PoliticalAction.com: Political Action Committee Homepage

Archive for June, 2009

RON PAUL : Cap and Trade will lead to Capitol Flight.

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration’s health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.

The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.

The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!

The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.

And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!

The events on Capitol Hill last week just demonstrate Washington’s audacity in manufacturing problems just so they can expand government power to solve them.

Global Warming Study Censored by EPA

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Richard Morrison
Competitive Enterprise Institute
June 29, 2009

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.cll

In the final analysis,…

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

…the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them. The time has come to act. May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in a moment of great crisis, stood up to the politicians, the opinion-molders, and the establishment, and saved their country.

– Congressman Ron Paul

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

The politicians we deserve

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Back in the 1980’s a political science graduate researcher spent time on Capitol Hill. He had assumed that policy initiatives start with gathering facts, assessing their validity, and then crafting legislation that conforms to those facts. He was shocked – simply shocked – to find that the actual process was the exact reverse. Legislation is conceived based on what politicians want to make happen, then they completely cook the numbers to support their arguments. This is true to form with Obama’s pragmatism. But it’s not just Obama; both parties have played this game for decades. Let’s hope that someday the voting public figures this out and we get rid of these guys. So far, however, Americans seem to be very comfortable being snookered. We have the politicians we deserve.

Another $130 billion for war and no exit strategy?

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Dear UFPJ Supporter,

In the next 24 hours, Congress is set to authorize
$550 billion in FY 2010 defense spending — and with it,
an additional $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This, on top of the $75 billion Congress approved for
continuing the wars and occupations last week. Not to
mention the fact that 6 million jobs have been lost and
our communities continue to face stiffening budget cuts.
To put it plainly, our nation’s priorities are out of whack.

The sole bright spot in this is the McGovern amendment.
House Representatives Jim McGovern (MA), Walter Jones (NC),
and Chellie Pingree (ME) have introduced an amendment to
the 2010 military authorization bill, requiring the Pentagon
to provide an ‘exit strategy’ to Congress by the end of this

That’s why we need you to call your Representatives TODAY
and TOMORROW and urge them to vote for the McGovern
amendment. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Supporting the McGovern amendment and forcing the
Defense Secretary to submit an ‘exit strategy’ will allow
us to insert our voices into the debate and push for a
complete and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Before we can do that with success, though, we need
to ensure that the debate happens at all – and this
amendment is a step towards doing that.

So make sure to call your Member of Congress and urge
them to support the McGovern amendment. Call the
Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Tell them
we need to end the wars and occupations and redirect
spending to our urgent domestic needs!


United For Peace and Justice

Stop Cap-and-Trade

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

June 24, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Congress is trying to skyrocket your cost of living while putting another 1 million-plus Americans out of work. And they want to do it before the week is out.

You see, the bill (HR2454) currently in the House is really nothing more than a thinly disguised energy tax that will hit every single American.

And now Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats are pushing this tax hike toward a vote that could come as soon as Friday.

That’s why we need to act now.

I have included the office number for your Representative, Allyson Y. Schwartz, but first I want you to understand the disastrous consequences of this Cap-and-Tax Scheme.

By invasively manipulating an already over-regulated energy industry, this legislation seeks to fix an alleged problem that has recently been discredited by over 31,478 scientists — including over 3,803 with specific expertise in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences.

All 31,478 of these scientists are trained to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis — and are speaking out against government remedies.

With this bill, Congress is once again just doing what it does best — fleecing taxpayers to further an alarmist agenda.

You see, energy companies just pass the costs of these draconian regulations through to the consumer in the form of huge price increases.

As a result, you will pay higher gas prices, higher electric prices, and higher costs for goods.

Barack Obama has estimated the costs of this legislation to American taxpayers to be over 650 BILLION dollars over the next eight years, and that figure is no doubt just a fraction of the real cost.

But even that modest estimate amounts to hundreds of dollars a year in increased living expenses for every family — and will more likely cost thousands a year.

And according to the Heritage Foundation, between 1.2 and 2.3 million jobs could be lost over the next ten-years due to the bill’s stifling regulations.

This current economic crisis is no time for Congress to consider both raising prices on hard-working Americans AND costing them jobs.

That’s why we must act now to send a message to Congress to reject this disastrous Cap-and-Tax Scheme.

Call now and ask for the staff member that deals with Energy policy. Politely but firmly tell them that you are opposed to this costly government power grab.

Supporters of the legislation are of course trying to downplay the cost of this scheme to the American people.

But if the bill does not directly and massively increase energy costs to consumers, how would it possibly achieve its stated aims?

It is only through these massive cost increases — mandated and enforced by the federal government — that the dubious goal of reducing carbon emissions could possibly be reached. The only alternative to huge energy price increases would be massive, government-ordered power outages, leaving Americans literally in-the-dark like some war-torn Third World Country.

So please call your representative at and speak out in opposition to this hidden tax.

You’ve shown what an impact grassroots action can make toward Auditing the Fed.

Let’s unleash that same R3volution in opposition to this Big Government Cap-and-Tax Scheme.

In Liberty,

John Tate

P.S. Congress is trying to skyrocket your cost of living with hidden taxes from the Cap-and-Trade Bill. Call your Representative and speak out in opposition of this hidden tax hike and expansion of Big Government.

Open Letter To The City Of Pomona From John Shanahan

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

John Shanahan is a licensed practicing engineer, member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and co-founder of Inland Empire 9/11 Truth. The following is an open letter to the city of Pomona, CA regarding the case of Mohammed Abdullah.

June 11, 2009

City of Pomona, City Manager’s Office
Linda Lowry, City Manager
City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766

Subject: An Open Letter
Restraining Order filed against Mohammed Abdullah by City Attorney’s Office, Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman

Dear Linda Lowry,

As a result of various emails that I have received in the past week, I have been made aware of the subject case. I understand that this case will be heard in Pomona Superior Court at 8AM tomorrow.

I have viewed various videos of Mr. Abdullah that are available on the internet. I have never met Mr. Abdullah and most importantly, never discussed with him any issues which I believe to be important before writing a letter such as this one. In one of these videos, Mr. Abdullah describes himself as an African-American; it has never been clear to me whether Mr. Abdullah is trying to set himself apart from people like myself. It is very clear to me, however, that at this time in our young country’s existence, we need more people who will think of themselves as Americans and not hyphenated-Americans. At another point in the video, Mr. Abdullah discusses how he changed his name to a Muslim name (after he converted to the Muslim religion) and abandoned his “slave” name. The interviewer does not follow up with the obvious question that if he had a “slave” name, was he actually a slave? If so, on what plantation did he perform his slave services? I have been told by various people who have expertise and knowledge of various religions that it is written in one of the core Muslim documents (Koran?) that this “religion of peace” actually calls for the death of non-believers of the Muslim faith. I have no idea how Mr. Abdullah justifies his membership in this religion. I believe that it is important to add that I have met a number of Muslims (several of them are my engineering clients) and I have never felt my life to be in danger when I am in their presence. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that most Muslims are probably decent people, who, like many Christians, believe in certain fundamentals of their professed religion and ignore other precepts.

I have expressed the above reservations only because Mr. Abdullah publicly discussed them in his videos. The purpose of this letter, however, is to strongly support the positive activities in which Mr. Abdullah has been engaged on the streets of Pomona in his commendable attempts to overcome the most insidious vice of most Americans of any religion – IGNORANCE!

Just so that you understand the main point of my letter to you, Linda Lowry, I am convinced that we are all in the process of losing our country; the country that your parents gave to you and the country that my parents gave to me. Many people with blinders over their eyes simply don’t want to admit the written evidence on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations that relates how George Bush, Vicente Fox (President of Mexico) and Steve Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) met several times between March and May of 2005 to set up what is called the North American Union. This is a melding of the 3 countries in which the internal boundaries will be de-emphasized and the external borders of all 3 countries combined would be treated as sacrosanct. The 15 page document is called, “Building a North American Community”. They scheduled completion by 2010.

I have read through various portions of the temporary restraining order issued to Mr. Abdullah. The portions of this restraining order were made public in one of the emails that I received from a fellow 9-11 truther. It is my understanding that the wording of the restraining order was prepared by the City Attorney’s office for the City of Pomona. The City Attorney’s office was probably directed to do so by the police department, under the leadership of the Acting Police Chief, David Keetle. According to the City of Pomona website, the City Attorney is Arnold M. Alvarez.

The quotation below is supposedly from the restraining order and I have found it to be extremely offensive on a number of levels:

“During the last several months defendant has lectures (sic) passersby over the wrongful acts of the U.S. government and the war in Iraq.”

Does Mr. Alvarez actually contend that there is some moral justification for the war in Iraq? If so, what is it? I will not within this letter attempt to spend several pages reviewing all of the lies used by George Bush in order to justify the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Is Mr. Alvarez so naive and ignorant as to NOT believe that rape and torture are part of any war? Has Mr. Alvarez never heard of the Rape of Nanking? Is Mr. Alvarez completely unaware of the torture of various German Nazi officers during the International Military Tribunal after WW2 so as to obtain testimony that would buttress the story of the Jewish Holocaust?

Mr. Alvarez has used the term irrational behavior to describe the actions of Mr. Abdullah. Does Mr. Alvarez have access to a dictionary? Does he not know the definition of the word “irrational”? The actions and statements made by Mr. Abdullah, on the surface, appear to be very rational and logical. Mr. Abdullah has determined by his own reasoning, investigation and thought processes that there is no valid reason for the war in Iraq. After coming to that conclusion (correctly, in my opinion), Mr. Abdullah has taken positive high-profile steps to make this information as public as possible to as many as possible of the generally, dumbed-down sheeple who pass by his soapbox in the City of Pomona. How could anyone possibly apply the word irrational to these actions?

Mr. Alvarez has also used the word “offensive” to describe Mr. Abdullah’s speech. What is the matter with the City Attorney for the City of Pomona?! Doesn’t Mr. Alvarez know that the first freedom, freedom of speech, as given in the First Amendment (total of 5 freedoms) of the Constitution was enacted to protect that very type of speech. The most offensive type of speech (without being obscene) occurs when people in government (generally powerful people) are being criticized. There is no need to protect nice speech or complimentary speech or backslapping speech or other accolades. I don’t know exactly what Mr. Alvarez’s knowledge is of the Constitution, but judging from the wording he used in this restraining order, it might need improvement. An excellent website can be obtained (many resources) by performing a browser search on the “Institute on the Constitution” (Mike Peroutka, former Presidential contender in 2004). If Mr. Alvarez really still thinks that certain speech is unlawful that offends people because it criticizes the government , he should become familiar with the Federalist Papers and just as importantly, the Anti-Federalist Papers. I am having a difficult time believing that an attorney representing a large city as Pomona could show so much ignorance of the background to the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Since we are discussing offensive speech that is critical of the government especially as it relates to government policy in promoting unjustified foreign wars, I would like Mr. Alvarez and everyone reading this letter to consider the Vietnam War. It has been more than 30 years since the fall of Saigon and various books have been written and LBJ’s phone tapes have become public, but I still don’t believe that most people in this country will admit that over 58,000 of my American contemporaries as well as several million Vietnamese and Cambodians all died for a LIE! Before Mr. Alvarez sends the Pomona police to Rancho Cucamonga to issue a “letter-writing restraining order” to me, Linda, please ask Mr. Alvarez to consider reading a book. The book was written in 1984 by James Stockdale. James Stockdale was a US Navy fighter pilot who was assigned to the Gulf of Tonkin. The book is entitled “In Love and War”. Part of Stockdale’s mission included flying over a portion of the Gulf on August 2 and August 4, 1964 in response to requests from 2 US warships, USS Turner Joy and USS Maddox. On August 2 he engaged the fleeing North Korean torpedo boats who had attacked the US ships because of an earlier provocation of the US Navy (admitted by LBJ in his tapes released in 2000). On August 4 he responded to another emergency call from the 2 destroyers and spent about an hour flying low over the area watching the destroyers fire at an enemy that was NOT there. Mr. Stockdale spent the first chapter of the aforementioned book detailing the above incidents. The audio tapes of LBJ released in 2000 (for his library) clearly indicate that, as a minimum, it was the US Navy ships that were conducting “aggressive” operations at that time and LBJ acknowledged on the tapes, with a chuckle, that this undoubtedly resulted in the attack on August 2. Most people in this country who were alive and functioning on August 5, 1964 continue to wallow in their ignorance and believe LBJ’s national speech on that date when he exclaimed “We’ve been attacked!”.

