According to the Capital Press, Karen Budd-Falen was curious how much money the federal government paid the lawyers who initiated cases against her clients and uncovered more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money that the government paid to environmental law firms between 2003 and 2007.  That represents an average of $940 million a year, compared to $922 million spent directly on the 986 endangered and threatened species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s annual report.

According to her research, Budd-Falen found that three environmental groups—Western Watersheds Council, Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity—filed more than 700 lawsuits against the U.S. government between 2000 and 2009.

“That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals,” Budd-Falen told the Capital Press, “but to fund more lawsuits.”

According to Budd-Falen, environmental groups are eligible for government funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for the award of attorney fees to “prevailing parties” in cases against the government.  The firms also are accessing government funds through the Judgment Fund, which is a line-item appropriation in the federal budget used for paying claims against the government.

“We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees.” Budd-Falen told Now Public.

“If you just look at the raw number and say ‘why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,’ well that’s what congress set up through EAJA. That’s the law, we’re bound by it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Haws of Boise told Now Public.

Read the entire article here:

Note: Your tax dollars at work… paying lawyers to sue ourselves? WTF??? – FedUpEditor

 “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

The White House announced it would file an immediate appeal.

The problem with progressivism is that, just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government should be doing it or spending money on it. After all, their track record of success is pretty bleak no matter how noble they think their causes are.

The original founders saw the USA as a collection of individual countries (states) united under one limited federal government so that we would not end up where we are today; top down central planning. Instead they saw a country with a small federal government and strong state governments. Yet here we are 234 years after the Declaration of Independence, and we are exactly where they feared we would be; huge federal government (much more powerful than King George was?), unbridled deficit spending, freedoms being incrementally taken away in the name of “fairness” and religion kicked to the curb (unless you are a Muslim extremist). How did this happen? Over time, that’s how.

There is only so much bandwidth and money with which to tackle all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed over the years. And then our congressmen use those bad laws which survive to serve as precedents upon which to write more bad laws. This is the reason for the Constitution. It is a measuring stick by which laws are to be written (or not). But with Federal Judges seeing it as a “living, breathing document” they have twisted the Constitution to mean something other than what was originally intended. So it would seem the problem with progressivism is that in top down planning everyone must do it the same way regardless if it’s a good idea or not. Where’s the freedom? Besides that, it is not “constitutional”.

The original idea was that each state was a unique experiment free to try different things to see what worked to solve their challenges. It was even codified in the 10th Amendment in case the original version of the Constitution didn’t make that clear. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Obama and Progressives call this a “negative” right. Actually, it is exactly right (correct)… period. Each state government was supposed to decide for itself how it should be run. They could then look to other states and see what worked in order to implement or improve upon those which their constituents found favorable. Not so today. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any area in any state that didn’t come under the rule of some bureau of the federal government.

The original purpose of the Federal Government was to solve disputes and problems which crossed state lines. Read George Washington’s biography and you will learn that he viewed the federal government as a necessary evil and loathed the thought of it. He knew what “progressives” would do if given half a chance.

Examples of the founders intent for responsibilities of Federal government would be building and maintaining bridges between bordering states, or regulating commerce on shared waterways that touch several states. Two of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, defending our borders or protecting our freedom overseas, are the same things Progressives complain about spending money on. They say we should be spending the money here on infrastructure or education. As in debt as we are, we probably shouldn’t be spending the money anywhere!

If you want to see the failures of progressivism you only need to look at states like Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii or California and cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. to see that the progressive experiment doesn’t work. High crime and high unemployment are the norm for liberal bastions such as these. Yet what happens when Lynn Woolsey talks about how we need a progressive resurgence? Socialist ideologues come out of the woodwork and praise her, even though she and her buddies have spent us into the poor house thanks to progressives. Those people will never be persuaded to see the truth.

It is my belief that the majority of people in this area are liberal because they can afford to be. Things are pretty good for many people in Marin County. Fortunately, the high unemployment rate in California hasn’t really hit the San Francisco Bay Area yet… yet. Does that mean we should wait until it gets worse before we do something? Unlike an Obama administration spokesperson, we are not looking for a crisis to use to our advantage. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that to change people’s minds.

What we must do is seek out the reasonable Democrats, the patriotic ones who love our country and believe the party has left them, and turn them to our side like Reagan did. There are common sense, patriotic people on the other side who don’t like what their Democratic Party has become. They may not change parties, but they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate who wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and help businesses create jobs, among other ideals that will truly embody progress.

