of Defense; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) are publishing for public comment a proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), in light of the U.S. Supreme Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview, Rapanos v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). This proposal would enhance protection for the nation's public health and aquatic resources, and increase CWA program predictability and consistency by increasing clarity as to the scope of “waters of the United States” protected under the Act.
 
Comments - My Comment posted on http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-0001;p=1  is as follows:
Land owners must continue to own the water and mineral rights accessible from their land. Land without these rights is worthless. Farmers need to be able to access water by having wells drilled and pumps installed. Property owners should have total control over their land and their homes and should not be subject to government supervision of their property. Current civil law provides for redress if a citizen causes financial harm to another citizen. Cities and counties have water treatment plants and are responsible for water treatment. Farmers with wells are responsible for their own water quality. States should have sole responsibility for providing water access and water quality for water flowing through their state and used by their citizens. Federal water quality regulations should not be allowed.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Obama Not Eligible


Obama is not a natural born citizen defined as a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country.  His father was never a U.S. citizen and his actual birthplace is in question. His birth certificate from Hawaii was a forgery.  Furthermore, there is evidence that he entered Harvard as an Indonesian foreign national and his Social Security number is fraudulent.
Since that term was used in the Constitution only once in Article II for singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers intended that it have special meaning. And the source of that meaning is written down and well known by legal scholars. That specific type of citizenship and “legal term of art” natural born Citizen was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise “The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law“, published in 1758, in which he said that … a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation. They do not need statutory law to be considered Citizens of the nation. Nature and the facts of their birth in the country to two Citizen parents granted that to them, not Congress.Source:http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/commander-kirchner-s-comments
Comments
The fact that the Democrat Party approved Obama’s Presidential nomination speaks to their recklessness.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Lead

Common Core Retreat


Two More Governors Turning Against Common Core, Posted on July 20, 2014 Written by Freedomoutpost.com
Two more state gov­er­nors have hopped on the anti-Common Core band­wagon, urg­ing either a sec­ond look at it or push­ing for out­right repeal.
Gov. Gary Her­bert of Utah ordered his attor­ney gen­eral to con­duct a review of the con­tro­ver­sial multi-state edu­ca­tion stan­dards Thurs­day, while Wis­con­sin Gov. Scott Walker announced that he wants the state’s leg­is­la­ture to repeal the stan­dards when it recon­venes next January.
 Today, I call on the mem­bers of the state Leg­is­la­ture to pass a bill in early Jan­u­ary to repeal Com­mon Core and replace it with stan­dards set by peo­ple in Wis­con­sin,” Walker said in a state­ment reported by the Mil­wau­kee Journal-Sentinel on Thurs­day. His open oppo­si­tion is a step up from the past. In Jan­u­ary he said that the stan­dards war­ranted reex­am­i­na­tion, but oth­er­wise Walker has said lit­tle about Com­mon Core at all.
A bill was intro­duced this past year seek­ing to pull Wis­con­sin out of Com­mon Core, but failed after gain­ing almost no trac­tion in the leg­is­la­ture. If Walker is suc­cess­fully reelected in Novem­ber, his newly expressed sup­port could pro­vide a repeal push with much greater momentum.
Walker’s announce­ment, how­ever, also high­lighted con­tin­u­ing inter­nal divi­sions within the Repub­li­can Party on edu­ca­tion pol­icy. State Super­in­ten­dent Tony Evers com­plained that Walker’s state­ments made the state’s edu­ca­tion sys­tem appear unsta­ble and chaotic, while state rep­re­sen­ta­tive Steve Kestell said Walker’s state­ments were purely polit­i­cal pos­tur­ing in an elec­tion year.
The idea that they’d just be able to replace the stan­dards at the begin­ning of the leg­isla­tive ses­sion is absurd,” Kestell told the Journal-Sentinel.
Herbert’s announce­ment was less dra­matic than Walker’s, with the focus being on giv­ing Com­mon Core a sec­ond look rather than imme­di­ately seek­ing its repeal. He said Attor­ney Gen­eral Sean Reyes would review the stan­dards to make sure they did not inor­di­nately sur­ren­der Utah’s con­trol over it’s own edu­ca­tion system.
Her­bert also announced that a new web­site will allow Utah cit­i­zens to leave com­plaints about Com­mon Core for the governor’s office, and also said he is cre­at­ing a spe­cial com­mit­tee of pol­icy experts who will review the stan­dards’ appro­pri­ate­ness from a higher edu­ca­tion per­spec­tive. That review, he said, could result in any num­ber of pos­si­ble recommendations.
I don’t want to pre­sup­pose the out­come of this review, but I want to empha­size that Dr. Kendell and his team of experts may in fact rec­om­mend some stan­dards be removed, some stan­dards might be made more rig­or­ous and some stan­dards might not be changed at all,” Her­bert said dur­ing a speech Thursday.
Momen­tum has recently been build­ing against Com­mon Core, par­tic­u­larly on the right. South Car­olina, Indi­ana and Okla­homa have dropped the stan­dards com­pletely this year, while Mis­souri and North Car­olina have passed bills that keep the stan­dards in place for now, but estab­lish com­mis­sions with the power to change them.
Her­bert said that he was partly moti­vated by a hope that a detailed review could reduce ongo­ing feud­ing between Com­mon Core sup­port­ers, who describe the stan­dards as merely broad goals that leave sub­stan­tial con­trol with local school dis­tricts, and oppo­nents who describe the stan­dards as a fed­eral takeover of education.
What­ever has been done in the past has not resolved the dis­pute,” Her­bert said. “There’s too much ani­mus out there with the groups on all sides of the issue and it’s just time for us to kind of push the pause but­ton and say, ‘Let’s reeval­u­ate, let’s ascer­tain that we have Utah standards.’”

