A new parody of the ad for the hideously expensive, poor-selling and oft-flammable Chevy Volt mocks the vehicle’s massive government subsidies, its habit of bursting into flames and its ties to Barack Obama.
Go here to see the ad on YouTube, where it has already racked up over 300,000 views. That’s about how many taxpayer dollars it costs to produce just one Volt.
Tweet or share this by clicking below.
A new study by the independent consulting firm Baker & O’Brien finds a new Obama Expensive Gas Rule that Barack Obama is pushing through the EPA, which demanding the use of low-sulfur gasoline, would send gas prices skyrocketing, shut down as many as seven refineries, significantly decrease U.S. gasoline production and double reliance on foreign imports.
Along with the thousand of workers who would lose their jobs under the Obama rule, the study also finds gas prices could increase by as much as $0.25 a gallon, on top of the 200% increase in gas prices seen under the Obama administration.
“Obama’s Expensive Gas Rule is a nuclear weapon in his ongoing war on your pocketbook,” said American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald Ferguson. “Obama is pushing this through his EPA cronies, instead of through Congress, because he knows accountable lawmakers would never let him get away with exploding the price of gas.”
“This is why American Tradition Partnership has made passing the REINS Act a top priority,” said Ferguson. “Under REINS, any proposed rule with an impact greater than $100 million would need to be voted on by Congress. The idea of having laws voted on my lawmakers instead of imposed by royal decree makes Obama and Gang Green explode with rage, but it’s what the Constitution requires. There would be no Obama Expensive Gas Rule under the REINS Act.”
U.S. District court hands ATP latest legal victory, overturning vote record disclosure law
In American Tradition Partnership’s latest victory over Montana’s anti-speech campaign finances laws, in a Friday ruling U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell blocked Montana state laws requiring authors of political election materials disclose another candidate’s voting record. Under the law, any vote cited by a challenger to an elected official must also cite other votes around the same time, without defining what that may be. Intended to protect incumbents, it placed any challenger under threat of prosecution.
“There’s a reason American Tradition Partnership continues to win in court, and why Attorney General Bullock loses time and time again. The Constitution is on our side,” said American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald Ferguson. “The political establishment in Helena has written these laws to suppress criticism of elected officials, which flies in the face of our founding principles.”
“Why are Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock doing everything they can to pass laws restricting what you can say about elected officials? Could it have something to do with the endless tales of corruption and unethical behavior pouring out of their administration, which has seen one Commissioner of Political Practices forced to resign under investigation and another reprimanded by a federal court for the ‘petty bureaucratic harassment’ of conservatives?,” said Ferguson.
“There’s a reason every objective court sides with American Tradition Partnership. The law is on our side. We are fighting the corrupt political establishment strangling Montana. If Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock wants to get corruption out of Helena, they can start by cleaning up their own administration.”
The ruling was made in a suit brought against Attorney General Steve Bullock by American Tradition Partnership, a grassroots-based organization with wide membership across Montana. It was heard by Judge Lovell of the United States District Court for the District of Montana in Helena.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court blocked enforcement of Montana laws prohibiting corporations from engaging in independent expenditures. ATP had won a victory on that suit in state court, only to see it overturned by the Montana State Supreme Court in a ruling that admittedly openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. ATP appealed the state Supreme Court ruling to the Supreme Court and won an injunction.
Big Timber, Montana – Today, American Tradition Partnership (ATP) State Coordinator Doug Lair announced a “resounding” victory in Federal court on behalf of the group’s more than one thousand Montana members.
“Montanans who value their 1st Amendment rights were vindicated again today against an attorney general and political elite in Helena who don’t want their voting records exposed to the light of day”, said Lair referring to ATP’s twin victories at the United States Supreme Court and in Federal court, exactly one week apart.
“You’re darn right Steve Bullock doesn’t want us talking about his vote against the jobs and wealth that Otter Creek coal will create,” Lair continued, “so of course he and his friends at political practices want to retain the right to go on investigatory fishing expeditions against their political enemies.”
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell found unconstitutional the state’s vague statutes forcing anyone who wants to publish a politician’s vote on a certain issue to also publish every related vote by that politician, and a so-called false statement law. He declined to enjoin other claims that Montana’s campaign contribution limits are too low.
ATP is challenging nearly a dozen and a half speech-related statutes as unconstitutional in three cases; nationally, so far the group has not lost such a case. The litigation has already resulted in announcements from the Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices to all registered political organizations, telling them how the laws have changed.
From this week’s The American Prospect:
American Tradition Partnership’s grassroots army is fighting to preserve Montanans’ rights to speak freely without government harassment, and that has the liberal establishment angry and looking to preserve their monopoly on political speech.
As Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation writes:
If you want to see an illustrative example of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer making decisions based on their personal ideologies and political opinions—as opposed to the actual evidence submitted in the cases before them—look no further than an order issued February 17 in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock.
Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a stay of the December 30 decision of the Montana Supreme Court, because the court defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court found that a ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions was a violation of the First Amendment. The Montana court reinstated a state ban on independent political expenditures by corporations that had been thrown out as unconstitutional by a lower court relying on Citizens United…
…But what is very revealing is the “Statement” that was added to the stay order by Ginsburg and joined by Breyer. The unusual “Statement” claims that Montana’s experience “and experience elsewhere” since the Citizens United decision “make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’” The two justices joined the stay because a petition for certiorari “will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”
What evidence is there before Justices Ginsburg and Breyer that the allegiance of candidates is being bought? The misinformed editorial pages of The New York Times? The propaganda spewed by MSNBC about Citizens United? And what evidence is there of “corruption” by corporations because of independent expenditures? There is none.
And why is there no mention whatsoever of spending by labor unions, which tend to spend much larger sums than for-profit corporations?…
…It bears looking at two of the plaintiffs in the Montana case—whose speech the justices want to restrict. American Tradition Partnership calls itself “a no-compromise grassroots organization dedicated to fighting the radical environmentalist agenda,” while the Montana Shooting Sports Association tries to protect Second Amendment rights. No wonder the justices are concerned—why would they want conservative organizations like these to speak politically?
If we need anything, it is even more independent political speech by corporations, unions, and issue organizations. That is why we have a First Amendment: to encourage and protect political speech and activity by all who want to participate in our democratic dialogue.
Read the full story here or at http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/buying-the-allegiance-of-supreme-court-justices/.
Join ATP, Stop Gang Green!
American Tradition Partnership (ATP) is a no-compromise grassroots organization dedicated to fighting the radical environmentalist agenda. We support responsible development of natural resources and rational land use and management policies. Only together can we protect access, private property rights, and affordable energy for all Americans!