FreedomWorks

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your senators and urge them to vote oppose ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).While the Senate recently voted to not ratify the CRPD, the U.N. treaty is far from dead— Senate leadership has already pledged to bring it to another vote at the beginning of the 113th Congress. The U.N. treaty may sound well-intentioned but it would erode U.S. sovereignty and hurt families with disabled children. The U.S. should not submit its constitutional authority to an international unelected body. President Obama signed the CRPD in 2009 because it would supposedly ensure full equality under law and that disabled individuals are protected from discrimination in the workplace. However, disabled Americans are already protected from discrimination under existing U.S. laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. There is no good reason to ratify the redundant and unnecessary CRPD when we already have federal and state agencies enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Families with disabled children would be hurt under the U.N. Treaty. Many families find it beneficial to home school their special needs child instead of sending them to public schools which can often be detrimental to their development. The U.N. wants to enforce global CRPD parental standards that would undermine parental authority and could limit their educational choices. Parents should decide what is best for their child; not U.N. bureaucrats. CRPD is a U.N. power grab that will take away power from our elected representatives and hurt families with disabled children. If the U.S. joins the CRPD, this will open the door for international bureaucrats to intervene in U.S. policymaking. Please contact your senators and urge them to oppose ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.] File Attachments CRPD.pdf27.39 KB

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your senators and urge them to vote against S. 3637, the bill to extend the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) program. Introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), this bill would extend full loan guarantees to all bank accounts that do not earn interest. The usual bank account insurance provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is full coverage up to $250,000, but during the financial crisis the FDIC created the TAG program, eliminating the $250,000 cap for any deposit accounts that earned no interest. Fully insuring these accounts is bad economic sense.  It puts every taxpayer at risk for insuring the assets of the wealthiest account holders (after all, most people don’t have over $250,000 to just stick in a static account). Worse, in an economic environment that already punishes wealthy investors with high taxes, the TAG program provides a further incentive for them to hide their assets in safe, taxpayer-backed accounts rather than risking their money in economically productive investments. As it stands, TAG is set to expire on January 1, 2013.  Yet, under pressure from the banking industry, Congress is moving to extend this unnecessary program by another two years. Investors who have the means to leave over $250,000 in a no-growth account have access to other means of protecting their assets, and do not need to be bailed out with taxpayer dollars. Congress should just let TAG expire as planned. I urge you to call your senators and ask them to vote NO on S. 3637 or any amendment to extend the Transaction Account Guarantee program. We may count any vote on this bill as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2012. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this key vote notice.] Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} File Attachments Key_Vote_TAG_Program.pdf194.71 KB

Friday's job reports seemed to bring good news. All the headlines reported, "unemployment rates at lowest level since 2008."  While that's certainly not false, it's also not the entire story.  The Associated Press reported, "The rate declined mainly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed." This has been the perpetual untold story of the "recovery;" countless Americans who give up looking for work. Meanwhile, the White House either brags about constantly revised employment numbers or blames President Bush for "unexpectedly" dismal numbers.  Perhaps the most concerning statistic in the latest job report is the number of public sector jobs created. CNS News looked at another angle and found that 73% of all jobs created in the past five months were not private sector jobs, but government jobs.  An alarming statistic by any measure.   A Cato Institute study found that public sector employees in 2008 made on average, $67,812 per annum while the average salary in the private sector was $59,909.  Not only are private sector employees forced to pay for pubic sector salaries, but they're paying for jobs that typically earn more while working less and contribute little, if anything to the free market. Of course, ridiculous waste of tax payer money in the pursuit of jobs is par for the course for this administration. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (dubbed the Stimulus Bill), spent almost $900 billion and resulted in anywhere from 200,000 to 1.5 million jobs, at least according to the CBO.  And the cost of those jobs? Anywhere between $4.1 million and $540,000 per job.   While it's great that individuals occuping these new public sector jobs are employed and feeding the tax coffers, they're not paying enough in taxes to pay for their jobs. Taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for more unecessary government expansion at a time when the America can barely afford to pay its bills. Government has not produced one job that didn't cost the taxpayer, and this administration's policies make that all too apparent. 