Related Posts

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Obama-Fraud

Shock Poll: 40% Still Not Sure Obama is American Citizen
(Rasmussen) – On a list of some of the world’s best-known conspiracy theories, Americans are most likely to believe the one about JFK‘s assassination. But President George W. Bush and President Obama don’t escape suspicion.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 45% of American Adults reject as false the theory that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by more than one shooter. Thirty-two percent (32%) believe more than one shooter was involved in the 1963 assassination in Dallas, and another 23% are undecided.
Last November, on the 50th anniversary of the assassination, 36% of adults said Kennedy was the victim of a lone gunman, but just as many (37%) said he was the victim of a larger conspiracy.
One-in-four adults (24%) are convinced that the U.S. government knew in advance about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and did nothing to stop them, and 19% more are not sure. Only 57% say that conspiracy theory is false.
Just as many (23%) say the theory that Obama is not an American citizen is true, with another 17% who aren’t sure. Sixty percent (60%) reject that theory as false.
Interestingly, however, more Americans (82%) are willing to declare as false the theory that Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in 1966 and replaced by the Beatles than are willing to reject any of the other conspiracy theories we asked about.
The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 16-17, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology
Twenty percent (20%) of Americans believe in the theory that a UFO carrying space aliens on board crashed near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and a sizable 33% more are not sure. Fewer than half (47%) reject that theory.
Past surveys show that a majority of Americans believe there is intelligent life on other planets.
How about the U.S. landing on the moon – true or false? Fourteen percent (14%) think the United States faked it, but just as many (12%) are undecided. Two years ago at the time of astronaut Neil Armstrong’s death, only five percent (5%) said the moon landing was staged, and seven percent (7%) weren’t sure. 
A similar percentage (13%) believe Princess Diana was killed by the British Royal Family, but add another 20% who are undecided.
Americans are much less convinced of three other conspiracies on the list. Just eight percent (8%) believe in the theory that the AIDS virus was created in a laboratory by the Central Intelligence Agency, with 20% more undecided.
The same number (8%) think William Shakespeare is not the real author of the plays that are attributed to him, but when you add the 36% who aren’t sure, it’s clear there’s sizable doubt about the authorship of “Hamlet,” “Macbeth” and the others.
Only three percent (3%) think McCartney was killed and replaced by an equally talented imposter. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
In general, men are more likely than women to believe most of the conspiracy theories.
Americans 40 and over are more likely than younger adults to believe JFK was assassinated by more than one shooter.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided.
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president’s party share that doubt.
Source: http://www.teaparty.org/shock-poll-40-still-sure-obama-american-citizen-48593/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ Shock Poll: 40% Still Not Sure Obama is American Citizen - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/shock-poll-40-still-sure-obama-american-citizen-48593/#sthash.d9y1APJY.dpuf
Comments
Democrats obviously believe that “natural born citizen” means that it’s ok of one of their parents were, at one time, American Citizens.  They ignore the “both parents need to be U.S. citizens” part.  Harvard thought he was a foreign student.  I think he is a Muslim Indonesian citizen using a forged birth certificate and someone else’s social security number, i.e. an illegal alien.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

