Document Z4rxDm8rmkedgGV8a19YgE3yd

Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Americans for Limited Government [media@limitgov.org] 3/28/2018 1:32:56 PM Abboud, Michael [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b6f5af791al842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] The omnibus reversed one of Obama's administrative land grabs One of few bright spots in Congress's recently passed budget was finally defunding the protections granted to this bird, allowing economic development to thrive in the Midwest once again March 28, 2018 Permission to republish original op-eds and cartoons granted. The omnibus reversed one of Obama's administrative land grabs For years, a bird has been the most expensive drain on the Midwest's economy. The greater sage grouse is not listed as an endangered animal under the Endangered Species Act, but this has not prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and LJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from placing significant restrictions on business and lifestyle throughout the Midwest in an attempt to protect this notably flamboyant bird. One of few bright spots in Congress's recently passed budget was finally defunding the protections granted to this bird, allowing economic development to thrive in the Midwest once again. John Paul Stevens is dead wrong about his tyrannical call to repeal the Second Amendment and ban semi-automatic guns, but at least he's honest There are more than 300 million guns nationwide owned by about 80 million people. About 85 million of those are estimated to be semi-automatic guns, which would be banned under former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' plan to repeal the Second Amendment. In meantime, there are about 132,000 schools public and private nationwide. Which do we suppose will be easier to secure: The 80 million gun owners who believe their right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government is God-given? Or the 132,000 schools where armed guards could be posted? Do the math. The federal government needs to prosecute grant fraud If the federal government is going to continue handing out billions in grants for research, then create regulations based on the research, it must ensure the accuracy of the research and prosecute fraud when found. A scientist that manipulates data to meet a preconceived result is not a scientist, they are a fraud and should be prosecuted as such. South Korean concessions proves Trump steel tariffs are already working Rick Manning stated, `Professional naysayers and worry warts claimed doom was upon us when Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00001 President Trump announced his steel and aluminum tariffs. They were wrong. South Korea's announcement that they will end dumping steel into the U.S., and double U.S. automobile quotas into their country in exchange for an exemption from the increased steel tariffs is a clear-cut victory for the Trump trade agenda. " The Hill: Informant provided FBI evidence Russia aided Iran nuclear program during Obama years "A former undercover informant says he provided evidence to the FBI during President Obama's first term that Russia was assisting Iran's nuclear program even as billions in new U.S. business flowed to Moscow's uranium industry. " The omnibus reversed one of Obama's administrative iand grabs By Natalia Castro For years, a bird has been the most expensive drain on the Midwest's economy. The greater sage grouse is not listed as an endangered animal under the Endangered Species Act, but this has not prevented the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from placing significant restrictions on business and lifestyle throughout the Midwest in an attempt to protect this notably flamboyant bird. One of few bright spots in Congress's recently passed budget was finally defunding the protections granted to this bird, allowing economic development to thrive in the Midwest once again. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00002 Finalized in 2015 through the Obama Administration's Department of Interior, the sage grouse protection plan was a large scale federal conservation plan to preserve a bird that was not even threatened enough to land on the endangered species list. At the time, Department of Interior Secretary Jewell called the plan "historic," as it dedicated 5.5 million acres of land across ten states to conservation efforts. As it became quickly clear, environmentalists were the only ones singing praises to this plan. University of Idaho economist Neil Rimbey explained to the Capital Post, to meet concern surrounding the sage grouse, land managers place restrictions on ranchers, usually requiring ranchers to delay grazing by a month or remove cattle a month early. Rimbey continues, this is done "with no idea of the economic impact, and they can have a very dramatic impact at the ranch level." This economic impact is felt across the western lands, from individual ranches to large oil companies. A University of Wyoming 2016 report found, "Due to the large surface area occupied by sage-grouse in Wyoming, the management of sage-grouse habitat could potentially have a significant economic impact on the State of Wyoming in terms of reductions in commodity production caused by management actions intended to protect the species' habitat... For oil and gas development and wind development the direct economic impact estimates represents regional expenditures to develop these resources. The annual direct economic impact for commodity production from sage-grouse habitat is estimated to be $18.4 billion. This represents 22 percent of the total economic output for the entire Wyoming economy". An $18.4 billion price tag is a lot to pay for a bird that is not endangered, but when looking at comparative maps of the area, it becomes clear environmentalist are not simply trying to save an already abundant bird, they are also trying to further an anti-oil agenda. The areas listed as sage grouse conservation sites cover some of the most shale oil-rich lands in the western states. By placing protections on this bird, the Obama-era Interior Department threatened to halt one of the most promising new areas of domestic energy production. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00003 Greater Sage Groase protected areas overlap U.S.