Small Businesses Irate Over Climate Change Bill

A growing number of business owners and taxpayers are mobilizing nationwide against the House-approved cap-and-trade energy bill, which would reduce energy consumption but could raise energy prices and harm small businesses.

By Joseph Abrams

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

The revolution will not be televised: it's been blinking along on a giant bakery sign in St. Louis, Mo., instead.

Fed up with his congressman's vote on a sweeping climate-change bill that passed the House of Representatives in late June, the proprietor of McArthur's Bakery took to his street sign and posted a clear message to all passersby:

"Russ Carnahan voted to ... close us and other ... small business."

David McArthur, vice president of the 52-year-old family operation, a Gateway City institution, is one of a growing number of business owners and taxpayers nationwide who are mobilizing against the so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would levy harsh fines on energy consumption that harms the environment.

McArthur told FOXNews.com that every aspect of his business relies on the forms of energy targeted by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and that his congressman, Carnahan, was supporting "a direct tax increase on small business" by voting for it.

"We make (our product) with electricity, we bake it with gas, we refrigerate and freeze it with electricity and we distribute it with gas and oil," said McArthur, who said he worries that high prices could cost his company up to $15,000 a year in an industry with a very tight margin for profit.

The legislation requires that the country reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020. Big energy plants and producers would have a cap on emissions like carbon dioxide, but could purchase "credits" from other companies that have met their reduction goals. The Obama administration says it will pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the plan would have a minimal effect on most taxpayers, costing an average family about 25 cents a day in its first years of implementation.

But the effect on small businesses could be wide-reaching.

"He's killing small business -- he's killing us," McArthur said of Carnahan, who was one of a majority of Democrats who voted for the bill in a closely fought 219-212 vote.

McArthur, who penned a scathing letter to Carnahan, is not alone in taking the message directly to his congressman. Dozens of small protests were organized at the end of June at federal buildings and outside the offices of national lawmakers who voted for the bill.

Mike Wilson, who led a protest in Cincinnati of about 100 people on June 27 across from the offices of Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, said he was appalled by the 1,500-page legislation, which was fast-tracked by House leaders for a vote Friday. A 310-page amendment was slapped onto the bill Friday morning.

"It was, quite frankly, criminal passing a bill that you didn't read," said Wilson, founder of the anti-tax group Cincinnati Tea Party.

Wilson says he is part of a national movement opposed to the bill that was organizing protests from Napa to Nashville, and that will continue to assert pressure as the Senate prepares to vote on the bill later this year.

Crowds were not as large as those at the April 15 anti-tax Tea Party protests, from which the base of these rallies is being formed.

But the protesters aren't the only ones monitoring how members of Congress are voting on the issue.

The National Federation of Independent Business and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors announced they have started a public scorecard on how lawmakers vote on priority legislation for business owners -- and are keeping a close eye on all the congressmen who have supported cap-and-trade.

The NFIB says escalating fuel costs are the second-biggest problem small business owners face, and argued that the legislation is putting a premium on alternative energy sources without considering the needs of entrepreneurs.

"At a time when our nation faces near 10 percent unemployment and stalled economic growth, now is not the time to impose an $846 billion energy tax on small business," wrote Susan Eckerly, senior vice president for public policy at the NFIB.

In the days since McArthur flashed his feelings on the bakery's electronic billboard, he was contacted by Carnahan's office and agreed to take the message down. He is happy to have a new line of communication to Carnahan, but he said that the current crisis is putting enough pressure on his business without added pressure from the bill.

"We have not had the ability to make money for the last three years," McArthur said. "Another year and a 50-year icon in St. Louis is gone."

Obama's Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration’s view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizens.

Ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. "It is the administration's view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional," Kris said in his opening statement.

“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.

“Ah, yes,” Kris answered.

“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.

“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.

“So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?” McCain asked.

“Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions,” Kris said.

“The fact is they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, which apply to the rules of war,” McCain said. “I do not know of a time in American history where enemy combatants were given rights under the United States Constitution.”

Kris and Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel for the Department of Defense, said that military commissions were a viable “alternative” but that prosecuting terror suspects as criminals in U.S. federal courts was preferable – a position Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) took issue with at the hearing.

“Why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war?” Lieberman asked. “The fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the Revolutionary War, we’ve used military tribunals to try war criminals, or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war.

“Again, I think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorists, against the people who attacked us on 9/11, have taken us down, including the Supreme Court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history of military commissions,” Lieberman said.

“Why would you say the administration prefers to bring before our federal court system instead of military commissions that are really today’s version of the tribunals that we’ve used throughout our history to deal in a just way with prisoners of war?” Lieberman asked.

“I applaud this committee’s initiative to reform the military commission act. I think the military commission should be a viable ready alternative for national security reasons to deal with those who violate the laws of war, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion right now, and I thank the committee,” Johnson said.

“When you’re dealing with terrorists whose, and I’m going to say this on behalf of the administration, one of their fundamental aims is to kill innocent civilians, and so it is the administration’s view that direct violence on innocent civilians, let’s say in the continental United States, it might be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental United States,” Johnson said.

“Because the act of violence that was committed here was a violation of Title 18 (federal criminal law), as well as the law of war, so we feel strongly that both alternatives should exist,” Johnson added.

“Well, I respectfully disagree,” Lieberman said. “These are people we believe are war criminals; that’s why we captured them. The greater legal protections of the terrorists because they have chosen to do something that pretty much has not been done before in our history to attack Americans, to kill people here in America, as they did on 9/11, civilians, innocents, it doesn’t matter, and to do it outside of uniform.

“So it puts us in a very odd position, giving these terrorists greater protections in our federal courts than we’ve given war criminals in any other time throughout our history, even though, in my opinion, they are at least as brutal and inhumane, probably more brutal and inhumane than any war criminals,” Lieberman said.

“Yes, it might also be an act of murder that killed people who were in the Trade Towers on 9/11, but it was an act of war,” Lieberman said. “And the people who did that do not deserve the same constitutional protections of those accused of murder in New York City.”

The hearing focused on the military commissions portion of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010, which includes changes to the Military Commission Act of 2006.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) summarized the changes in his opening statement.

• Relative to the admissibility of coerced testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the double standard in existing law, under which coerced statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to Dec. 30, 2005.

• Relative to the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden on detainees to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is not reliable and probative.

• Relative to the issue of access to classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and led to so much litigation.

We would substitute more established procedures based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons.

“Of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial would not apply,” Levin said.

“Our new language says, by contrast, that ‘Except as otherwise provided ... the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in trials by military commission under this chapter.’ The exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities.”

Despite the ongoing debate, on June 25 the committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Staff at the Armed Services Committee press office could not say when the Senate will take up the bill.

Obama: "It's Good to Spread Around the Wealth"

Energy Bill Text Says It Will Cost Americans Money; Targets Help Only to Low-Income Families

Monday, July 6, 2009

By Marie Magleby

(CNSNews.com) – The text of the “cap-and-trade” energy bill, which passed the House of Representatives late last month, contains a frank admission that all Americans will experience “loss in their purchasing power” -- meaning a rise in electricty and energy costs.

The bill also lays out an Energy Refund Program to offset the higher energy costs, but only for low-income households.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 would create a scheme to force companies to purchase permits that enable them to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst for energy and environment at The Heritage Foundation, gave dollar estimates for how much the legislation would cost in his June 22 testimony to the Senate Republican Committee.

"The higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000,” Lieberman said.

To compensate for higher energy prices brought about by the “cap-and-trade” system that the energy bill creates, the bill lays out an Energy Refund Program that will offer cash compensation for low-income households to mitigate their losses.

While virtually everyone’s energy bills will rise, the Energy Refund Program is essentially a welfare program that will only help households treading near the poverty line.

According to Section 431 of the Act, “The Secretary (of Health and Human Services) shall formulate and administer the program provided for in this section, which shall be known as the ‘Energy Refund Program’, and under which eligible low-income households are provided cash payments to reimburse the households for the estimated loss in their purchasing power resulting from the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.”

Fifteen pages of the 1,201-page bill are dedicated to laying down complex formulas for who will receive this energy welfare, what they will receive and how they will qualify to receive it.

Section 431 specifies that households earning 150 per cent of the federal poverty level or receiving other forms of welfare such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance -- formerly known as food stamps --Supplemental Security Income or Medicare are eligible for “energy refunds.”

For households that are not already on government welfare, a two-person household would have to earn $21,855 or less to meet the income threshold, while the income of a three-person household could not exceed $27,465, according to the 2009 federal poverty guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The average U.S. household consists of 2.59 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest information in 2000.

Eligible households will receive their “energy refunds” monthly through direct deposits, state electronic benefit transfer systems or other mechanisms approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The refund amounts are also subject to a complex formula that depends on the size and income of each household and the annual rate of loss in purchasing power, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration each year.

“Not later than August 31 of each fiscal year, the Energy Information Administration shall estimate the annual total loss in purchasing power that will result from American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in the next fiscal year for households of each size with gross income equal to 150 percent of the poverty line...”

Applications for energy refunds require only a name, address and signature, and must be processed within 30 days by the proper State agency that administers the refunds.

Like other federal programs, the Energy Refund Program will be subject to annual misappropriation assessments.

According to the Act, its accountability measures will “rely on and coordinate with” those already in place for the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which involves the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This program accounted for $1.7 billion in misappropriations in 2008, according to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in April.

Critics of the energy initiative have issued repeated warnings about its cost, and the language of the Act suggests that lawmakers are well aware of the toll it will take on American households.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact.

“Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600," The Heritage Foundation's Lieberman said.

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a warning during the last hours of debate before the bill was passed in the House.

“Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is a bureaucratic nightmare that will cost families more than ever for electricity, gasoline, food, and other products, and cost millions of American workers their jobs,” Boehner said.

“This is a tax on anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product, or flips on a light switch. It will drive up energy costs, send millions of jobs overseas to countries like China and India, and place an especially heavy burden on rural America,” Boehner said in a press statement.

“Today, House Democrats made the decision to stand with left-wing special interests rather than with families and small businesses in their districts that will lose so much because of this national energy tax,” Boehner also said. “The American people will not forget this vote.”

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it may face a tougher time.

Auditor Alleges Firm Lost Contract With MSD Over Fire-District Work

MIKE ANTHONY

Executive Editor - Call Newspapers

July 01, 2009 - The longtime auditor of the Mehlville Fire Protection District has alleged his firm lost a contract with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District "as retaliation'' because of its involvement with the fire district.

Robert Offerman of Hochschild, Bloom & Co. told the Mehlville Fire Protection District Board of Directors last week that John Goffstein, a member of the MSD Board of Trustees and an attorney who has represented Mehlville Local 1889 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, created an impasse that prevented his firm's contract from being renewed by the MSD board. (TruthDetector: Goffstein guided IAFF Local 1889's cavalcade of frivolous lawsuits against the Mehlville FPD's Board of Directors. Local 1889 spent over $350,000 with Goffstein and lost EVERY case)

Goffstein, who was appointed to the MSD Board of Trustees in December 2005 by St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, currently serves as board chairman. (TruthDetector: Mayor Slay should begin an immediate investigation into John Goffstein's conduct as an MSD trustee)

During the June 23 meeting of the MFPD board, Offerman read a letter that stated, "I wanted to bring to your attention the situation that recently caused my firm and myself to lose a very large client as retaliation from the Mehlville Fire Protection District's union. I have been the external auditor for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District during the last three years. Mehlville's union labor attorney (Goffstein) became a board member of MSD during that time frame. (TruthDetector: Since Mr. Goffstein's wretched legal abilities prohibited Local 1889's corrupt union bosses from punishing the MFPD's BOD, he turned to an easier target, Robert Offerman who worked directly under Goffstein's authority)

"Our contract with MSD needed to be ratified annually by the Board of Trustees. The union labor attorney was able to create an impasse which prevented my firm's contract being renewed by MSD,'' Offerman's letter stated. "I was informed by the union's labor attorney that this action was in response to our involvement with the Mehlville Fire Protection District. The union's attorney informed me that the union believes that I should have been 'more outspoken' against the directors at the district on their decisions to make changes at the district and specifically changes made regarding the district's defined-benefit pension plan.'' (TruthDetector: It's obvious that John Goffstein doesn't comprehend the duties of an independent outside auditor. Offerman had NO AUTHORITY to challenge ANY decision of the MFPD BOD)

Goffstein represented Local 1889 in a lawsuit filed just days after the MFPD Board of Directors voted on March 16, 2006, to adopt an amendment and two resolutions changing the district's pension plan from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution plan.