FreedomWorks has signed onto the following coalition letter:Taxpayers Won't Harvest Farm Bill Savings December 7, 2012 Dear Member of Congress, It is the height of fiscal irresponsibility to include a five-year reauthorization of agricultural programs as part of a deficit reduction package to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. History shows that, like used car dealers, Congress low-balls the price tag to get a Farm Bill off the lot. So that speculative $35 billion in savings coming from the nearly $1 trillion Farm Bill under consideration is likely a budgetary mirage that is really deficit spending. CBO ScoreActual Cost2002 Farm Bill$451 billion$588 billion2008 Farm Bill$604 billion$913 billion2012 Farm Bill$958-970 billion$?? trillion   As you can see, the COngressional Budget Office is not exactly the Farmer's Almanac when it comes to predicting the cost of Farm Bills.  After the dust settles, the last two Farm Bills will have exceeded their CBO score by more than $400 billion. There is no reason to believe this dismal track record will be improved. Despite the fact that the policies in this bill will expire at the end of FY 2017, more than half of the CBO projected savings will occur in the five years after expiration, when another Farm Bill will be the law of the land. The full House hasn't even considered a Farm Bill.  Amendments will not be allowed.  Only in Washington can a more-than-500 page, $1 trillion bill be called "deficit reduction" and slapped onto legislation to deal with the real  budgetary challenges of sequestration and tax hikes. Budget gimmicks and backroom legislating is part of what got the country into this fiscal mess. Taxpayers deserve a simple and transparent solution to the fiscal cliff, not a bloated, overpriced Farm Bill that writes a blank check from the Treasury to a sector experiencing its two most profitable years in a generation. For more information, contact Joshua Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense at 202-546-8500 x 116 or josh@taxpayer.net. Sincerely,American CommitmentAmericans for ProsperityAmericans for Tax ReformCompetitive Enterprise InstituteCost of Government CenterCouncil for Citizens Against Government WasteFreedomWorksNational Taxpayers UnionR StreetTaxpayers for Common SenseTaxpayers Protection Alliance File Attachments Joint_Letter_to_Congress_Taxpayers_Wont_Harvest_Savings_12-7-12.pdf268.45 KB

With 23 states (so far) refusing to set up health care exchanges to implement ObamaCare, the federal government is being forced to implement its own exchanges in these states instead.  Since the ObamaCare law did not provide any funding to do this, observers have been wondering - "how are they going to pay for these exchanges?" Unsurprisingly, the answer is - wait for it - another new tax! Technically, it's actually a user fee, which is functionally a convenient way to levy a tax without having to go to Congress.  In a new proposed rule issued this morning, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has authorized the federal exchanges to collect a fee from insurance companies participating in the exchange for each policy they sell. Of course, insurance companies will simply pass this fee on to consumers, either by raising their premiums or by reducing their coverage. The same will likely be true in those states which are implementing state health care exchanges - the states are authorized to collect fees in order to pay for the costs of running the exchange. How much will this cost you? According to one major study, this much: So the average family buying their own plan would see their costs go up by $270 just in 2014, in addition to the overall increase in the cost of their premiums. Worse, the amount of the fees is flexible based upon how much the exchange costs to operate.  As reported by Sam Baker of The Hill: HHS said it might change the amount of its user fee in later years, as more people enroll coverage through the exchanges. It will also monitor states' fees. In other words, this fee is certain to go up as the exchanges inevitably grow, regardless of whether a state runs its own exchange or not.  This is just another way that ObamaCare will raise the cost of your health care, which is why we must fight the law by urging states to opt out of setting up an exchange. For more on why resisting state exchanges tears at the fabric of the health care law, check out this great summary HERE.

Dear Speaker Boehner, On behalf of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I strongly urge you to restore Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), and David Schweikert (R-AZ) to their respective committees. Many in the grassroots freedom movement are angered and disappointed by the news that the House Republican Steering Committee has purged three strong fiscal conservatives from their assignments on key committees. While no public explanation has been given for their removal, nor have they have been directly informed of it, there is strong evidence that they were removed solely because their votes were not in lockstep with leadership. It seems plain that the leadership hopes to enforce party discipline by punishing dissent. When did it become a crime to stand up for fiscal common sense and constitutionally limited government? These legislators are popular with grassroots freedom activists because of their commitment to limited government principles. Rep. Amash, who has been removed from the Budget Committee, has a 100 percent FreedomWorks lifetime rating. Rep. Huelskamp, removed from the Budget Committee, has a 96 percent FreedomWorks lifetime rating. Rep. Schweikert, removed from the Financial Services Committee, has a 96 percent FreedomWorks lifetime rating. These principled legislators have stood with the Constitution even when it was unpopular to do so and have routinely voted against big spending bills. They should be praised, not punished. If the Republican Party wants to become the majority governing party, it must stop alienating the millions of grassroots citizens upon whom it depends and whose principles it claims to share. House Republicans should not ostracize their own members for holding the Republican view that Washington should not spend money it does not have. We applaud these three constitutional guardians for taking principled stands against bloated bills that would cripple our economy and add to our national debt. These men are voting the way that they promised their constituents they would—on principle. I strongly urge you to restore Congressmen Amash, Huelskamp, and Schweikert to their respective committees. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.] Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} File Attachments FWLettertoSpeakerBoehner.pdf195.95 KB

In the final days before the start of the new Congress, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican establishment are quietly purging strong fiscal conservatives from prominent budget and finance committees. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who has a 100 percent lifetime rating with FreedomWorks, has been removed from the House Budget Committee. Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who has a 96 percent lifetime rating with FreedomWorks, has been removed from the House Budget Committee. Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona, who has a 96 percent lifetime rating with FreedomWorks, has been removed from the House Financial Services Committee. Sources tell FreedomWorks that these fiscal conservatives were removed from their committees because their votes were not in lockstep with House leadership. Reps. Amash, Huelskamp, and Schweikert correctly voted against a handful of House leadership supported big spending bills: Reps. Amash and Huelskamp voted against the House leadership supported Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 48) that would have continued our unsustainable levels of deficit spending without the transparency of the open budget process. Reps. Amash, Huelskamp, and Schweikert voted against the House leadership supported Continuing Resolution (H.R. 2608) that would have funded the government without any spending cuts.Reps. Amash, Huelskamp, and Schweikert voted against Speaker Boehner’s Budget Control Act (S. 365) which created the failed Super Committee, and allowed President Obama to raise the debt ceiling to over $16 trillion and did not cut, cap, or balance federal spending.  Reps. Amash and Huelskamp voted against the House leadership supported House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget (H.Con.Res.112) citing that it did not cut enough spending. While a step in the right direction, it would not balance the budget until at least 2040 – far too slowly given the massive size of our nation’s debt. They opted to support the Republican Study Committee’s more conservative budget instead, H.Amdt. 1003. Call Speaker Boehner and tell him to restore these genuine fiscal conservatives to their respective committees. [Click here to see a PDF version of this report.] Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

Leave it to Big Labor to pursue the ridiculous and inane. Based on a tip from Gawker, the AFL-CIO sent a letter to men's retailer, Unionmade, demanding the retailer stop its, "unfair competition."  Touted as, "as one of the best independent menswear stores in the country," by GQ, Unionmade merchandise is not in fact made solely by unions.  Unionmade's website indicates, "the name "Unionmade" was conceived around the notion of well-made and aesthetically classic goods. We strive to carry items of the utmost quality that will continue to serve the owner well over time."  In an interview for the Huffington Post, professor Peter Dreier at Occidental College, asked Todd Barket, Founder of Unionmade:So isn't the store's name, Unionmade, a bit misleading?"It had nothing to do with unions," Barket said. "I'm surprised that people took the name literally."In the same interview, Barket explained how he came up with the name for his store:At first I was thinking of family names. Turn of the (20th) century. That was a time in America when things were nicely made, well-made," Barket said. "I wanted a one-word name, a strong word, and so we combined `union' and `made' into one word, and it sounded right.But as expected, the AFL-CIO is, "not flattered by imitation."  The cease and desist letter sent by AFL-CIO counsel to Unionmade Thursday demanded:By your own admission, these stores do not necessarily sell items that are made by union members, as the name UNIONMADE would otherwise suggest. The AFL-CIO finds your use of the UNIONMADE mark highly misleading as the dictionary definition and understanding amongst the public is that “union-made” means “produced by workers belonging to a labor union.”The letter references Dictionary.com as evidence. Additionally, the AFL-CIO has a problem with Unionmade's logo because it contains a handshake, as does the Big Labor logo.Interestingly, other retailers employ names that are not literal. For instance, Old Navy sells more than tattered blue textiles, Banana Republic is shockingly, not an actual Banana Republic, Victoria's Secret isn't really a secret anymore, Target sells merchandise other than targets and Saks Fifth Avenue has locations that are not situated on Manhattan's premier drive. Of course the list goes on.  Following their recent success in murdering the Twinkie and failing to mobilize Wal-Mart workers in a nation-wide strike, the AFL-CIO's next endeavor seems to be gaining exclusive rights to the word, "union" and any emblem with a handshake.  Standing in solidarity with words and handshakes, the men on my shopping list can expect Christmas gifts from non-union made retailer, Unionmade. 

In 2009, the celebration was on for an oddly-named company known as CH2M Hill. The engineering firm, performing the vast majority of the work at a cleanup project located on the Hanford Nuclear Site in eastern Washington, had just received word of a $1.96 billion reward in stimulus money for their services.  The company immediately set about conducting job fairs and hiring 1,300 employees. Feel good story of the stimulus, right?  Wrong.  More like a prime example of how stimulus funding was nothing more than a short-term band-aid for a long-term economic wound. In the past couple of years, CH2M Hill has repeatedly announced layoffs that have met and exceeded the number of hires created by the stimulus, have slashed the pensions of non-union workers, and are currently demanding wage and benefit cuts from their union employees. In January of 2011, specifically citing the drying up of stimulus funds, the Hanford nuclear site braced for a loss of 1,600 jobs, with 1,350 starting in September for CH2M Hill. This past August, the company announced another 400 layoffs were imminent, informing members of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council (HAMTC) union of the news. All told, the Hanford site started 2011 with 12,000 workers, but lost about 2,000 nine months later.  An article by the Tri-City Herald featured several interviews with people who had lost their jobs after stimulus funding had dissipated.  Most understood that their positions were only temporary - meaning, they recognized that once the stimulus money had been thrown at the project, their jobs would be eliminated.   Why didn't the government? Not only was it temporary, but in the end was proof positive that the stimulus could not counter the effects of an ailing economy.  CH2M Hill lost roughly a net of 700 positions - despite the hiring that came about after their hefty $2 billion reward. Troubling waters for Hanford workers have yet to recede.   Just a few weeks ago, nearly 1,700 non-union workers at the Hanford site had their pensions cut, with benefits accrued being frozen for 2014, and the multiplier used to calculate pension benefits being reduced from 1.6 percent to 1.2 percent. Union workers from the aforementioned HAMTC were spared such cuts - or were they? At the end of November, labor negotiations between the HAMTC and CH2M Hill got testy, with the company proposing significant wage and benefit cuts for their workers.   Dave Molnaa, President of the HAMTC called the proposal "an insult to workers", explaining that "the proposal will mean less money for workers and more money kept by the corporation". Why would a company that received nearly $2 billion in government funding need to eliminate jobs, eliminate pensions, reduce wages, and find ways to 'keep more money'? A Wall Street Journal report explains it best, perhaps.  In discussing the CH2M Hill/Hanford cleanup projects, Tennille Tracy writes: “… projects that employ people quickly are often considered ‘low-hanging fruit’ and can fail to set the stage for long-term economic growth.” A microcosm of the entire stimulus experiment itself. For sure enough, when the low-hanging fruit began to go bad for companies like CH2M Hill, when the stimulus funding ran out for projects at the Hanford site, all of those jobs—and then some—were eliminated. We keep hearing about companies that received millions in stimulus funding, but only created a certain amount of jobs at an exorbitant amount.  Yet CH2M Hill continues to fly under the radar, receiving billions in funding to actually lose hundreds of jobs. Such waste.  $2 billion in taxpayer money provided for temporary hiring, temporary funding, and a temporary patch on the economy - and you've probably never heard about it.

College campuses are notorious hot beds for first amendment violations. Western Piedmont Community College, nestled in Morganton, North Carolina, joined the ranks of would-be free speech censors when administrative officials rewrote a student group advertisement for a Christmas tree sale, replacing "Christmas" with "holiday."  “We cannot market your trees in association solely with a Christian event," the college told the student group who intended to sell Christmas trees to raise money for charity. The advertisements were sent in the form of text messages.  The forced renaming of Christms trees caused backlash from members of the community. The student group was contacted on multiple occasions by individuals refusing to purchase trees specifically because they believed the student group had taken the liberty of calling them "Holiday" trees. “It’s ridiculous that anyone would have to think twice about using the word ‘Christmas’ as part of a Christmas tree sale,” said Legal Counsel Matt Sharp. “Not only is it perfectly constitutional to use the word ‘Christmas,’ it is unconstitutional to prohibit use of it. This is another perfect example of the immense misunderstanding that far too many college officials have about what the First Amendment truly requires.”  Sharp, attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom wrote a letter to Western Piedmont Community College on behalf of the student organization requesting written confirmation that all censorship of the student organization's advertisements have ceased and original language has been restored.  Should we tell the community college that "Holiday" is actually in reference to Holy-day? What would they have called the tree sale if they'd have known that?  Today, the community college responded indicating, "upon further reflection of of this situation... we determined that changing instances of "Christmas" to "Holiday" in advertising materials... was an error. In response to this error, we have changed instances of "Holiday" back to "Christmas."  “Referring to Christmas trees as ‘Christmas trees’ is perfectly acceptable and constitutional. We commend WPCC officials for doing the right thing in working speedily to correct this problem, and we hope other schools in similar situations will follow their example," Sharp said. 

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representatives with a two-part message: “Keep your promise on the sequester savings, and pass a one-year extension of all current tax rates, in order to give Congress time to develop true fundamental tax reforms and genuine entitlement reforms.” Our representatives in Congress must keep their promise on the sequester savings and stop any efforts to raise taxes in this weak economy. If there is a “fiscal cliff,” our federal government drove off the edge of it about $10 trillion dollars ago. Now, to avoid certain tax hikes and spending cuts, powerful insiders are negotiating a “bipartisan deal” behind closed doors to give us … tax hikes and spending cuts. What’s the difference?  In the Budget Control Act passed last year, the Washington establishment secured an immediate $2 trillion increase in its credit card limit, in return for which taxpayers secured a promise of only $1.2 trillion in cuts spread over ten years. That amount is a pittance—just 2.6 percent—of the $45 trillion the government is projected to spend over that period. The “Super Committee” which was supposed to identify these $1.2 trillion in savings failed to reach an agreement. As a result, across-the-board “sequester” savings will go into effect on January 1st. Some members of Congress are concerned that the sequester’s defense savings are too deep. This is certainly not an excuse to “call the whole sequester off.” Rather, if Congress feels changes are needed, it can easily come up with a new mix of defense and non-defense savings by January 1st; but the overall level of savings is a promise to taxpayers that must be kept. Bipartisan Washington budget deals typically combine big, immediate tax hikes with minimal, promised spending cuts. Raising marginal tax rates, as Democrats want to do, will slow economic growth and kill jobs. Congress should do as it did after the 2010 elections, and pass an extension of all current tax rates, not just those on people making less than a certain amount. This would afford all parties—and the American people—time to develop true fundamental tax reforms, which, coupled with genuine entitlement reforms, could help start the nation toward a fiscally sustainable path. With the federal government expecting to face an over $1 trillion deficit in the upcoming year, we cannot afford to increase spending at the current rate. Congress should not back down on the $109 billion in sequestration spending restraint scheduled for next year or raise taxes on the American people. Please contact your representatives and tell them: “Keep your promise on the sequester savings, and pass a one-year extension of all current tax rates.” Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.] Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-famil

The Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative certainly seems to think so.  The Blaze reported a lesson plan for World History and Social Studies that uses the Boston Tea Party as an example of terrorist activity. The lesson plan asks the teacher to read the following scenario as though it's a breaking news story: A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at the port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed as natives and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government.   The instructional procedures that follow state: Does this event in the news report meet the criteria of a terrorist attack? Why or why not? Does anyone know if this act is from a previous time in our history? (It is the Boston Tea Party.) Do you think that in the eyes of the British that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity? Why or why not? Were the colonists justified in taking this action due to their beliefs? Is anyone ever justified in committing these types of activities? What drives people to do this type of activity? These are things that we will explore further While there's certainly nothing wrong with teaching critical thinking skills to our youngsters, using events like the Boston Tea Party to illustrate the depravity of terrorism is absolutely unacceptable.  It goes without saying that the events that led to the American Revolution are in no way tantamount to modern terrorism and any association that suggests as much should be rebuffed.  Revisionary historians threaten America's core values by intentionally skewing the principles and ideas that make America an exceptional nation.  Comparing patriots to terrorists is just another attempt to eradicate the principles of freedom and justice from the consciousness of young Americans. Thankfully, we're not helpless. Click here and tell your elected official that this type of curriculum is unacceptable. It's up to you; up to us to fight for truth. Requests for comment were not returned from CSCOPE (the Texas curriculum governing body) at the time this was posted.  

Last week TSA (Transportation Security Administration) screeners voted to ratify a collective bargaining agreement, creating America's newest union.  According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, the vote was a landslide; 17,326 to 1,774 members voted to ratify the agreement.  According the TSA press release, the agreement will begin December 9 and remain in effect for three years.  A TSA decision memorandum cited poor employee, "morale and engagement" as reasons for pursuing unionization, stating, "employee engagement and security are interrelated, and therefore directly affect our capacity to effectively carry out our mission."  Following the news of the agreement, Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Mica, released a scathing press release. "While we must respect employee rights to be represented by organized labor, TSA has failed to represent the flying public and has missed the mark on improving procedures and protocols while focusing on tie tacks and tattoos," Mica said. The statement continued, "The Congressional analysis of the TSA Labor agreeement... concludes that is provides few real benefits to TSA employees and only further diverts focus from TSA's core functions of analyzing intelligence and ensuring the security of air travelers." Rep. Mica, credited with creating the TSA, called for privatization of the agency in September. Rep. Blackburn of Tennessee also criticized unionization.  "The TSA is putting the safety and security of American passengers at risk by allowing federal unions to claim a greater stake in dictating our national security," she said before criticizing the annual uniform allowance which was doubled in the agreement. As the Washington Examiner pointed out, the new TSA uniform allowance is more than the one time uniform allowance of a Marine Lieutenant.  The TSA has failed to expose any major security threat in the last ten years.  And rather than working to install procedures that support public interests while furthing security measures, TSA is now synonymous with molestation, theft, waste of millions in taxpayer dollars and other anti-liberty absurdities. It's hard to imagine how a scandal-ridden government agencies unionization would alleviate their ill-gotten, but justified reputation much less enhance national security.  I mean really, what could go wrong?