-based shale formations Ssuree; Pms.gov and Eia.gov. The University of Wyoming report continued, since sage grouse protections were implemented, they have cost the state of Wyoming nearly 80,000 jobs in the oil and gas well drilling and production industries. While much of the recent Congressional omnibus bill has sparked controversy, one matter that can be celebrated was the defunding of the wasteful sage grouse initiative. Section 120 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 explains, "None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to write or issue pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) a proposed rule for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus); a proposed rule for the Columbia basin distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse." This effectively prevents the sage grouse protections from being enforced because the funding will not exist. Congress will have to renew the prohibition every year, but there it is. While this is a small step in removing environmentalist overreach, it allows for big steps in U S. oil and gas production to be achieved. The sage grouse should have never been protected to begin with, it is thriving on the western planes, and now our economy can thrive there as well. Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. John Paul Stevens is dead wrong about his tyrannical call to repeal the Second Amendment and ban semi-automatic guns, but at least he's honest Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00004 By Robert Romano Finally, an honest liberal stands up and tells us all what he really thinks. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in the New York Times has called for the Second Amendment to be repealed, presumably so that Congress and the states can start banning guns. Therein, Stevens acknowledged that under current Supreme Court precedent, although he disagreed with the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008, owning firearms is still an individual right secured by the Constitution. Here, Stevens, who is dead wrong in calling for the Second Amendment's repeal, is underscoring the real challenge facing activists pushing for decisive action in the wake of the Parkland massacre pushing for more gun "control" measures. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00005 Stevens too advocates for more aggressive gun control laws, which he defines in calling for lawmakers "to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons." So, there is a big ol' ban in there. Of which, there are more than 300 million guns nationwide owned by about 80 million people. About 85 million of those are estimated to be semi-automatic guns, which would be banned under Stevens' plan. In meantime, there are about 132,000 schools public and private nationwide. Which do we suppose will be easier to secure: The 80 million gun owners who believe their right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government is God-given? Or the 132,000 schools where armed guards could be posted? You shouldn't have to think too long about this. Do the math. In the John Paul Stevens version of America, the Second Amendment would be repealed and Congress would begin banning categories of guns, one by one, until finally, a national ban might be implemented. Stevens wants to start with the 85 million semi-automatics. It would be up to the government to round up the guns. Those who refuse would be subject to force, apprehending or killing those criminals still owning or manufacturing guns. More passive means might be devised for individuals to turn over their weapons willingly such as buybacks and the like. But at the end of the day, there would still be holdouts -- perhaps tens of millions of holdouts -- who would refuse to leave themselves and their families defenseless. It would tear this country apart. Or the schools could be secured with armed guards, say, two in every school. If they were each paid on average $50,000 a yea, the schools could be secured for about $13 billion. It could even be done out of existing dollars. So, instead of hiring another janitor or two, schools could prioritize and bake into their budgets real school security. For what it's worth, Congress sneezes out almost that much money every day, spending about $11 billion a day out of the $4.1 trillion budget. Then there is a major political problem Stevens faces. To pass the Stevens amendment, he would need two-thirds of the House and Senate, and then 38 state legislatures to ratify it. By comparison, a simple majority would be needed to hire the armed school security guards if it was done by Congress via budget reconciliation, or a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate for regular order bills. Again, do the math. Securing the schools with guards would be far easier to both pass and ultimately implement than attempting tyrannical gun bans and a Second Amendment repeal. And, unlike a nationwide gun ban, securing the schools would actually have a real deterrent effect as the targets were hardened. It would save lives. When you get down to it, everyone has a right to live. And a part of that is the right to defend oneself. By calling for a national ban on semi-automatic guns by repealing the Second Amendment, Stevens believes the government ought to deny everyone that right. What he may not realize is that he and those who support his call are playing with fire. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00006 Let's all hope they don't light the fuse. Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. The federal government needs to prosecute grant fraud Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00007 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00008 By Printus LeBlanc Every year, the federal government gives out billions of taxpayer dollars through dozens of federal agencies to study man-made climate change. It has become a cottage industry supporting hundreds of "scientists" around the world. Their research has led to countless federal agency regulations costing the U S. economy thousands of jobs and trillions in economic output. What would happen if the underlying data in the studies was falsified? The studies are used in courts of law around the country. New York City is suing Exxon, Shell, and several other oil companies for what it calls, "present and future damage to the city from climate change." San Francisco and Oakland are also suing five oil companies in California, stating oil companies must "pay for the cost of protecting the Bay Area from rising sea levels and other effects of global warming." Arnold Schwarzenegger is even getting into the act, recently announcing he is going to sue oil companies "for knowingly killing people all over the world." He has yet to announce he is going to stop making movies that use copious amounts of energy to produce or quit flying private. But a recent decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may throw everything up for grabs, including the studies used to launch the lawsuits. As the Daily Torch reported last week, Pruitt is ending the practice of "secret science" to justify regulations within the EPA. This raises an interesting question. If the scientists manipulated data to come to a preconceived result, is this a crime? If the scientists filled out grant applications using manipulated data, is that fraud? The law says yes. 18 U.S. Code 1341 - Frauds and swindles - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 18 U.S. Code 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00009  18 U.S. Code 371 - Conspiracy - If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, to commit offense or to defraud United States. After looking at the hacked emails of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it certainly appears data was manipulated to achieve a preconceived outcome. Several scientists around the world manipulated data to end the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) according to the leaked emails. The new data was then used to push massive governmental regulations. This is not the first time questionable science has been used to justify regulations or lawsuits. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a division of the Centers for Disease Control, issued a report linking health problems to a chemical called diacetyl. The report spawned more than 1,000 lawsuits, but there appears to be a flaw in the science. The agency tries to link diacetyl to Bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as popcorn lung, through exposure from microwave popcorn and coffee roasting, but the agency ignores cigarette smoke. Perhaps they do this because other studies cannot link smokers to popcorn lung. Cardno ChemRisk published a study in Critical Reviews on Toxicology stating, "We found that diacetyl and 2,3pentanedione exposures from cigarette smoking far exceed occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers who smoke." They continued, "Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease." Why would NIOSH ignore one set of facts to concentrate on another set of facts? Could trial lawyers have anything to do with it? If the federal government is going to continue handing out billions in grants for research, then create regulations based on the research, it must ensure the accuracy of the research and prosecute fraud when found. All data must be made available to agencies and the public, bare minimum. And if a scientist manipulates data to meet a preconceived result, he is not a scientist, he is a fraud and should be prosecuted as such. Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. South Korean concessions proves Trump steel tariffs are already working Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning issued the following statement praising the Trump administration for already achieving major concessions from South Korea on the steel and aluminum tariffs: "Professional naysayers and worry warts claimed doom was upon us when President Trump announced his steel and aluminum tariffs. They were wrong. South Korea's announcement that they Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00010 will end dumping steel into the U.S., and double U S. automobile quotas into their country in exchange for an exemption from the increased steel tariffs is a clear-cut victory for the Trump trade agenda. Not surprising to anyone outside of academia, the obvious outcome of Trump's steel tariff announcement was that countries would come to America wanting to make a deal, transforming the landscape towards more international trade on a reciprocal basis, evening out the playing field. Hopefully this will result in a rvaluation by those whose knee-jerk reactions always get it wrong." "The Trump trade agenda is wildly popular across party lines, particularly with blue collar voters. That's why Trump won in 2016. It is time for Republicans in Congress to catch up with the President on this important economic policy that puts America first." Click here for the full press release. ALG Editor's Note: In the following article from The Hill, John Solomon and Alison Spann detail the allegations made by a former FBI informant in the Uranium One case, that Russia was supplying Iran with nuclear material while they were also attempting to corner the U S. uranium market: TH E il I ILL Informant provided FBI evidence Russia aided Iran nuclear program during Obama years By John Solomon and Alison Spann A former undercover informant says he provided evidence to the FBI during President Obama's first term that Russia was assisting Iran's nuclear program even as billions in new U S. business flowed to Moscow's uranium industry. William Douglas Campbell told The Hill his evidence included that Russia was intercepting nonpublic copies of international inspection reports on Tehran's nuclear program and sending equipment, advice and materials to a nuclear facility inside Iran. Campbell said Russian nuclear executives were extremely concerned that Moscow's ongoing assistance to Iran might boomerang on them just as they were winning billions of dollars in new nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States. "The people I was working with had been briefed by Moscow to keep a very low profile regarding Moscow's work with Tehran," Campbell said in an interview. "Moscow was supplying equipment, nuclear equipment, nuclear services to Iran. And Moscow, specifically the leadership in Moscow, were concerned that it would offset the strategy they had here in the United States if the United States understood the close relationship between Moscow and Tehran." A spokesman for former President Obama did not return multiple requests for comment. Congressional Democrats have written a memo questioning Campbell's credibility and memory while Republicans say his story calls into question the favorable treatment the Obama administration gave Russia. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00011 Notes of Campbell's FBI debriefings show he reported in 2010 that a Russian nuclear executive was using "the same kind of payment network" to move funds between Russia and Iran as was used to launder kickbacks between Moscow and Americans. Campbell worked from 2008 to 2014 as an undercover informant inside Rosatom, Russia's statecontrolled nuclear giant, while posing as a consultant. He helped the FBI put several Russian and U S. executives in prison for a bribery, kickback, money laundering and extortion scheme. He said he became concerned the United States was providing favorable decisions to the Russian nuclear industry in 2010 and 2011 -- clearing the way for Moscow to buy large U S. uranium assets and to secure billions in nuclear fuel contracts -- even as he reported evidence of Moscow's help to Iran. "I got no feedback. They took the reports and the reports, I assume, went to specific people assigned to analyze the reports and that was the last I heard of it," he said. Click here for the full story. Americansfor Limited Government 10332 Main Street # 326None Fairfax Virginia 22030 United States This email is intended for abboud.michael@epa.gov. Update your preferences or Unsubscribe Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003995-00012