That lawsuit was settled last December two weeks after the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed an August 2007 ruling by St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Thea A. Sherry that dismissed the lawsuit filed against the board by Local 1889. (TruthDetector: Goffstein LOST both cases)

A St. Louis County Circuit Court judge also ruled against the union in an earlier lawsuit that sought to prohibit the board from implementing a disability-benefit contract with Standard Insurance and eliminating disability benefits from the district's pension plan. In January 2007, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Local 1889's lawsuit. In May 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit. (TruthDetector: Again, Goffstein LOST both cases)

Goffstein also represented Local 1889 in that suit.

On Monday, Goffstein told the Call he was reluctant to "dignify'' Offerman's comments with a response. (TruthDetector: Goffstein can dish it out, but he can't take it! Read Mike Anthony's brilliant editorial of July 9, 2008)

However, the attorney said Offerman's claims were "not accurate and there were contrary professional accounting opinions. I just wasn't in a position to vote one way or the other. I abstained. I didn't call his contract up. He accuses me of manipulating the vote and things like that ...'' (TruthDetector: Sounds like the phony lawyer, Goffstein, made the decision himself to blackball Mr. Offerman's firm. We think Mr. Offerman's firm should SUE Goffstein for tortuous interference)

In 2006, the MSD Board of Trustees approved an agreement with Hochschild, Bloom & Co. to serve as the district's external auditor for the first year of a five-year engagement. Under the agreement, the term of the external auditor is renewed annually and the fee is set through a multiyear proposal process.

An ordinance to renew the contract was introduced at the February MSD board meeting. In March, the ordinance to renew the contract with Hochschild, Bloom to conduct an independent audit failed after Goffstein requested the measure be removed from the consent agenda and voted on separately, according to approved minutes.

Ellen Harshman and James Buford voted in favor and Bob Berry was opposed. Goffstein and Gerald Feldhaus abstained. The motion failed because adoption of an ordinance requires an affirmative vote by two members of the board appointed from the city and two members of the board appointed from the county.

In April, Berry's motion for reconsideration of the ordinance was approved. Besides Berry, Buford, Feldhaus and Eddie Ross Jr. voted in favor. Goffstein was opposed. A motion to table the ordinance until the May meeting was approved with a 4-1 vote with Goffstein opposed.

In May, no action was taken by the MSD board on the ordinance for the Hochschild, Bloom contract.

At issue, Goffstein told the Call, was whether Hochschild, Bloom's contract would be renewed.

"I said: 'Look, I'm just not in a position to do anything but abstain on this.' You cast hundreds of votes down there, literally, and on maybe — I don't know — 1, 3, 5 percent of the time, you might have to abstain. Everybody abstains down there for one reason or another,'' he said.

Asked if he abstained for a specific reason, Goffstein said, "... He was out in Mehlville and he had rendered an accounting opinion and he had done some other things out there and other accountants, other professional accounting opinions were inconsistent to his own on a couple of subjects. So rather than get into all that one way or the other, I abstained. He accuses (me) in his letter of saying that — he quotes me as saying that I did this because the Mehlville firefighters wanted me to do it. That wasn't true at all. But the point is he did some things that were contrary to their interests ...'' (TruthDetector: Goffstein expects an INDEPENDENT AUDITOR to slant his report to please his clients, the Mehlville firefighters union? Mayor Slay must have been under the influence of psychotropic drugs when he appointed an incompetent clown like Goffstein to the MSD Board! Elliot Davis...are you reading this?)

Goffstein also contended that Offerman "was pointed to this one event where (MFPD board Chairman Aaron) Hilmer allegedly took money out of the pension fund and it wasn't a public meeting and put it into the general revenue fund, put the money into the general revenue accounts and did it outside of a public meeting. And he was pointed to that fact and then he refused to investigate it and other accountants were saying these were fiduciary breaches, specific fiduciary breaches ... Suffice to say, that I was not in a position because I had exposure and experience with this guy and I saw him protecting boards down there. That was one of the things I said to him. I said: You know, if you're going to protect this board, how do I know you're not protecting staff at the MSD? ... (TruthDetector: Mr. Goffstein: ARE YOU NUTS? An independent auditor's job is to AUDIT THE BOOKS, not advocate for the staff of union employees) Be that as it may, how could I not abstain? I don't think his letter even makes it clear that I abstained. I think I had a duty to abstain ...'' (TruthDetector: Mr. Goffstein: You have a duty to serve the taxpayers who PAY for MSD. Instead, you pursued a vendetta against an independent contractor of the MFPD to ingratiate yourself to your clients, LOCAL 1889. We ask: Did Local 1889 consort with you to commit this discriminatory and retaliatory act against Mr. Offerman's firm?)

In her ruling dismissing Local 1889's lawsuit, Sherry wrote, "... "The court is not persuaded that there was credible evidence that the directors breached their fiduciary duty by modifying the retirement/pension plan under the facts presented to the court ...'''

In his letter, Offerman stated, "... I was not personally involved with the district's decision to terminate its defined-benefit pension plan. As the district's external auditor, we do not get involved in management's decisions regarding the operations of the district. Our job is not to draw conclusions on how the district spends its money. Our responsibility as the district's external auditor is to be sure that the district has good internal control procedures and safeguards in place to safeguard assets and to be sure the district's financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

"We do not get involved in decisions such as should the district buy a new pumper truck, remodel a firehouse or what level to set its tax levy for the year ...'' (TruthDetector: John Goffstein: if you can read, an auditor does not make policy decisions)

Offerman also contended in his letter that during discussions with Goffstein, "it was stated that our firm was 'anti-union, anti-labor movement.' These statements are unfounded and completely not true. Myself and my firm are definitely not anti-union, anti-labor movement. Our firm actually represents some labor unions in the metropolitan St. Louis area and have many clients that are supported by labor organizations. I personally have and have had many family members who were members and/or officers of labor unions over the years...'' (TruthDetector: Anyone who does not support every excessive salary and benefit demand proposed by public-sector union bosses is "anti-union")

Regarding Offerman's letter, Hilmer told the Call, "... This is really emblematic of what we've seen from John Goffstein for the last four years ... After posing badly as a lawyer in a string of lawsuits suing MFPD, Mr. Goffstein now fails posing as a trustee at MSD. Instead of doing his job of representing his constituents, he's more concerned with taking away Mr. Offerman's job. Now I've seen people who are very good at posing. However, Mr. Goffstein's actions show he is not.'' (TruthDetector: Right on Aaron! John Goffstein and the corrupt union he represents (IAFF Local 1889) are complete failures. They have never laid a glove on Hilmer or the MFPD Board. Local 1889 is still paying Goffstein's legal bills for their frivolous and vindictive lawsuits. Local 1889 is also using their members' union dues to provide a salary to former union president, Bob Strinni, who was fired by the MFPD Board for stealing a union brother's cell phone and using the contents to harass him. Why ANY EMPLOYEE of MFPD remains a member of this JOKE of a union is a mystery to us!)

NEA's Brazen Endorsement of Gay Marriage

citizenlink.com

The National Education Association (NEA) – the nation's largest teachers union with more than 3 million members – could be poised to vote on a brazen endorsement of gay marriage at its annual convention in San Diego this weekend, according to sources attending the convention.

NEA members obtained a draft of a proposed business item that declares the organization’s support of legal recognition to same-sex couples, which would amount to an endorsement of gay marriage and civil unions. The draft proposal also goes so far as to openly declare support of efforts to “repeal any federal legislation." This appears to be a reference to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions performed outside their borders.

The draft version also declares that the NEA would support efforts to oppose constitutional amendments – a less-than-subtle reference to measures like Prop 8, a law in California recently upheld by the state's highest court, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

NEA caucus members could vote on the issue as early as Friday.

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said this represents an adult, political agenda that has nothing to do with education or a child's best interest.

"This is especially egregious when you consider that teachers in California contributed more to support the traditional, man-woman marriage amendment than they did to defeat it," she said. "If the NEA is so brazen to use its resources to push government-sanctioned same-sex unions — and oppose voter-supported traditional marriage laws — this would unnecessarily alienate a large portion of its members, not to mention contradict the viewpoints of a majority of the public whose tax money funds public schools."

Sissy Jochmann, leader of the Conservative Educators Caucus of the NEA, said this action item is not what's best for future generations.

"Over the years, we've been involved in the union to be a voice for conservative values we believe in. We know that even though we're a small group, we represent a much larger group of teachers throughout the country.

Jeralee Smith, a founder of the Conservative Educators Caucus, said the focus needs to be on education, not politics.

"I believe if the union could get out of the far left agenda … and just focus on education that it would be a great boon to society," she said. "But I believe it tears society down with some of the efforts that it extends."

TAKE ACTION
Contact the NEA pressroom at 619-525-6377 and ask them to reject any proposed business items calling for legal recognition of same-sex unions.

You can also contact the NEA state affiliates.

City Sheriff Joins Those Taking Aim at Carnahan's Pro-Cap-and-Trade Vote

By Jo Mannies, Beacon Political Reporter

Posted 10 a.m. Wed., July 1: Bad enough that Gov. Jay Nixon's favorite local bakery is posting an angry sign blasting the U.S. House's vote last week in favor of the cap-and-trade energy bill that many say will lead to higher fuel bills. Now, St. Louis Sheriff Jim Murphy is circulating copies of a disparaging editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and calling on readers to "call your senators to vote against this legislation." Among their targets is the congressman whose district includes McArthur Bakery and the sheriff's home: U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis. He was among those voting in favor of the bill, which was strongly backed by President Barack Obama. The bakery has posted a sign condemning Carnahan's vote, while one of its executives, David McArthur, apparently sent the congressman a letter that's now circulating among the bill's critics -- which include conservative blogs . McArthur did not return a call seeking comment. Two weeks ago, the governor stopped by the bakery to sign a jobs bill and stock up on some sweets for his staff. Murphy, a fellow Democrat and the 12th Ward's committeeman, he still supports Carnahan. But Murphy said he is concerned that his party's members of the U.S. House -- who overwhelmingly voted in favor of the bill -- could be putting themselves in a touchy political spot. "I'm upset with all of them,'' Murphy said in an interview this morning. "It's a terrible piece of legislation." The bill in question seeks to reduce polluting energy emissions by setting limits (cap), and requiring those companies who need a higher limit to purchase credits (trade) from companies that pollute less. Murphy said he sent the editorial "just to five or six friends,'' and was not out to make a big political statement. But it's now circulating in both parties' circles -- especially since Murphy sent it in an envelope with the return address of "Sheriff Jim Murphy." Meanwhile, a spokesman for Carnahan said today that he has gotten a lot of e-mails and phone calls since last week's vote. "But it's been mixed,'' said press secretary Jim Hubbard, with some praising Carnahan and others blasting him.

McArthur’s Bakery, One of Many Small Businesses Who’ve Had Enough

2009 JUNE 28

by Dana Loesch

Hat tip from listener Caroline.

David McArthur had it last Friday when Rep. Russ Carnahan and other Missouri reps SOLD OUT Missouri workers and small business owners by voting for the Waxman – Markey bill, otherwise known as cap-and-trade. McArthur also happens to operate the long-loved McArthur’s Bakery, which has been adding to the St. Louis area tax base and providing jobs for St. Louisans for years.

Of course now, with cap-and-trade moving to the senate, McArthur is ticked. He realizes that his business costs are going to increase exponentially due to the major spike in energy prices which will occur if this bill passes senate. He knows that this is going to affect how he does business and who knows? It could result in less output and loss of jobs, two things we need less of, not more.

McArthur isn’t one to play it silent. He fired off a letter to Carnahan informing him that he put the official’s name in lights, probably not in the sort of way that Russ Carnahan has always hoped:

Congressman Russ Carnahan

Fax: 202-225-7452

Dear Congressman,

Many of us have had it. You are a follower not a leader. Nancy says Jump boy, you say, How high?

You do not represent the interest of your constituents on the cap and trade issue. So you now have your name in lights for 40,000 cars a week to enjoy.

You sir are not good for small business. And we are letting all of our customers and neighbors know it.

David McArthur