On Thursday, Republican House Speaker John Boehner gave an interview with ABC News in which he famously declared, "Obamacare is the law of the land".  But the battle as they say, has just begun. FreedomWorks is leading that charge, taking action against the implementation of state-run health exchanges, and by extension, striking a critical blow against the heart of Obamacare. With a Friday deadline looming, states are pressed with the task of determining whether or not to implement health insurance 'exchanges', a new government-run “marketplace” for obtaining health insurance.  These exchanges are designed for the management of billions of taxpayer dollars in insurance premium subsidies that are to be distributed to private insurance companies. Noted health care policy critic Betsy McCaughey, explains it in layman's terms: "It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV." Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains what that really translates to for residents of those states who choose to implement such an exchange. "State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom." Practically a microcosm of the entire Obama platform during his first term, and certainly representative of what the future holds should Obamacare indeed become the law of the land. So how can we use state exchanges to fight the new health care law?  Do nothing. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh stated that "there could be some delays if the governors refuse to set up the exchanges", but simple delays could beget much larger problems for the health care overhaul. To understand this, it is necessary to understand why these exchanges need to be created in the first place.   The federal government has admitted that it can't pay for this health care 'marketplace', which would cost between $10 to $100 million per year in each state. Hence the necessity for each state to set up its own exchange, shouldering some of the costs. The problem with that notion is that nowhere in the 2,700 page behemoth known as the Affordable Care Act, is it written that the states will be required to do so; the assumption being that the states would simply go along with the federal governments wishes.  Because of this, the government cannot legally enforce the employer mandate "tax" on employers in a state that has not set up an exchange.  Without the employer mandate, and without the exchanges to manage the insurance subsidies, ObamaCare falls apart. That said, there is recourse for the Obama administration, which they have indicated will be sought - implementing federal exchanges in states that do not set up their own. This creates a two-headed issue, however. First, a minor matter of money.  The bill itself does not budget any money to do the work for the state.  This as we mentioned would amount to anywhere between $10 to $100 million per year, per state.  A matter more of inconvenience, as the federal government will now have to find ways to obtain that money from other sources - and they will. The second issue is one that FreedomWorks Vice President of Health Care Policy Dean Clancy believes is the key to nullifying Obamacare.  Essentially, when the federal government implements an exchange, attempting to distribute the subsidies and enforce the mandates in the resisting states - it would be illegal.  The states involved could then sue.  This alone will probably force Congress to reopen the health care law, opening up an opportunity to properly scrutinize Obamacare with Republicans in control of Congress this time around. The simple equation for all of this is as follows: No state exchanges = No mandates + No subsidies = Obamacare doesn’t w

When you cast your ballot next week, will you be more concerned with the candidates’ positions on energy or the environment? A recent poll shows that most American voters are more concerned with energy policy than environmental policy when it comes to selecting a candidate for whom to vote.  The poll asked respondents about the importance of ten policy areas. While 77% said that energy policy was either important or very important, only 67% ranked environmental policy as such. The study found that “among the policy areas tested, environmental policy appears to be the least influential over Americans’ likely presidential choice.” Of these ten areas, energy policy ranked sixth overall.  Partly, this is because of the far-reaching implications of energy policy. “Even after the election is over, energy will remain an important subject for Americans because it is also central to so many other policies, especially economic, jobs and environmental policies,” says Harris Interactive Vice President and Senior Consultant Sarah Simmons. “In addition, energy pricing has a significant impact on families – whether it is in the prices they pay at the pump OR in the impact energy prices have on the ability of large and small businesses to increase the workforce. This unique role that energy plays in our nation’s economic health and our way of life will continue to keep the issues on the front burner.” With mere days until the election, candidates might want to make sure they are emphasizing energy policy to get their message out to potential voters. With such tight races across the country, this might be just the wedge issue to get swing voters to cast their ballots.