HUD wants to Destroy Residential Zoning

Rob Astorino’s one man war against Obama’s racial housing quotas by Robert Romano
“The federal government’s saying that if you live in a community that is disproportionately white, then therefore there is discrimination and segregation. And, as such, the local community and/or the Justice Department needs to come in and do away with a lot of the zoning regulations that they feel restricts high density housing in any neighborhood.”
That was Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino (R-N.Y.) at a July 13 town hall meeting explaining the significance of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulation, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.”
The rule was proposed in 2013, but Astorino has been dealing with HUD for much longer than that. Since assuming office in 2010, the Republican has been locked in a one man war against the federal department.
Upon taking over the county, Astorino had inherited a deal struck by his predecessor Andrew Spano to settle a federal lawsuit that had deemed Westchester’s zoning to somehow be discriminatory against minorities.
Under the deal, the county agreed to build 750 affordable housing units, 630 of which had to be located in communities less than 7 percent Hispanic and 3 percent black as a condition for receiving millions of dollars of federal community development block grants.
But, the feds kept upping the ante, making more demands on Astorino — to the extent that he rejected the receipt of $5 million of the grants for 2012, and another $7 million of grants for 2011.
“They have already said that quarter acre… single family residential zoning is potentially discriminatory, and what they would do is take away any restrictions that limit height, density, acreage, [and] number of bedrooms — in any community,” Astorino told the July 13 town hall.
He added, “if you live in that quarter acre or half acre residential neighborhood, the federal government is saying that a thirteen-story apartment building could be right in the middle of it, government-subsidized, because there needs to be equal mix, in their view, of ethnicity, of race, of income, etc.”
All that for a few million dollars of federal funding. By virtue of accepting the funds, Astorino — the Republican nominee for governor against Andrew Cuomo this year — would be turning over control of zoning of the six cities, 19 towns and 20 villages of his county to Washington, D.C.
Yet, as Astorino noted in a 2013 oped for the Wall Street Journal, what HUD is doing has nothing to do with housing discrimination: “HUD’s power grab is based on the mistaken belief that zoning and discrimination are the same. They are not. Zoning restricts what can be built, not who lives there.”
Deputy Secretary of HUD, Ron Sims, said in 2009 that Westchester was only the beginning: “We’re clearly messaging other jurisdictions across the country that there has been a significant change in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we’re going to ask them to pursue similar goals as well.
Westchester, he said, would “serve as a model for building strong, inclusive sustainable communities in suburban areas across the entire United States.”
And, with the HUD rule set to go into effect starting in October, it looks like it may actually happen. Meaning the thirteen-story government-subsidized apartment building may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
The House of Representatives in June passed an amendment to the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz) in a close 219 to 207 vote to defund implementation of the regulation. In the Senate, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has proposed the same amendment, but it still awaits floor action.
Astorino may lose his bid for governor against Andrew Cuomo, but in many ways his crusade against HUD is more important. Through his determination in fighting federal overreach into local communities, he has helped this issue come to the fore.
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government. 
Source: http://netrightdaily.com/2014/07/rob-astorinos-one-man-war-obamas-racial-housingquotas/?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Rob+Astorino%e2%80%99s+one+man+war+against+Obama%e2%80%99s+racial+housing+quotas&utm_content=Rob+Astorino%e2%80%99s+one+man+war+against+Obama%e2%80%99s+racial+housing+quotas%0d+

Read more at NetRightDaily.com:
http://netrightdaily.com/2014/07/rob-astorinos-one-man-war-obamas-racial-housing-quotas/#ixzz387r0AABQ
Comments
Obama wants to crash the U.S. economy and increase welfare and immigration, so these apartment complexes will likely be used to house the millions of low skilled immigrants he wants to bring in.  In the process, he will destroy private property values.
The only thing that can save us is a Republican Senate in 2014, ready to impeach Obama.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader 

UN Treaty Attacks U.S. Parents


Senate Democrats Quietly Revive Radical UN Disabilities Treaty Written by  Alex Newman Monday, 21 July 2014

After being defeated in 2012, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee quietly announced that they would be holding yet another vote on ratification for the widely criticized United Nations “Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.” The radical planetary agreement, known as UN CRPD for short, purports to grant oversight of U.S. policies on disabled Americans to an unelected global “committee” of self-styled “experts.” While the latest bid to ratify the scheme has flown largely under the media radar so far, the opposition is once again gearing up for a fight to stop it.

Opponents across the political spectrum have been warning for years that the treaty represents a major attack on U.S. national sovereignty, parental rights, self-government, and more. All of it is being done under the supposed guise of protecting people with disabilities in the United States, who already have among the most robust protections on the planet. Claims that U.S. ratification would “encourage” other governments to protect the disabled are largely dismissed as baseless propaganda. Another concern among critics is that there is no definition of “disability” in the scheme, potentially allowing UN bureaucrats and dictatorial member regimes to run wild.

The plot to internationalize disabilities law at the UN level was first approved by the dictator-dominated global outfit’s General Assembly in 2006. President Obama, having apparently never met a UN power grab he did not support, signed on to the CRPD regime in 2009 and sent it to the Senate for ratification in late 2012. Due primarily to a grassroots uprising among pro-life activists, home educators, disabilities advocates, and more, a coalition of GOP senators was able to block the agreement, which requires a two-thirds majority for ratification. However, after the scheme was defeated by a six-vote margin, extreme pro-UN Democrats vowed that the fight was not over yet.

Since that failure, there have been several quiet efforts to revive the UN scheme, which critics blast as a “dangerous” and “unnecessary” treaty threatening the United States. It did not come to a vote again, however, until now. In a quiet announcement posted on its website, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, currently chaired by embattled Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), said the body would take up the treaty again on Tuesday, July 22, at 10:00 a.m. The upcoming committee vote has received virtually no press coverage — likely for a good reason.

Last time the scheme was considered by the Senate, a tsunami of opposition rose up and flooded the Senate with phone calls and e-mails demanding that the UN plot be rejected. This time, with the sneak attack proceeding under the public’s proverbial nose, the grassroots army that killed the UN CRPD has not yet risen up in full force. Still, some elements of the opposition are already gearing up to do battle once again.

“Now is the time to let the Senate hear loud and clear that Americans are firmly opposed to surrendering our sovereignty, parental rights, and the rights of people with disabilities to unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats,” said attorney Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, in a recent e-mail asking supporters to contact their senators. “We need every single parent and concerned citizen to make their voice heard.”

One of the main problems with the scheme for parental-rights advocates is that the CRPD could allow government officials to usurp decision-making authority from parents of disabled children. Like the even more radical UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the disabilities treaty uses a particularly controversial phrase that critics say is an open invitation for abuse. “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration,” the agreement states.

Of course, by “best interests of the child,” the UN and its member regimes are referring to the “best interests” as defined by bureaucrats — not parents. And it is hardly a hypothetical fear: In other countries, the worst nightmares of critics have already been confirmed in horrifying detail. In Scotland, for example, openly seizing on the language in the UN CRC about “best interests” of children, Parliament passed a law this year mandating an individual social worker to oversee every single Scottish child throughout his or her childhood and adolescence.

Because “disabilities” are not specifically defined in the treaty, meanwhile, critics also warn that the CRPD represents an open invitation for bureaucratic abuse. According to the agreement, “disability is an evolving concept.” If it is “evolving,” that means literally anyone could someday find their parental rights under attack from the UN “committee of experts” charged with overseeing the treaty’s implementation and enforcement. It also means busy-body global bureaucrats could radically expand the non-definition at any time, granting themselves vast new powers over whole classes of humanity.

Another major concern of critics is pro-abortion machinations found in the UN agreement. “With the disabilities treaty, already in the short time of its existence, the committee that oversees its implementation has pressured two countries regarding abortion: Spain and Hungary,” Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) Vice President Wendy Wright told CNSNews.com, adding that there was also no good reason to ratify it. “The issue of abortion is something that should be dealt with by countries — not by some unelected, unaccountable body at the UN.”

Even many activists for the disabled are up in arms about the latest Senate move. “As the mother of a child with disabilities, you'd think I'd be happy about government action to help people with disabilities. Think again,” wrote columnist and advocate for the disabled Helen Middlebrooke in Pacific Daily News on July 19. “I am angry, and a bit scared, over the Senate's reported reconsideration of the U.N. Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

Under the CRPD, Middlebrooke continued, “The state would have final say over my daughter, Deborah, and could keep me from homeschooling her and from becoming her legal guardian.” The treaty represents a “power grab of the United Nations, an unelected body that thinks it can tell sovereign nations and free people how to treat each other,” she added. “Under the CRPD, Deborah will belong to the state. Over my dead body!”

Also particularly troubling to critics is the assault on U.S. sovereignty and self-government from the UN and its oftentimes brutal member regimes represented by the agreement. Indeed, the UN CRPD, like other global treaties, is simply another power grab by planetary bureaucrats hoping to gradually increase their control over domestic law and policy in as many fields and nations as possible, critics say. It is also part of a long-term trend that is accelerating quickly.

“As can be seen in the UN’s official documents and in the conduct of the UN since 1945, the world body is constantly accumulating power,” explained President John F. McManus with The John Birch Society, a constitutionalist organization with grassroots activists across America that has firmly opposed the UN and its scheming for over five decades. “It has already gained much and CRPD is another step toward total power.”

Sen. Menendez, who is currently embroiled in a massive corruption scandal but still chairs the Foreign Relations Committee set to consider the scheme this week, announced his plans after the recent Supreme Court ruling United States v. Bond. In that case, the high court ruled that prosecutors could not use a UN treaty on Weapons of Mass Destruction to prosecute a woman accused of using toxic chemicals in an attack on another woman. Menendez and other pro-UN Democrats are claiming that ruling ensures that the disabilities treaty cannot be abused to usurp new powers.

“Ratification of the Disabilities Convention requires no change to, and places no obligation upon U.S. law, but would instead break down undue barriers for disabled Americans who study and travel abroad, expand markets for American businesses that sell accessible products, and showcase American leadership on disability rights,” claimed Menendez in a statement issued last month. “Today’s decision in the Bond case removes any fears that the Convention could ever be used to expand federal authority beyond the limits of the Constitution, undermine state sovereignty, or allow lawsuits to be filed in U.S. courts.”

However, legal experts pointed out that concurring opinions issued in the case by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito prove that the opposite of what Menendez claims is actually true. For now, despite past Supreme Court rulings stating that the federal government could not expand its powers beyond constitutional limits simply by adopting a “treaty,” the issue remains in dispute — especially among rabid supporters of UN power and Big Government who believe Washington, D.C., should be able to usurp any authority merely by signing agreements with other governments or institutions.

Activists say the latest UN scheme is likely to get through the Democrat-controlled Senate committee. However, getting the UN power grab ratified in the full Senate is expected to be a much tougher battle — particularly because it is an election year where conservatives are predicted to turn out in force. Opponents are urging Americans to contact their senators now to demand that the UN CRPD and other international power grabs be buried once and for all.  

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.












Comments

These treaties are dangerous, because they bypass Congress and State Legislatures.  They are passed by the U.S. Senate and result in federal regulations.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Australia Kills Carbon Tax

No Global Warming Down-under
In Historic Blow to Climate Hysteria, Australia Kills Carbon Tax  Written by  Alex Newman Friday, 18 July 2014 09:55
With final approval of the Senate on July 17, Australia officially became the first developed nation to repeal its deeply controversial tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, dealing a major setback to proponents of increasingly discredited man-made “global warming” theories. Climate realists worldwide celebrated the historic development, while enraged global-warming theorists furiously lashed out at Australian lawmakers. Analysts also noted that the repeal, shepherded through by conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott, could be a foreshadowing of much bigger problems for the widely criticized United Nations anti-CO2 crusade.   
Of course, the new Australian leader actually rose to power in a landslide last year by promising the public that he would repeal the economy-crushing tax on CO2 emissions. Despite opposition from climate alarmists in the Labour Party and other smaller parties — extreme Greens Party boss Christine Milne even claimed Australia would become a “global pariah” — Abbott was finally able to fulfill what analysts said was his most important campaign pledge. Because his conservative-leaning Liberal Party does not control the Senate, however, the Australian prime minister relied on support of other parties to secure the historic 39 to 32 victory. 
The tax on CO2 emissions was originally adopted by the Labour Party-led government in 2011, which broke its promise not to impose it. After the scheme sparked soaring costs of living and record business failures, the Australian public turned overwhelmingly against it, with Abbott offering a “pledge in blood” to kill the tax. Those promises led his party to a massive victory in last year’s legislative elections. However, because the Senate was not under conservative control, two previous efforts since then to ax the tax had failed. On July 17, though, with support from three senators in businessman Clive Palmer’s party, Abbott succeeded in pushing the measure through following a successful vote in the House of Representatives last week.
“Today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone; a useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families’ cost of living and which didn't actually help the environment is finally gone,” declared Abbott in a news conference after the historic Senate vote, drawing praise from across Australia and around the world. Calling the carbon scheme a “9 percent impost on power prices, a $9 billion handbrake on our economy,” the prime minister estimated that the repeal would save Australian voters and businesses more than $8 billion per year. That works out to over $500 for the average household, he added.
If the tax had not been killed, it was set to increase dramatically, dealing another major blow to embattled consumers and the economy. In 2015, the anti-carbon plot was even supposed to become a full-fledged cap-and-trade regime, where “permits” to emit CO2 could be bought and sold in a “carbon market.” However, the entire idea behind the plot is becoming increasingly controversial even among climate alarmists — especially as horrifying atrocities against poor people across Africa and Latin America linked to UN and World Bank “carbon offset” schemes began making headlines in recent years.   
At the global level, Australian authorities under Abbott’s leadership have also bucked the UN and its sought-after carbon regime, too. Last year, Canberra, the capital of Australia, even declared that the nation would not accept any more UN “socialism masquerading as environmentalism.” That means, among other measures: no more funding for international climate hysteria and no more taxes supposedly aimed at controlling alleged “global warming,” officials said. Australian leaders also vowed not to accept any more planetary “agreements” or wealth-redistribution schemes, though some officials are reportedly wavering.  
Opposition lawmakers were outraged by the decision to rein in the taxpayer-funded climate hysteria and the devastating policies it spawned. Some even essentially claimed that the sky would fall. “This is a fundamental moment in Australia's history,” Labour Party Senator Lisa Singh warned ahead of the vote. “We are about to devastate the future of this country.” It was not immediately clear how removing a tax on what scientists call the “gas of life” would “devastate” the country.
In fact, even if the man-made global-warming theories were grounded in reality, human emissions of CO2 represent a fraction of one percent of all greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere — and Australia’s contribution to that is negligible at best at about one percent.
But in truth, the warming claims are dubious at best; 73 out of 73 UN “climate models” forecasting warming as CO2 increased have been proven embarrassingly incorrect by the observable evidence: No rise in global temperatures for 18 years and counting, record levels of sea ice, and much more. Virtually every alarmist prediction that could be disproven has been.
Nonetheless, taxpayer- and crony-capitalist funded global warmists whose jobs depend on keeping the hysteria alive were furious. “We are taking a monumentally reckless backward leap even as other countries are stepping up to climate action,” Climate Institute boss John Connor claimed in an interview with the New York Times. “Australia’s economy is much more carbon-intensive than the U.S. economy.” Other alarmists made similar claims.
The emerging super-state regime in Brussels ruling over the formerly sovereign nations of Europe also expressed its displeasure. “The European Union regrets the repeal of Australia's carbon pricing mechanism just as new carbon pricing initiatives are emerging all around the world,” complained EU “climate” czar Connie Hedegaard in a statement. “The EU is convinced that pricing carbon is not only the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, but also the tool to make the economic paradigm shift the world needs.”
Another UN would-be climate controller Christiana Figueres has previously lashed out at self-government in the United States for preventing what she claims to view as urgent measures to control alleged “global warming.” Instead, she praised the brutal Communist Chinese regime’s system, which she said was “doing it right.” Of course, China is among the most polluted nations on Earth — real pollution, not CO2, which is exhaled by humans and essential to plant life — in addition to being ruled by one of the most oppressive and murderous autocracies in human history.
Outside of extreme environmentalist groups and power-hungry politicians, though, citizens and industry in Australia were more than pleased with the death of the carbon tax. “Today's repeal of the carbon pricing mechanism is significant as it removes a cost facing Australian LNG (liquefied natural gas) exporters competing in global markets; one that does not exist for our international competitors,” explained David Byers, chief of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association. Mining interests, small business, grocers, and more also celebrated the repeal, saying it would help boost Australia’s economy and global competitiveness.
While Australia moves to restore sanity, the Obama administration has gone radically in the other direction. When a Democrat-controlled Congress refused to impose an unconstitutional, economy-crushing carbon regime on the United States, the executive branch simply imposed one by decree through the Environmental Protection Agency. Top Obama officials have claimed that there is “zero” chance of Congress being able to stop it, but state governments and U.S. lawmakers are already fighting back against the plot.
Around the world, Canada and Japan have also both attracted the ire of what critics refer to as the “climate cult” for refusing to cooperate fully with UN carbon scheming. In Europe, however, the increasingly power-hungry EU continues to operate an anti-CO2 regime. The UN, meanwhile, is hoping to secure a draconian planetary carbon regime at a global-warming summit scheduled for next year in Paris. However, critics and experts have warned that the proposed plot would be devastating to humanity — and especially the poor.   
While the Obama administration and the UN continue hyping their climate theories, the supposed “science” underpinning them has literally melted. All over the world, scientists are jumping off the alarmist bandwagon, and now, it appears that governments are, too. Still, the UN has expressed confidence in securing a global climate regime to shackle humanity with next year. Americans who believe in real science, national sovereignty, free markets, and liberty must redouble their efforts to stop it. 
Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/australia/item/18729-in-historic-blow-to-climate-hysteria-australia-kills-carbon-tax?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=8aeb5f5c56-The_Editors_Top_Picks_3_12_143_12_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8ca494f2d2-8aeb5f5c56-289799037
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Related articles:
Comments
It’s time for the U.S. to quit the U.N.  It’s also time for Georgia to pass Georgia Sovereignty laws and ban the EPA and other federal agencies from abusing Georgia citizens with bogus federal regulations.  Georgia needs to repeal HB 1216 (2008) and HB 277 (2010) and repeal “Regionalism”, another UN Agenda 21 scheme. 
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader