SANTELLI TELLS GOVERNMENT: STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! 6-28-2010

From TPP Facebook page --

Marine Vets Denied Right to fly Gadsden Flag

Some Marine Vets have been denied the right to fly the Gadsden in CT because lawmakers say it's been adopted by the "tea party."

It's now up to Richard Blumenthal, the CT Attorney General who lied about his service in Vietnam.

Let AG Blumenthal know how you feel -- Ph: (860) 808-5318 / Fax: (860) 808-5387 / Email: attorney.general@ct.gov.

From TPP Facebook page via Fox News --

A group of retired Marines is asking Connecticut's attorney general to allow the "Don't Tread on Me" Gadsden flag to fly over the state Capitol on July 4 after Capitol Police refused the request saying it doesn’t fall within the state’s flag flying parameters.

The group says the yellow banner, which sports a coiled rattlesnake and its trademark motto, is the original flag of the U.S. Marine Corps and clearly fits into the section of the policy which states that the Connecticut State Capitol can fly “flags of recognized military organizations of the U.S.A.”

But Capitol Police have denied several requests to fly the flag -- More...

Tree Huggers vs Green Energy Goons

Already starting to get upset over the impact on the environment by illegal immigrants, the tree-huggers have now set their sights on the green energy goons.

From Public Employees for Enviromental Responsibility --

News Release

For Immediate Release:

June 25, 2010
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

HEAVY TOLL ON WILDLIFE PROMPTS LAWSUIT AGAINST CAPE WIND — Scientific Reviews of Impact on Endangered and Threatened Birds Skewed

Washington, DC — A coalition of groups filed suit today against federal agencies responsible for approving the proposed Cape Wind turbine farm on the grounds that the project will exact a terrible toll on federally protected migratory birds. The suit contends that required scientific studies were not done and that mandated protective measures were ignored in approving the controversial 130-turbine project slated for Nantucket Sound, a principal bird migration corridor off the Massachusetts coast.

The lawsuit filed today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. contends that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (until recently known as the Minerals Management Service) and Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treat Act, and National Environmental Policy Act in green-lighting the offshore wind farm. Plaintiffs include Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Cetacean Society International, Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE), Three Bays Preservation and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, as well as Cindy Lowry, Barbara Durkin, and Martha Powers. They are represented by the Washington, D.C. public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal.

Among the issues raised by the suit are the –

• Refusal to adopt recommended protective measures for the endangered Roseate Tern and the threatened Piping Plover, such as shutting turbines down during peak migration periods;

• Refusal to collect or submit acoustic, radar, infrared, or observational data on bird migration; and

• Failure to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement when new information came to light that a large aggregation of the highly imperiled North Atlantic Right Whale was present in the project area.

As a result of these failures, there is no reliable information on how many birds will perish in the huge turbine blades despite requirements that the best scientific information must be used. In addition, there are questions about whether the project will harm, harass, or kill critically endangered Right Whales.

“We are in this lawsuit because science was manipulated and suppressed for political reasons to which the Obama administration turned a blind eye,” stated PEER New England Director Kyla Bennett, a biologist and lawyer formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noting the role of the (now former) Minerals Management Service and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. “Condemning rare birds to extinction is not required for offshore wind development.”

A January 2010 Interior Inspector General report found that the agencies reviewing the project’s environmental impact study were unnecessarily rushed in their reviews because of the applicant’s desire to complete the environmental review prior to the exodus of the Bush Administration. Moreover, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologists protested that the lack of data that made it impossible to adequately assess the project’s impacts on birds. The agency then reassigned the lead biologist.

“After years of personally witnessing the destruction of precious coastal habitat to wind industrial complexes, I am disturbed to see the federal agencies entrusted with the protection of our public waters act so recklessly in approving the Cape Wind project,” concluded Walt Kittelberger, Chairman of the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation.

###

Read the lawsuit
View the Inspector General report on Cape Wind
See the lack of safeguards for scientific integrity inside the Interior Department

Trampling Free Speech; Congress Passes Disclose Act

In almost everything President Obama says or does, he himself labels or qualifies it as "unprecedented." These days things simple as sharpening a pencil has become monumental and of course, "unprecedented," for our President. Boy, aren't we lucky!?!

Our "unprecedented & unpresidential" POTUS, through his Democrat controlled Congress, delivered another "unprecedented" kick in the teeth of Lady Liberty and the voice of freedom she so beautifully sings on our behalf by breaking her pencil of Free Speech in two!

By passing the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) bill (H.R. 5175) & defying the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United that they were unhappy with, Congress has officially redefined our 1st Amendment right of Free Speech to a Selective Right to Free Speech.

They, Congress, being the ones who "selects" what should be allowed as Free Speech. Do you start to hear the rhythmical cadence of goose-stepping off in the distance?

Masquerading behind the as-advertised intent of bringing transparency to the political & campaign process, the backroom politiking of special deals & the cloaking of transparency used by Congress to pass this bill is equivalent to hypocrisy in unprecedented levels....

From National Review Online --

According to the Center for Competitive Politics, they sent one of their staffers to attend the hearing, but she was barred from entry. Apparently, as CCP pointedly said, “their version of democracy wasn’t strong enough to allow regular folks to attend their rubber-stamp hearing for the bill.”

The Rules Committee decided to allow only one hour of debate before a vote, which will probably occur either Thursday or Friday. All GOP motions, including one to extend the debate to four hours, were rejected. The Democrats believe that only one hour of free speech is needed before voting on a bill that will severely restrict free speech.

An effort to allow a vote on eliminating the NRA exemption was defeated, thus guaranteeing a two-tiered system of First Amendment rules for political speech. The Democratic leadership will only allow floor votes on five amendments. The first would require covered organizations to report required disclosures to shareholders, members, and donors in a “clear and conspicuous manner.” The second would prohibit any company with leases on the Outer Continental Shelf from making campaign-related expenditures. In other words, Congress would silence companies that are in favor of oil and gas drilling, but not the critics of offshore drilling. One could not find a starker example of how this bill is intended to silence those whose political views the liberals don’t like.

A third amendment covers corporations with significant ownership by foreign governments or foreign nationals; a fourth amendment would force disclaimers on advertisements to include the city and state of the funder’s residence or principle office. This will lengthen the required disclaimers even more — even the ACLU says that these new disclaimer requirements are so burdensome that “they would either drown out the intended message or discourage groups from speaking out at all.”

The ACLU & conservatives agreeing? Yep, the mouth piece of the progressive left is even unhappy that a brown shirt type gag will be placed on the American public. The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

"Our Constitution embraces public discussion of matters that are important to our nation's future, and it respects the right of individuals to support those conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or embarrassment. Only reforms that promote speech, rather than limit it, and apply evenhandedly, rather than selectively, will bring positive change to our elections."

Regardless of partisan leanings, color, creed, underwear size, hairstyle, etc... every U.S. citizen has the right to Free Speech. We may not like what someone has to say.... but this inherent right was one of the basic building blocks for the founding of our country and to ensure our freedom must be protected.

For a Roll Call of the vote Click Here.

Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) Questions Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis about PSA offering Free Legal Advice to Illegal Immigrants

U.S. Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV) sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis questioning her recent public service announcement offering free legal advice to illegal immigrants. The text of Congressman Heller’s letter is below.

June 24, 2010

The Honorable Hilda Solis
Secretary of Labor
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Solis,

I am very concerned by the public service announcement you recorded which was recently released by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the announcement, you stated that “every worker in America has the right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not,” and invited individuals to make a “free and confidential” call if they believe their employer is engaging in unfair pay practices.

Many of my constituents understandably object to the Department of Labor providing taxpayer-funded legal advice to illegal immigrants. Businesses should not hire undocumented workers in the first place. As you know, U.S. law requires employees to present documents establishing their identity and authorization to work at the time they are hired. An employer must check those documents and cannot knowingly hire someone who is not authorized to work in this country. Companies that hire undocumented workers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Furthermore, the provision of taxpayer-funded assistance to undocumented workers raises serious legal questions. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the enforcement of certain labor laws on behalf of undocumented workers would conflict with policies under U.S. immigration laws (Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 00-1595 (S. Ct. 2002)).

For these reasons, I ask that the Department of Labor consider changing and reissuing the “fair pay” public service announcement. I believe verbiage clarifying the responsibilities of both employers and workers under the law is important. In addition, I respectfully request a response in writing from you describing why, in light of the potential conflicts in law, the Department of Labor believes that offering taxpayer-funded legal assistance to undocumented workers is appropriate. These resources could be more appropriately directed toward employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

While I share your support for ensuring that workers receive every cent they earn, I also believe all branches of government must work together to uphold the rule of law in our nation. Only an orderly and equitable system of legal immigration can ensure that both the security and labor needs of our nation are met, and the Department of Labor should play a key role in this process.

Sincerely,

DEAN HELLER
Member of Congress

The Labor Secretary’s PSA can be seen at http://bit.ly/9nqcqe.

Tennessee becomes First State to Pass English-Only Law in Work Place

From US/English.Org --

With the signature of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen, Tennessee became the first state today to protect the rights of businesses to have English-in-the-workplace policies where there is a “legitimate business necessity.”

The bill, which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in the state House and Senate, was designed to comply with rules set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to protect businesses from lawsuits. Federal courts have affirmed that businesses can require their employees to speak English during business operations and for safety reasons.

Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board/CEO of U.S. English, Inc. issued the following statement following the governor’s signature:

Today, the rights of thousands of business owners in Tennessee are protected from frivolous lawsuits because they require their employees to speak English in the workplace. This law not only protects the rights of businesses to make the decisions that best suit their company, it reaffirms the important role that English plays in our country and economy.

It is my hope that other states will look to Tennessee and take up such important and necessary legislation. I extend my congratulations and thanks to the governor and legislature for taking this important step and passing the nation’s first-ever English-in-the-workplace law.

The Tennessee law mirrors federal legislation introduced by Rep. Tom Price (GA-6) that would guarantee the freedom for businesses to implement English-in-the-workplace policies. Known as the Common Sense English Act, H.R. 1588 has sixty-five co-sponsors and is currently pending in Congress.

k

President Obama REFUSES to send more Oil Skimmers to the Gulf!

Simply amazing!