- FedUpEditor

Sincerely,

John Boehner

Here is an Editorial from the PD and the link to it online

Day in and day out we are being presented with stories about the oil leak in the Gulf with finger pointing as to who is to blame for it. Industry blames regulators, and regulators blame the various industry players; the players start blaming each other. Why isn’t the environmental lobby being implicated? After all, if it weren’t for their strict no-drilling policy in other “safe” places, would we have to go so far off-shore to retrieve oil with dangerous deep-water drilling techniques? The answer, of course, is no.

But put all that aside. Just because there have been a few disasters related to oil production, refining and transport, does that mean we should stop drilling altogether like Arnold Schwarzenegger has concluded? With that same logic, any time a plane goes down, we would discontinue air travel. It is as stupid and predictable as those anti-gun zealots who think crime will stop if we ban firearms. All or nothing.

And if we stop drilling, does that mean the rest of the world stops drilling? No! In fact, other countries are ramping up their domestic oil production because we are not. Seeing us as the suckers we are, they know there is no other alternative energy source right now, and they have leverage over us.

Lynn Woolsey is leading the charge against big oil and big coal. Google reported many news stories over the last couple of days mentioning her name and quoting her, not like the lame representative she is, but as if she is riding in on her white horse to save us all. Her committees have been especially harsh on these two industries because of the recent problems; the mining disaster and the oil spill in the gulf. It’s almost as if Woolsey thinks she can legislate our way to never having another disaster or another lost life. Could this be considered a “God” complex? After all, she has been in the House so long I’m sure she thinks she is invincible. I hear she is so confident (or is that arrogant?) that she will not campaign here this fall, but will go out and help other Democrats get elected. Is she counting her chickens? But I am getting off my point.

Let me ask a few questions of Lynn Woolsey. If everyone starts running electric vehicles like you propose, where will the electricity come from? Have you thought that far ahead to consider that California has brown outs almost every summer as it is? Are you offering any alternative solutions to producing electricity in our state or in the nation? You talk about wind and solar as if they are our salvation. But I hear environmentalists are against putting solar panels in the desert to preserve its pristine beauty. That would make wind farms out of the question as well. How do you, Ms. Woolsey, propose to supply our country’s energy needs? Get back to me after we put you out on your rear end this November.

Now let’s look at our President. We are 18 months into his presidency, and Obama is still pointing to the failures of the previous administration for our woes today. It is wearing thin, as polls show. For Heaven’s sake, he has had more than enough time to do at least ONE thing right, but day after day he continues to lay blame and make excuses. The only solutions he has are to raise taxes, spend more money, create more government welfare and pass the buck. Is that what we want from our leaders?

I, for one, am tired of it. I know most of you are too. So is the country, and polls show there will be a huge surge to the right in November if the trend continues. Dick Morris says we stand to pick up 10 Senate seats (including California where he thinks Boxer is especially vulnerable to Chuck DeVore). This is because people are tired of the blame game.

No matter how you dress it up, people are waking up to the fact that government, you know, the ones who caused these problems, are certainly not the ones to solve them. If anything, people are learning that actually solving problems is not in the government’s best interest. Only saying they are going to solve them is business as usual. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can blame whomever they want for the housing crisis, but they should be pointing into the mirror when doing so. Let’s send them back to the Minor League this Fall.

- FedUpEditor

 
            In response to a pre-litigation demand letter sent by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA Foundation, on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to repeal that city’s ban on the possession of certain semiautomatic rifles, which had remained “on the books” as Municipal Code Section 13.47 despite being obviously preempted by state law.

            The repeal is the culmination of discussions between attorneys for the NRA and CRPA and the Berkeley City Attorney’s office.  The City of Berkeley initially resisted all requests by the NRA and CRPA to repeal this ordinance.  But the City Attorney’s report to the City Council makes clear that the motivation to finally repeal the ordinance was the threat of litigation from NRA/CRPA.  

            One person objected to the repealing of the ordinance during public comment, but the City Attorney quickly corrected him that, as explained by the NRA/CRPA letter, this is a settled legal matter for which the City of Berkeley has no recourse.  The City Attorney conceded the preemptive effect of the Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal.App.4th 895 (2008) case, and that a court would rule in NRA/CRPA’s favor in a lawsuit in this matter.

            This is a victory not only for gun owners who live in or pass through the City of Berkeley and who feared prosecution under this ordinance. The repeal confirms that, contrary to the gun ban lobby’s claims, there are limits to what restrictions cities can place on firearms, and that Fiscal has preemptive effect throughout California. The repeal demand letter and staff report can be read at ww.calgunlaws.com.

            The repeal efforts were funded by the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action project. To contribute to the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support Second Amendment cases that directly benefit California gun owners, visit www.crpafoundation.org.   LAP is a joint venture between the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about the programs at their disposal that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.         

C.D. Michel
Senior Counsel

===============================

San Francisco Chronicle: