Carly For America - New Parody Video: "Anybody But Carly (ABC)" Network

MANCHESTER, NH - CARLY for America released a parody video, "Anybody But Carly (ABC)” Network.

"We made a parody of ABC and Disney just like they made a parody out of our debate process. The arbitrary standards set by ABC lack grounding or knowledge of the political process or respect for the role New Hampshire voters play in the First in the Nation Primary. Despite not being included in the last debate Carly beat two establishment favorites and she will do so again on Tuesday. 

“The standards set by Disney's ABC are so arbitrary and nonsensical one is left to believe they must be purposeful to protect Hillary from her most effective critic. The Manhattan media executives need to swallow their pride and do what is right by voters. Disney, ABC, and the RNC need to stop rigging the game and must listen to voters and include Carly," said Stephen DeMaura, Executive Director of CARLY for America

Click here to view the video



"Saturday on ABC, the Anybody But Carly Network: The Republican Presidential Debate. Tune in as we exclude Carly Fiorina but include people she beat. 

"On Anybody But Carly, we rig the game.

"She's rising in the polls, beat Kasich and Christie in Iowa, tied with Bush in delegates.

"And unlike all of them, she has actually won debates before. Taking it to Hillary Clinton like nobody else can.

"But on Disney's ABC, we've frozen Carly out. 

"Turned the debate inside out. 

"All part of our Mickey Mouse operation." `

Carly For America - #LetCarlyDebate: ABC News excludes one candidate!


Sign this petition and #LetCarlyDebate


Seven of the eight Republican presidential candidates will be invited to the ABC News Debate on Saturday.


In other words, everyone except Carly. 


Here are the facts: 

  • Carly beat Governors Christie and Kasich in the Iowa Caucuses this week, and has the same number of delegates as Governors Bush and Kasich (note: Governor Christie has zero)
  • She is polling ahead of Dr. Carson in New Hampshire
  • She has twice(!) the cash-on-hand as either Governors Christie or Kasich
  • She is already on the ballot in 32 states 


Sign the petition by 3 p.m. ET on Thursday or else it's too late. 


Demand that the media stop inserting itself in our election process and allow voters the chance to hear a serious presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina!


-Katie Hughes
Communications Director
CARLY for America


Americans For A Free Republic - A New Equal Rights Amendment                                                      

 A New Equal RightsAmendment

Nelson Hultberg

EqualRights: The Foundation ofAmerica "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen,   in his person and property, and in their management." - Thomas Jefferson[1]

The fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence, which undergirds our political and legal systems in this country, is that all citizens possess "equal rights under the law." Our whole concept of rights is based upon their being equal for all citizens of the Republic. This was the guiding star of justice that spawned America and which sustained her through the first 125 years of her existence. In 1913, however, there took place a most shameful default on this concept of "equal rights" with adoption of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to enact an income tax with unequal (i.e., progressive) rates. This default by our pundits and politicians was challenged at the time by numerous outraged legal minds, but due to the prevailing socialist sentiment taking over the culture at the turn of the century, their challenge did not prevail. Too many powerful voices had gotten swept up in the egalitarian vision of Karl Marx, and they decided that government's purpose was to coercively implement such a vision. Tax policy became one of the tools with which to bring about such a leveling of society. Collectivist irrationality won the day, and it has lasted for 100 years, despite the fact that progressive tax rates are clearly unconstitutional. The reason why progressive tax rates are unconstitutional in America is because different classes of society are assessed different rates under such a system, which denies American citizens an equal right to the disposal of their property (i.e., income) and thus denies them equal protection under the laws of the land.  If the State can take arbitrary(unequal) percentages of our incomes because 51% of the voters deem it desirable, then we no longer have a right to the use of our property. We have only the permission for that use, and only so long as we dutifully serve the reigning political powers. There can be no justification for such a tax system. It is contrary to everything for which America stands. As the great Scottish economist J.R. McCulloch stated 170 years ago, "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of extracting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit." [2] Under our present system, the blindfolded Goddess of Justice has been allowed to peek. "Tell me first who you are and what you earn," she says, "then I will tell you how the tax laws apply to you." This is privilege and arbitrary law, the harbingers of every tyranny throughout history. 