I could go on in my attempt to provide offensive speech for the benefit of the Pomona police department and Mr. Alvarez by destroying other canards involving the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor, the “surprise” invasion by the North Koreans of South Korea in 1950, a false flag plan known as Operation Northwoods that involved the destruction of commercial airliners with passengers, blowing up US ships, covert attacks on Trinidad-Tobago with much loss of American lives all in an attempt to blame Castro and justify military action to remove him from power, the direct involvement of the FBI in a sting operation that resulted in the 1993 explosion of the World Trade Center WTC1 tower, the internal bombs inside the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that caused the damage to the building and loss of life all of which were blamed on Timothy McVey and Terry Nichols in 1995 as well as the original Persian Gulf War in 1991 in which Saddam Hussein was suckered into attacking Kuwait so that our government would have reason to engage in military activities in the Middle East.

It would good if Acting Police Chief David Keetle were much more aware and knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution. I have checked with various government sources within the State of California (San Bernardino Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County Sheriff) and it is provable that all police officers and government officials in California take an oath of office that requires them to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”. The problem that I have found is that most police officers and deputy sheriffs are not aware of the oath that they have sworn when they became part of the law enforcement community. If they are not knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution and the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), how can they possibly have the correct opinion of law enforcement on simple issues as freedom of speech which is the subject of this letter? How could they possibly understand that when they participate in DUI checkpoints and/or cite drivers solely for seat belt violations, they are actually engaging in the destruction of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution? If a police officer thinks that his main job is simply the enforcement of laws as dictated to him by others, what will his reaction be when the federal government declares martial law? As I have asked various police officers when I have been stopped for minor traffic violations in the past 5 years, which way will their guns be pointed when the big event comes? On an optimistic note, will the local police point their guns at the tyrants of the federal government in order to “protect and defend” the civilian population against the imposition of the one world government?

Acting Police Chief David Keetle should be aware that over the past 8-10 years especially, we have come closer and closer to losing our country to the globalists who are promulgating the one world government. It is extremely important for the sovereignty of our country that our local sheriffs and police start doing some investigation of their own and start paying attention to what is happening on a daily basis. One good way for Chief Keetle’s police to start doing this would be to visit the website, www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com. This is a growing website of people involved with law enforcement and military. They have taken a 10 statement oath:

(1) We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. (2) We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. (3) We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. (4) We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. (5) We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. (6) We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. (7) We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. (8) We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control”. (9) We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. (10) We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

It is quite well known that it is the Pomona mayor and the city council that ultimately directs the police department and the city attorney’s office takes its orders from both of these groups.

I am asking and hoping that the mayor and the city council will review the content of this letter and consider changing its policy regarding basic freedoms within Pomona to be more in line with the US Constitution. The idea that people like Mohammed Abdullah would be prosecuted instead of being thanked for their patriotic efforts involving the exposing of the militaristic, empire-building, slaughtering-of-human-life activities in foreign countries being conducted by our government shows exactly how upside-down things are within Pomona and probably most other cities.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

John F. Shanahan
9581 Business Center Drive, Suite J
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
email: jfshanahan@earthlink.net
Member: Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, www.ae911truth.org
Co-founder: Inland Empire for 9-11 Truth, www.911truthie.com

Distribution by city manager’s office to the following:
Elliott Rothman-Mayor
Danielle Soto-District 1
Freddie Rodriguez-District 2
Cristina Carrizosa-District 3
Paula Lantz-District 4
Tim Saunders-District 5
Stephen Atchley-District 6
Acting Police Chief David Keetle
City Attorney-Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman

Pomona Police Say 9/11 Truther Must Turn In His Guns

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Pomona Police Vs U.S. Marine Vet 9/11 Truther, … Friday June 26th 2009 9AM
LibertyFight.com Mohammed Abdullah had a court hearing on 6-12-09 to respond to allegations levied by the Pomona City Attorney in their attempt to file a restraining order on behalf of the Pomona Police dept. The complaint claims that some city employees and Police Dept. employees became afraid of Abdullah, who had been standing outside the department with signs and dvds contending that 9/11 was an “inside job”, as well as protesting the rape and torture of Iraqi Muslims by U.S. soldiers. The city had failed to provide
copies of the complaints despite numerous requests, so on 6-12-09 Abdullah had asked for a continuance. During the hearing the judge stated that “there are constitutional issues here”, referring to Abdullah’s right to free speech, and encouraged the city attorney and Abdullah to come to some sort of compromise.

No agreement has been reached, so Abdullah is fighting these charges as originally planned. The original restraining order demanded that Abdullah surrender any firearms he owns. Abdullah, who works as a security officer, says that relinquishing his right to bear arms as a result of his political activism is not only unfair and completely unjustified, but will impede his ability to work as an armed guard and possibly prevent him from finding employment. He continues to maintain, as he always has, that he never did anything wrong, and that he never “stalked’ “followed” or “harassed” anyone. Abdullah says that although his speech and presentation may be passionate and theatrical, it is his God given right to do so, and he considers it his moral obligation to expose the government lies and corruption.
He will fight these charges to the end and deserves your support. Court is Friday 6-26-09 at 9AM.

* Mohammed Abdullah’s Court Date is This Friday June 26th at 9AM.
Pomona Superior Court

400 Civic Center Plaza

Pomona, CA 91766

“Third Floor – Department G (Check the Docket)”

Oppose the Cap and Trade Bill, HR 2454

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Dear Congressperson, (Viewers please feel free to customize for your own purposes)

Please Vote NO on H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill because I can’t afford the increased expenses it would lead to for businesses in general and me in particular. It would serve as a new hidden tax on all Americans. As President Obama said in 2008,

“[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

An expensive new “tax” bill will be considered on the floor of the House as early as this Friday, June 26. This bill is known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.

Most Americans know this bill as a “cap-and-trade” bill for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by creating a system of pollution permits that energy companies must buy before releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There are several very important reasons for Americans to oppose this bill:

(1) At exactly the time when more and more Americans are realizing that our federal government is out of control, this bill would establish a whole new unconstitutional activity of the federal government and give it yet another regulatory tool for increasing the cost of doing business, which would necessarily translate into higher costs for consumers.

(2) This bill would lead to increased expenses for American households of thousands of dollars per year. A recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the cost per household would be as little as $175 per year. However, the Heritage Foundation has responded with “CBO Grossly Underestimates Costs of Cap and Trade,” in which they point out that the CBO study assumes nearly 100% of the increased costs for businesses will be rebated to consumers by the federal government (when has this ever happened?) and omits consideration of negative impacts on the economy of thousands of dollars per household. Bottom line, don’t rely on the CBO report to be an accurate forecast of the additional costs you’ll be paying each year due to this cap and trade bill. For additional analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, see “The Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Is the Economic Pain Justified by the Environmental Gain?”

(3) The whole reason for existence of the expensive cap and trade scheme in H.R. 2454 is based on the global warming myth that man’s activities are producing significant temperature increases. Take a cold bath in reality by reading “A Cooling Trend Toward Global Warming.”

We must not provide the federal government with new powers to regulate businesses that would lead to at least hundreds of dollars of new expenses per household each year and more likely to thousands of dollars of new expenses per year.

Take action now and help preserve your freedom and prosperity by telling your representative in the U.S. House that you are strongly opposed to the cap and trade bill, H.R. 2454!

Your Constituents