Equal Rights vs. Equal Results 

A federal government stripped of wasteful programs could be financed by a flat 10% tax rate. Collectivists protest at this point, claiming that equal-rate taxation would be unfair to those with lower incomes. The "results of life" must be evened out for those who haven't achieved as much. But as we have seen, if the government is going to try and bring about equal results in life, it must violate the equal rights of its citizens to their property and its disposal. This is not legitimate policy in America. Those with less in life must be helped through private and church related charities. Government cannot overrule our rights to enhance the status of interest groups deemed "special" by Washington.  Fairness and justice can never be achieved by the violation of rights! Because the "majority will" votes for such a violation does not justify it. Our rights to equality under the law and the disposal of our property can never be put up for vote. The law must be the same for everyone. This is why the Goddess of Justice wears a blindfold. To violate this basic foundation of free civilization as Congress and the bureaucrats are doing is our great sin of the modern day.  When government  violates its citizens' rights, it is partaking in an act of criminality. A criminal government can never create "fairness" and "justice." Such irrationality and greed have brought us the bankruptcy of America. Progressive tax rates are unjust, unconstitutional, illegal, and dictatorial. They must be abolished, not just for the 19th century, but for all of time. 

Ending the Income Tax Itself 

The income tax remains popular because as Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation reports, 50% of Americans are exempt (figures swing between 47% to 51% from year to year). This creates what economists call "infinite demand" for spending programs. In other words if government programs are FREE to certain voters, and if those programs are desirable, then those voters will want all they can get. This is why government expands every year. Fifty percent of American voters do not pay for federal services. Thus we have a totally irresponsible electorate. But the mandating of "equal rates" will bring large amounts of zero-payers back into the system. The 50% figure for zero-payers can be reduced to 20% meaning 80% of the voters will then have to pay for services. This will end the relentless expansion of government and bring about a lowering of spending every year because no one other than liberal zealots will want the heavy levels of government programs if they have to pay proportionally for them out of their own pockets. Eventually we could reach a 7%-8% equal-rate tax to fund the duties of the federal government. At this level of taxation, we could then replace the income tax with a 7%-8% sales tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.  The first step, however, is to mandate "equal rates" for all citizens via a constitutional amendment. This will remove the tyranny of progressive tax rates from congressional whim. They cannot then be voted back in again four years later. While an "equal-rate" tax enacted by Congress would be a wonderful achievement (which we should all work for), it is not nearly enough to preserve freedom. Progressive tax rates must be banned in the Constitution! This is the only way to assure a free country for future generations. 

Ratifying the Amendment 

Victor Hugo said, "There is nothing more powerful in history than an idea whose time has come." The American people are ready to stop the runaway freight train of government growth. A New Equal Rights Amendment for taxes is the way to do this. And it can be presented to the state legislatures for ratification via a joint resolution from Congress or the Convention of States process that the Constitution gives us. To bring this revolution about we must follow Samuel Adams lead and work to set "brush fires of freedom" in the minds of Congress and our fellow citizens. In the 1840s when anti-slavery proponents were fighting to abolish slavery in America, they did not have Congress or a majority of the people on their side. But they did have "justice" and "rightness" on their side. They had the most powerful force in history on their side - MORAL TRUTH. Even those who defended slavery knew down deep that it was morally wrong. The same force prevails in the fight to abolish "progressive taxation." All decent men and women know it is morallyw rong to treat people differently under the law in America. We must convince them to implement such conviction into our tax system. The principle of equal rights mandates equal tax rates. No government will stay limited if it has the power to confiscate wealth from productive citizens to convey free services to massive amounts of less productive citizens so as to buy their votes on Election Day. This is a guarantee for relentless growth of taxes and tyranny. The time has come to end such political corruption and restorej ustice to America.   

Notes 1. Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816. SaulK. Padover, ed., Thomas Jefferson on Democracy (New York: New AmericanLibrary, 1949), pp. 34-35. 2. J.R.McCulloch, Taxation and the Funding System, London, 1845, pp. 141-143.Cited in Charles Adams, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on theCourse of Civilization (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1993), p.365.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas,Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate ofBeloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications asThe American Conservative,Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and theSan Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He isthe author of The Golden Mean:Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email:

Townhall - A March for Life and Fight for the Character of our Nation - Carly Fiorina

Good afternoon, everyone. I’m honored to be here this chilly afternoon with so many advocates for life. Although I have to tell you, it’s warmer than Iowa or New Hampshire.

In less than a year, there will be a new president in the White House. The next president will pick up to four Supreme Court justices who will decide issues of life and religious liberty. She will decide whether we force taxpayers to fund the political arm of the abortion industry. Whether we as a nation believe—as the Democrat platform says—that a life isn’t a life until it leaves the hospital. Whether a baby only a month from being born is only as good as the organs you can sell from it.

Make no mistake—this election will be a fight for the character of our nation.

The establishment media and political class don’t want us to talk about what the abortion industry is doing. You saw what happened when I talked about the horrific truth of the planned parenthood videos during a Republican debate. Unlike the media, you’ve watched the videos. You’ve seen an aborted baby, it’s legs kicking, it’s heart beating while the technician describes how they would keep these babies alive to harvest their organs. The left called me a liar. They said there were no such videos. There are no aborted babies born alive. Nobody is selling baby parts.

But look what happened next. Planned Parenthood came out and said they would no longer take compensation for baby organs. Sounds like an admission to me!

Hillary Clinton is giving a pro-abortion speech today in New Hampshire. She is saying that we as conservative women don’t count. But here’s the truth: they have perverted feminism into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections.

Being empowered means having a voice. But ideological feminism shuts down conversation on college campuses and in the media. If you are a pro-life man or a conservative woman who doesn’t believe the litanies of the left, then you are “waging a war on women” or you are a “threat to women’s health” or you are variously described as “window dressing” such as  Joni Ernst, or offensive as a candidate like Carly Fiorina.

Ours is a fight for the character of our nation. For the value of life itself. It is a fight we must win to take our country back.

I have visited pregnancy centers around the country. They are doing God’s work and they do not receive a dime of federal funding. The pro-abortion Left can’t stand it when we talk about defunding Planned Parenthood. They scream at the top of their lungs about taking away women’s health. Unless you bring up these pregnancy centers. Then they go dead silent.

Because this was never about women’s health for them. It was about the litanies of the left. It was about funding their political agenda. This is a fight we must win.

You know, Planned Parenthood actually shows up at my events. So let me say this to the Planned Parenthood supporters: You can scream and throw condoms at me all day long. You won’t silence me. You don’t scare me. I have battled breast cancer. I have buried a child. I have read the bible. I know the value of life.

34 years ago, I met my husband, Frank. When we were married, I learned that his mother had been told by her doctors to abort him. She was a woman of great faith and courage and chose instead to bring her son into the world. She spent almost a year in the hospital after his birth. But he was the joy of her life and he has been the rock of mine. I have thought often about how different my life would be if she had made a different choice.

I know that what each of you know. Every person has God-given gifts. All of us actually have far more potential than we realize. Science is on our side. Public opinion is on our side.

We are winning this fight, ladies and gentlemen. We are winning this fight—but it is a fight. And so we need a fearless fighter in the White House. Not just to win this election but to restore the character of our nation.

You can bet I’ll win this fight against Hillary Clinton. And you can count on what I’ll do as President. I will defund Planned Parenthood. I will support the pregnancy centers around the country that are actually serving the families in their communities. Together, we will restore the character of this nation.

Citizens, join with me. Fight with me. Vote for me. It’s time to take our country back.

Thank you.

Newsmax - Christie Helped Imam, Blocked Police Surveillance

Chris Christie is rising in New Hampshire polls, thanks to tough talk on fighting terrorism and ISIS — but some national security critics say he has a weak record as New Jersey's governor in confronting Muslim extremism.

"This issue definitely has the potential to hurt his credibility on national security in the presidential campaign without a doubt," Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst for the Clarion Project, told Newsmax in an interview. Clarion monitors Islamic extremist groups and their supporters in the U.S.

Mauro has written extensively on Christie's strong ties to the Muslim community, a growing force in New Jersey politics with an estimated 3 percent of the state's population.

Christie has been close to some questionable New Jersey Muslim leaders, including Mohammad Qatanani, an imam who has been fighting deportation by the Department of Homeland Security for not disclosing that Israel convicted him of being a member of the Hamas terrorist group.

And one of Christie's judicial appointees, Sohail Mohammed, represented the imam and a Muslim group whose leader has voiced support for the terrorist organization.

Qatanani, whom Christie praised at a 2012 Ramadan event at the governor's mansion, and three other Islamists sit on a Muslim Outreach Committee Christie formed in the wake of reports that New York City police were investigating Muslims in his state for possible ties to radical Islam.

"Christie has honored imams with either terrorist ties or who have sympathies for radical Islam," Susan Rosenbluth, the long-time publisher and editor of The Jewish Voice, told Newsmax.

Published in Englewood, New Jersey, the influential Jewish Voice has covered Christie's tenure as U.S. attorney and governor.

She said Christie wasn't anti-Israel. "He just doesn't seem to know the difference as to who can be dangerous and who isn't."

Mauro said Christie has "a poor record" in confronting extremist Muslim leadership in New Jersey, and, in some cases he "has chosen to become close to" them.

In 2013, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) named Christie to their "Best List," identifying him as one of the most outstanding public officials in the nation for his work to enhance relations between Muslims and other Americans.

Mid-East Expert Daniel Pipes, writing in National Review, says CAIR has ties to terrorist groups, and has even been banned by the United Arab Emirates for its ties to such organizations.

Pipes argues that CAIR has declined to denounce terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the campaign trail and in the recent CNN Republican debate, Christie repeatedly cited his record as a "federal prosecutor" after the 9/11 attacks in dealing with terrorists. Christie was U.S. Attorney for New Jersey from January 17, 2002, to Dec. 1, 2008.

Here are some examples of Christie's comments or activities that have security experts worried:

  • In 2008, as a federal prosecutor, Christie defended Qatanani, who was undergoing DHS deportation hearings for not disclosing on a green card application that he had been convicted by Israel in 1993 for being a member of Hamas.

Christie defended the imam in an agency court filing as a "man of great goodwill" and had sent Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna to the hearing as a character witness.

Qatanani was granted legal permanent residency, but it was later reversed. The case is still pending.

He came to the United States in 1996 to head up the Islamic Center of Passaic County, a mosque based in Paterson, in the northern part of the Garden State.

  • Shortly after becoming governor in 2010, Christie invited Muslim leaders to break the daily Ramadan fast at his official residence.

He has since hosted other Ramadan gatherings, including one in July 2012 in which the governor pointed out Qatanani in the audience and praised him.

An attendee posted video of Christie's remarks on YouTube, but it was removed, Mauro told Newsmax.

  • Christie has attended several events sponsored by the American Muslim Union, also based in Paterson.

In 2001, the group's president, Mohamed Younes, slammed the United States as hypocritical for condemning Hamas but not Israel.

Mohammad El-Mezain, who has raised money for Hamas, addressed the AMU in 1994. Other members have ties to radical Islam

  • In August 2010, Christie slammed Republicans who opposed plans to build an Islamic center in lower Manhattan, near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He also warned GOP legislators against tarring "all of Islam with the Mohamed Atta brush," referring to one of the 9/11 hijackers. Christie later advised against demagoguery regarding immigration reform.

  • In 2011, Christie appointed Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim lawyer, to a Superior Court judgeship in Passaic County.

Mohammed was general counsel to the American Muslim Union, and he represented Qatanani during his deportation hearings.

Christie exploded when Republicans resisted Mohammed's appointment, implying that he might be influenced by Shariah law.

Christie called Mohammed an "extraordinary American" — labeling any concerns about Shariah "crap" and bashing attackers as "crazies."

  • In 2012, after news reports that the New York Police Department had Muslims in his state under surveillance, Christie slammed authorities for overstepping their boundaries.

He also established a Muslim outreach committee headed by the New Jersey attorney general.

Qatanani, Younes, and two other Muslims with Islamist ties are on the panel — and it has met several times with top law-enforcement, even obtaining information on how to secure Homeland Security grants slated for nonprofit organizations.

The four remain on the committee, despite a Clarion Project report in November 2012 on their Islamist affiliations.

"You don't want the leaders who are praised and upheld to be individuals linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and a history of extremist rhetoric," Mauro told Newsmax.

  • In September 2013, the fallout over the NYPD controversy led Christie to sign legislation requiring law-enforcement agencies outside his state to inform New Jersey state police and prosecutors about surveillance plans in counties 24 hours before entering their borders.

The law also requires Garden State officers or agencies that learn of out-of-state counter-terrorism investigations to inform county prosecutors.

"We must protect and maintain civil liberties, especially those of the citizens in New Jersey's Muslim community," Christie said.

  • In March 2014, Christie upset some potential donors at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas:

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was to understand, the military risk that Israel faces every day," he said.

After he spoke, Morton Klein, head of the conservative Zionist Organization of America, approached Christie and suggested that he use a "more accurate" term like "disputed territories" or "West Bank."

"Christie responded brusquely and dismissively with a scowl and a non-answer," Klein said online after the incident. "I asked him again if he would use one of the more appropriate terms.

"He again responded with the same non-answer refusing to say he misspoke," he said.

Later, Christie did, however, say that he "misspoke" after meeting with Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino mogul who heads the coalition.

Many 2016 GOP candidates are courting the mega-donor, seeking his support.

"What the governor didn't say is that he sincerely apologizes, or that he now understands Israel has a legitimate claim to this land, or that Jews have every right to live there," Klein said in the post. "He only said that he 'misspoke' after speaking to a major donor whose support he was seeking."

Christie spoke earlier this month at the Republican Jewish Coalition's meeting in Washington.

Mauro told Newsmax that he doesn't believe that Christie's Muslim ties reflect any anti-Israel sentiment, but that "it's not enough to identify the enemy as radical Islam and say that's your strategy."

"He claims to be pro-Israel but at other times hugs Obama," Rosenbluth said.

She suggested that Jewish voters and those concerned about security issues would be "silly" to back Christie. She noted his unusual anger that in the wake of Sept. 11 New York City Police were monitoring extremists in nearby New Jersey.

"Why in the world would he oppose that?" she asked.

The Christie campaign declined to offer comment for this report.

Sen Shaheen Receives Pro-Iran Lobby Money, Then Supports Iran Deal

Stunning news to report to you this evening, as reports surface that lobbyists aligned with the Iranian regime have been funneling money to Democrats in Congress who are now coming out and announcing their support for the disastrous Iranian Nuclear Deal. 


The Democrats who took money from the Iranian-aligned lobbyists include: Sen. Edward "Ed" Markey [D-MA],  Sen. Alan "Al" Franken [D-MN],  Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH),  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA),  Rep. Michael "Mike" Honda [D-CA17],  Rep. André Carson [D-IN7],  Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA),  Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD),  Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA).

Carly For America - Read the Pro-Carly Op-Ed The New York Times Didn't Want You to See

I’m sure many of you have heard how the main stream media and the political establishment are trying everything they can to keep Carly Fiorinaoff the main debate stage next month.  The criteria set forth by CNN and approved by the RNC weighs polls taken prior to the Fox News debate more heavily than those taken after, negating much of the momentum Carly has gained since her outstanding performance.  Carly is still working hard on the campaign trail, but the political elite and their allies in the press are certainly making it harder. 


Now we can add The New York Times to the list of main stream media outlets that are working hard against Carly.  After publishing a misleading column that quotes a man who has compared Carly to a murderer and to ISIS, The New York Times refused to publish a rebuttal op-ed written by a former HP Board Member regarding his first-hand account of Carly's transformative leadership. Since the New York Times would not provide equal opportunity to Mr. Perkins to defend Carly's record, we decided to purchase space in the Times to make sure that his voice was heard in the same medium in which Carly was so dishonestly criticized.  


We will not let the main stream media and the political establishment silence the voices of Carly’s supporters!  Will you help us? 


The Truth About Carly 


By Tom Perkins, Former HP Board Member



August 27, 2015 


The consensus is clear: Carly Fiorina won the first Republican Primary debate. As a result she is climbing the polls and into the top tier of candidates. Her rise has led pundits to speculate about her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. 


I was a member of the HP Board of Directors much of the time Carly was the CEO. I was in the room for many of the decisions she made. I can attest to the strength of Carly’s leadership, the accuracy of her vision and the quality of her management. 


Carly was an excellent CEO. She led HP through one of the worst economic times in decades. Less than two years into Carly’s leadership, the dot com bubble went bust. Silicon Valley was in chaos. Companies were shedding jobs almost daily. There were so many layoffs The Associated Press ran weekly announcements regarding layoffs at tech companies. And The San Francisco Chronicle declared 2001 “The Year of the Layoff.” 


While other Silicon Valley icons like Sun Microsystems disappeared, Carly’s vision and execution not only helped to save HP but made it a strong, more versatile company that could compete in the changing technology sector. 


I was on the Compaq Board during the HP-Compaq merger and remained a member of the new HP Board once the merger was complete. Both companies knew that we needed something dramatic to inject life back into our companies. The merger, while controversial, was unanimously approved by every member of the HP Board and won approval from shareholders. Thanks to Carly’s leadership there was a path forward for this storied but troubled company. 


Critics questioned the move, but history proves Carly was right. Post merger, HP became the biggest computer company in the world. It positioned HP to compete in integrated systems and allowed us to compete in sectors beyond the core strength of the company, printers. 


Carly was hired at HP because it was struggling. Revenues were down, quarterly earnings were missed, innovation lagged and growth stagnated. HP, once the leader in Silicon Valley, was clinging to the status quo and failing to embrace the new tech era. Silicon Valley companies were prospering by taking advantage of the new technologies; HP was stubbornly clinging to the past. HP needed a change agent and someone who could return the company to its glory days. Carly was the right choice. 


The results of Carly’s transformational leadership? HP revenues doubled to more than $80 billion, innovation tripled to 15 patents per day, the growth rate more than quadrupled 6.5 percent and we grew to become the 11th largest company in the country. Carly did what she was brought in to do: turn the company around make it successful again. Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth. 


Critics often claim was fired at HP because she was unsuccessful. As a member of the board, I can tell you this is not true. In truth, it was the Board I was a part of that was ineffective and dysfunctional. The HP board of directors included family members of the founders. Carly worked with the hand she was dealt as best as one could. While Carly fought to save the company and the employees within, some board members fought for their own power or advancement. You see, some board members wanted to micro-manage the company, hand picking friends and allies to run divisions. This is no way to run a global company and Carly had the strength of character and courage of conviction to stand up to it and ultimately she lost her job because of it. 


While lesser leaders would have accepted offers of transition plans and graceful resignations, Carly would have none of that. Carly demanded to be fired. In order to restore peace to the board I voted to fire her. That was a mistake. 


In the months and years after Carly left, the Board of Directors remained dysfunctional. The Board members who plotted Carly’s ouster eventually resigned after an embarrassing investigation by Congress. 


I have no question that Carly is a transformational leader who uniquely has both vision and the expertise to implement it. We are in the middle of a heated election, and often facts and the truth get lost in the heat of partisan rhetoric. As someone who worked with and observed Carly first hand I can attest to her abilities, intellect and talent. I am proud to support Carly Fiorina for President of the United States. 


Tom Perkins is the founder of the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. 























CEI - EPA's Clean Power Plan Overreach

The “Clean Power” Plan final rule is due in August and the word is that it will be released next Tuesday, August 4.

In advance of that final rule, CEI released a new paper today “EPA’s Clean Power Plan Overreach,” by William Yeatman.

In the Clean Power Plan proposal, the EPA took the unusual step of preemptively seeking Chevron deference from federal courts, even though the Clean Power Plan will not undergo judicial review until after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Chevron deference is a famous and oft-employed administrative law principle that federal courts should defer to reasonable agency construction of the statutes they are charged with administering, in reference to a seminal 1984 Supreme Court ruling, Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. As this analysis demonstrates, the agency’s request for judicial deference lacks merit.

The paper’s four sections break down the EPA’s overreach considering Chevron deference:

  • The first section of this paper explains the legal reasoning behind Chevron deference, as well as subsequent refinements of the doctrine in Article III courts.
  • The second section discusses the Clean Power Plan’s unprecedented scope and the EPA’s capacious interpretation of Clean Air Act Section 111(d), which allegedly authorizes the rule.
  • The third section argues that the Clean Power Plan contravenes every direct and indirect foundation for Chevron deference.
  • The last section briefly investigates how federal courts are likely to review the Clean Power Plan, without resorting to the Chevron framework, and concludes that the EPA’s interpretation is unlikely to survive such a “fair” reading.

Read the paper here and feel free to share the link on Facebook and Twitter.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group in Washington, D.C. CEI promotes the institutions of liberty and works to remove government-created barriers to economic freedom, innovation, and prosperity through timely analysis, effective advocacy, inclusive coalition-building, and strategic litigation.



Once again the American public is being ripped off by the actions of greedy politicians with little recourse by the average voter.    In 1988 Congress passed legislation called The Alternative Motor Fuels Act that provided so many incentives that it basically mandated the addition of ethanol to our hydrocarbon fuels.   Among other provisions it provided a 51 cent a gallon tax credit to “blenders” who add ethanol to gasoline.  It also provided fuel economy credits to auto producers who build vehicles capable of running on ethanol blended fuels.  The purported reason for this legislation was to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

This rationale behind this legislation was severely flawed and also had the following negative effects.

1.  According to tests done by Consumer Reports and others ethanol blended fuels have significantly less energy than straight gasoline fuels and vehicles get between 7% to 27% less fuel mileage compared to using regular gasoline depending upon the percentage of ethanol used in the fuel.  What this means is that using an ethanol blend provides ZERO benefits in reducing our fuel imports of gasoline and never will provide any such benefits. It also costs more to make than regular gasoline.

2.  The production of ethanol takes significant energy, which has to come from somewhere, and also produces byproducts that are known to be carcinogenic so any positive environmental effects are largely bogus.

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> POLITICIANS SCREWING THE PUBLIC

Newsmax - Top Scientists to Question Global Warming Claims

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), March of this year was the hottest March since record-keeping began in 1880, and 2014 was "the hottest year ever."

NOAA's figures were based on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).

But two other officially recognized entities measuring temperatures, Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama, are based on a different method of measuring, by satellite. And these "give a strikingly different picture," Christopher Booker discloses in The Telegraph.

"Neither shows [March] as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as 'the hottest year ever.'"

According to Booker, analysts have found hundreds of examples of how the data recorded by some 3,000 weather stations in the GHCN have been "adjusted" to exaggerate how much the planet has actually been warming.

Figures from earlier decades have frequently been adjusted downward and more recent data adjusted upward to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data indicated, he explained.

Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has assembled an international team of five top scientists to determine how these "adjustments" of data may have distorted what is in fact happening to global temperatures.[...]

The five are Dr. Petr Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, founder of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Prof. Roman Mureika, a statistics expert from Canada; Prof. Roger Pielke Sr., a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado; and Prof. William van Wijngaarden, a physicist at York University in Canada with many papers on climatology.

The team is led by Terence Kealey, until recently the vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in Britain.

Their goal is to establish to what extent original data has been "adjusted" by the three main keepers of surface records: the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the U.S. National Climate Data Center, and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain in conjunction with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

"All three of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming," Booker notes.

"Only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy."


Personal Liberty Digest - Another state considers getting out of the marriage licensing game

Just more than a month has passed since Oklahoma legislators voted to get out of the marriage licensing business. Now another conservative state is eying a similar measure.

Alabama State Sen. Greg Albritton, a Republican, announced SB 377 recently, bringing before the legislature a proposal that would end any licensing requirement for marriage and removing from probate judges the obligation of sanctioning a union.

By exclusion, same-sex marriage is not legal under Alabama law – even though the state has recently wrestled with conflicting interpretations, across various levels of government, of a court decision that overturned the existing law. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Ending Government Sanctioned Marriage

Personal Liberty Digest - The Clinton Foundation spent more on office supplies than on charity gifts in 2013

clinton foundation logo

A new review of the Clinton Foundation’s recent expenditures challenges the foundation’s boast that most of the money it spends goes “directly to our life-changing work.”

The foundation took to social media last week to counter recent revelations about its omission of foreign donations from the IRS, as well as the general scandal surrounding the possibility that Hillary Clinton’s State Department policy may have been influenced by those same donations.

The foundation’s official Twitter account sent out an April 25 message boasting that “[m]ore than 88% of our expenditures go directly to our life-changing work,” and linked to an infographic purporting to break down its 2013 expenditures by category.

That graphic claimed 88.4 percent of the foundation’s outlay went for “Program” expenditures, 7 percent went for “Management and General,” and 4.5 percent went for “Fundraising” – with “Program” encompassing the catch-all category of charitable giving.

But The Federalist took a look at the information the Clinton Foundation provided on its 2013 IRS Form 990 and quickly concluded that the foundation’s claim was egregiously misleading. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Clinton Foundation Slush Fund

Newsmax - Carly Fiorina: Apple's Tim Cook a Hypocrite on Indiana Law

Likely GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has slammed what she considers the hypocrisy of her former Silicon Valley colleague, Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has spoken out against the divisive Indiana religious freedom legislation, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Fiorina, herself a former Hewlett Packard CEO, says Cook has been selective in his outcry against Indiana in what she describes as a "ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful."

She told the Journal on Thursday in an exclusive sit-down interview: "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90 percent of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia. But I don't hear him being upset about that." [...]

To Continue Reading click here --->

Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Personal Liberty Digest - Chris Christie tells New Hampshire Republicans he is who he is

Posted on February 17, 2015

CONCORD, N.H. (TNS) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie knows better than to attempt an extreme makeover in his bid to become the Republican presidential nominee.

Delivering a self-assured keynote address Monday at the Concord and Merrimack County Republican parties’ annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner, Christie told an audience of more than 200 people that he wouldn’t change who he was in order to get elected.

“There’s only one Chris Christie, everybody, and this is it,” he said. [...]

To Continue Rerading Click Here ---> Gov Christie Visits NH

Townhall - Study Shows Stoned Driving Safer Than Drunk Driving

Christine Rousselle | Feb 13, 2015

Before I begin, let me make this clear: if you have taken any sort of mind-altering substance, be it alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills or prescription painkillers and have not yet returned to a sober state of mind, please, for the love of all things holy, do not get behind the wheel of a car. Impaired driving is inherently dangerous and should be avoided by everyone. Designated drivers save lives.

That being said, a new pair of studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicate that driving with marijuana in one's system is far safer than driving while drunk. After controlling for factors such as age and gender, there was essentially no increased risk to driving with marijuana in the bloodstream compared to driving sober. Conversely, drivers whose blood alcohol content was .08 (the legal limit) were four times as likely to get into an accident.

Both National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies say the exact impact THC has on drivers is difficult to determine.

However, by surveying volunteers they found driving with alcohol in your system and driving with THC in your system had very different results.

According to one study, drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 are 400 percent more likely to get into a car crash than a sober driver.

Drivers testing positive for THC are about 25 percent more likely to crash. But, when you factor in demographic information like age and gender, that number drops to about five percent.

Colorado has seen highway fatalities drop to their "near-historic lows" following the legalization of marijuana in the state. This helped to quell fears that legalization of the drug would make roadways extremely dangerous. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Impaired Driving

Personal Liberty Digest - Want to take your country back? Here’s where it starts

Posted on February 9, 2015February 6, 2015

Under the Founders’ Constitution, U.S. senators understood for whom they worked.

Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution required that “[t]he Senate or the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislatures thereof…” As such, senators posed a barrier against federal usurpation of states’ rights.

During the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, John Dickinson of Delaware argued “that the members of the second branch (the Senate) ought to be chosen by the individual legislatures.”

George Mason of Virginia agreed. He said: “Whatever power may be necessary for the national government, a certain portion must necessarily be left for the states. It is impossible for one power to pervade the extreme parts of the United States, so as to carry equal justice to them. The state legislatures, also, ought to have some means of defending themselves against the encroachments of the national government. In every other department, we have studiously endeavored to provide for its self-defense. Shall we leave the states alone unprovided with the means for this purpose?”

Depending upon their point of view, Founders either hailed or lamented the fact that, by simply refusing to appoint senators, the states could see the central government “destroyed” (William Richardson Davie) and “put an end to” (Samuel Johnston). Or as Alexander Hamilton (who actually wanted a U.S. system similar to British mercantilism) opined: “It is certainly true, that the State Legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of Senators, may destroy the National Government.”

When bills came before the Senate, senators were compelled to understand the will of their states on the matter and vote in the best interests of their states. Several times, senators either resigned because they disagreed with their states on legislation or were recalled and replaced if they refused to vote as their states directed. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Repeal 17th Amendment