weber, randy Rep 1%

==

lcv 0/1%

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/randy-k-weber

===

an 2 23

:{

}:

:{no lnx

Watch: Kevin McCarthy leads Republicans in prayer at hate group-sponsored event

David Badash

and The New Civil Rights Movement

February 01, 2023

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy joined hands with more than a dozen House Republicans, leading them in prayer at Wednesday’s National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance, an event co-sponsored by several far-right Christian organizations, at least five of which appear on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups.

The California Republican specifically mentioned his upcoming meeting later Wednesday with President Joe Biden, when the two will discuss the debt ceiling, which Republicans want to leverage to massively cut federal spending on programs critical to keeping many Americans alive, including Social Security and Medicare – or shut down the federal government if Democrats do not agree to their terms.

“Father, I want to lift up those who are not here today. I want you to open their hearts,” McCarthy prayed. “Father, I want to lift up the president. Father, you know I will meet with him today. Father, I ask. I asked that you open both of our hearts that you put our meaning, our meaning that seeks your truth. And the help for this nation. Father, we know as we struggle, is we come up short and again but continue to seek your guidance. We ask that you give us the patience of Job. We ask that you give us the intellect the leadership that you gave David we ask that you give us the boldness.”

The event was held at the Museum of the Bible, a non-profit founded by right-wing evangelical activist David Green and the Green family. Green is the founder of Hobby Lobby, the privately-held chain store that won a Supreme Court case enshrining into U.S. jurisprudence the concept that for-profit corporations can and do have religious beliefs.

READ MORE: Principal Ordered Librarian to Take Down Holocaust Survivor’s Famous Quote Just Days Before Holocaust Remembrance Day

The five groups sponsoring the event which also appear on the SPLC’s list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups include the American Family Association (AFA), the Family Research Council (FRC), the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Liberty Counsel, and the Pacific Justice Institute.

Other attendees included anti-LGBTQ activists, like “right-wing pastor Andrew Brunson, who blasted the United States as ‘the primary corrupter of the world’ because ‘our government and corporations increasingly march under the rainbow flag,'” he said, as Right Wing Watch reported.

Also, two “ex-gay” activists.

Later, the Republicans, including McCarthy, were prayed over byTony Perkins,the longtime head of the anti-LGBTQ hate group Family Research Council. Perkins has also served as chair and vice chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent federal government commission.

:{

Far-right House Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Weber of Texas descended into an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ tirade during which he invoked “the blood of the lamb” to telegraph to McCarthy his concerns about U.S. debt}:.

Weber is an original co-sponsor of the federal “Don’t Say Gay” bill. He once compared then-President Barack Obama to Hitler.

Right Wing Watch reports some of the Members of Congress who attended include Reps. Mary Miller, Diana Harshbarger, Steve Scalise, Rick Allen, Brian Babin, Michael Cloud, Robert Aderholt, Tracey Mann, Burgess Owens, Gary Palmer, Michelle Steel, Warren Davidson, Brandon Williams, Dan Bishop, Nathaniel Moran, and Mike Johnson.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Vows to Use DOJ and Congress to Make Being Transgender Illegal While Promoting the ‘Nuclear Family’

}:

===

grn activist suppression, red baiting?!

https://republicans-science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/06_29_2017%20CLS%20%26%20Weber%20-%20Mnuchin.pdf

june 29 2017 ltr munchkin:

ref BS chain enviro command epw rept 113tth congress 2014

18 USC 2386 req for orgs that lobby to register? 1995 lobby disclosure act

sleight on hand: suggests russian $ then asserts/assumes it; klein wakefield Quin IPOC reiman

quite nato "so-called env orgs"

staffer drew colliatie, refs WFB lachlan markay WT, WE batasch

GUK fiona harvey

omg borders on dis cap'l, massive subsidies

PORT ARTHUR, Texas (AP) — As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile “spine” of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.

The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world’s largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas’ 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation’s refining capacity.

Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities.

That followed Hurricane Harvey, which roared ashore last Aug. 25 and swamped Houston and parts of the coast, temporarily knocking out a quarter of the area’s oil refining capacity and causing average gasoline prices to jump 28 cents a gallon nationwide. Many Republicans argue that the Texas oil projects belong at the top of Washington’s spending list.

“Our overall economy, not only in Texas but in the entire country, is so much at risk from a high storm surge,” said Matt Sebesta, a Republican who as Brazoria County judge oversees a swath of Gulf Coast.

But the idea of taxpayers around the country paying to protect refineries worth billions, and in a state where top politicians still dispute climate change’s validity, doesn’t sit well with some.

“The oil and gas industry is getting a free ride,” said Brandt Mannchen, a member of the Sierra Club’s executive committee in Houston. “You don’t hear the industry making a peep about paying for any of this and why should they? There’s all this push like, ‘Please Senator Cornyn, Please Senator Cruz, we need money for this and that.’”

Normally outspoken critics of federal spending, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz both backed using taxpayer funds to fortify the oil facilities’ protections and the Texas coast. Cruz called it “a tremendous step forward.”

Federal, state and local money is also bolstering defenses elsewhere, including on New York’s Staten Island, around Atlantic City, New Jersey, and in other communities hammered by Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

Construction in Texas could begin in several months on the three sections of storm barrier. While plans are still being finalized, some dirt levees will be raised to about 17 feet high, and 6 miles of 19-foot-tall floodwalls would be built or strengthened around Port Arthur, a Texas-Louisiana border locale of pungent chemical smells and towering knots of steel pipes.

The town of 55,000 includes the Saudi-controlled Motiva oil refinery, the nation’s largest, as well as refineries owned by oil giants Valero Energy Corp. and Total S.A. There are also almost a dozen petrochemical facilities.

“You’re looking at a lot of people, a lot of homes, but really a lot of industry,” said Steve Sherrill, an Army Corps of Engineers resident engineer in Port Arthur, as he peered over a Gulf tributary lined with chunks of granite and metal gates, much of which is set to be reinforced.

The second barrier project features around 25 miles of new levees and seawalls in nearby Orange County, whereChevron, DuPont and other companies have facilities. The third would extend and heighten seawalls around Freeport, home to a Phillips 66 export terminal for liquefied natural gas and nearby refinery, as well as several chemical facilities.

The proposals approved for funding originally called for building more protections along larger swaths of the Texas coast, but they were scaled back and now deliberately focus on refineries.

“That was one of the main reasons we looked at some of those areas,” said Tony Williams, environmental review coordinator for the Texas Land Commissioner’s Office.

Oil and chemical companies also pushed for more protection for surrounding communities to shield their workforces, but “not every property can be protected,” said Sheri Willey, deputy chief of project management for the Army Corps of Engineers’ upper Texas district.

“Our regulations tell us what benefits we need to include, and they have to be national economic benefits,”Willey said.

Once work is complete on the three sections, they could eventually be integrated into a larger coastal spine system. In some places along Texas’ 370-mile Gulf Coast, 18 feet is lost annually to erosion, threatening to suck more wetlands, roads and buildings into rising seas.

Protecting a wide expanse will be expensive. After Harvey, a special Texas commission prepared a report seeking $61 billion from Congress to “future proof” the state against such natural disasters, without mentioning climate change, which scientists say will cause heavier rains and stronger storms.

Texas has not tapped its own rainy day fund of around $11 billion. According to federal rules, 35 percent of funds spent by the Army Corps of Engineers must be matched by local jurisdictions, and the GOP-controlled state Legislature could help cover such costs. But such spending may be tough for many conservatives to swallow.

Texas “should be funding things like this itself,” said Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Texans are proud of their conservatism, but, unfortunately, when decisions get made in Washington, that frugality goes out the door.”

State officials counter that protecting the oil facilities is a matter of national security.

The effects of the next devastating storm could be felt nationwide,” Rep. Randy Weber, a fiercely conservative Republican from suburban Houston who has nonetheless authored legislation backing the coastal spine.

Major oil companies did not return messages seeking comment on funding for the projects. But Suzanne Lemieux, midstream group manager for the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry already pays into programs such as the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Waterways Trust Fund, only to see Congress divert that money elsewhere.

“Do we want to pay again, when we’ve already paid a tax without it getting used? I’d say the answer is no,” she said.

Phillips 66 and other energy firms spent money last year lobbying Congress on storm-related funding post-Harvey, campaign finance records show, and Houston’s Lyondell Chemical Co. PAC lobbied for building a coastal spine.

“The coastal spine benefits more than just our industry,” Bob Patel, CEO of LyondellBasell, one of the world’s largest plastics, chemicals and refining companies, said in March. “It really needs to be a regional effort.”

:{

}:

sieg heil

:{

}:

forget about allegations of Russian interference in U.S. presidential elections for a moment,

or even“collusion” between Russian officials and Trump campaign operatives.

The real action is in the European and U.S. energy markets, according to a letter from two Texas congressmen to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that details what they call “a covert anti-fracking campaign” with “little or no paper trail.”

The Daily Signal obtained a copy of the June 29 letterto Mnuchin from Reps. Lamar Smith and Randy Weber, both Republicans who chair energy-related House panels. (See the full letter below.)

:{Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:100%"):}: [Learn more >>

Smith and Weber quote sources saying the Russian government has been colluding with environmental groups to circulate “disinformation” and “propaganda” aimed at undermining hydraulic fracturing. Commonly called fracking, the process makes it possible to access natural gas deposits.

The sources include a former secretary-general of NATO, who is quoted by the GOP congressmen as saying:

Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.

This anti-fracking campaign seizes upon environmental issues and health concerns that could be used to constrain U.S. drilling and fracking exercises, the letter explains.

Gazprom, a large Russian oil company, stands to benefit if Russian-funded environmental activism results in reduced levels of fracking and natural gas production in the United States, Smith and Weber tell Mnuchin. They write:

It is easy to see the benefit to Russia and Gazprom that would result from a reduction in the U.S. level of drilling and fracking—a position advocated for by numerous environmental groups in the U.S.

Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, joined Weber, chairman of that panel’s energy subcommittee, in calling on the treasury secretaryto investigate whether Russia works with American environmental activists to prevent the U.S. from developing its natural gas resources.

Top U.S. government officials who have acknowledged the connection between Russian and environmental groups include former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

In 2014, Clinton delivered a “private speech” in which she discussed Russia’s financial support for environmental groups, the letter says. The speech was included in documents released by WikiLeaks, it says.

An Oct. 10, 2016, report in TheWashington Times quoted Clinton as saying:

We [the State Department and the U.S. government] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand up against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of that money supporting that effort was coming from Russia.

Contrary to what Russia’s propaganda machine and its environmental allies have told news consumers in Europe and America, fracking is safe, effective, and enormously beneficial, Nick Loris, an economist and energy policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“If successful, an anti-fracking campaign is depriving Americans of good-paying jobs and affordable, dependable energy,” Loris said. “Despite smears and outright lies from environmental activists, smart drilling and energy extraction technologies have been proven to be safe.”

“It feels like every week a new study is published, confirming what we already know,” he said. “Hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate drinking water. The facts and history of hydraulic fracturing, a history that dates back more than half a century and over 1 million fracked wells, indicate that many of the fears associated with the process are grossly exaggerated or flat-out unsubstantiated.”

Loris added:

The good news, however, is that the anti-fracking campaign really hasn’t been all that successful in ‘keeping it in the ground.’ The U.S. is the world’s largest petroleum and natural gas producer, and we can thank fracking and American energy companies for it.

The result is that money is going back into bank accounts of hardworking families through lower energy bills, and American businesses are more competitive because of lower input costs. And we’re in a position to supply our allies with power, significantly reducing the ability of any one nation’s ability to manipulate energy markets for political gain.

In their letter to the treasury secretary, Smith and Weber also say the Russians have been able to advance their strategy without “a paper trail.”

They pass along reports that Russia apparently funnels the money through a Bermuda-based “shell company” known as Klein Ltd.

Tens of millions of dollars are moved from Russia through Klein “in the form of anonymous donations” to a U.S.-based nonprofit called the Sea Change Foundation.

The money, the congressmen write, then is moved in the form of grants to U.S. environmental organizations.

Here is their complete letter to Mnuchin:

:{

}:

===

2016got punked by rooskies?

wASHINGTON - As far as congressional acts go, Randy Weber's anti-corruption resolution supporting the impoverished former Soviet state of Moldova seemed to hold little controversy.

"Russia has its sights set on the front line states of Eastern Europe," the Texas Republican said as he unveiled his non-binding resolution last month. "One such particularly vulnerable state is the Republic of Moldova."

Weber's initiative to hold the Moldovan government's feet to the fire, however, has dragged him into a murky saga of warring political factions competing Sunday in that nation's first direct presidential election since 1996....

That's one reason why some U.S. foreign policy analysts question Gofman's role in Weber's resolution, which takes aim at nearly a dozen high-ranking Moldovan officials, a veritable Who's Who of the country's power structure.

"It is clearly written by somebody who is pro-Russian," said Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including John Bolton. "He's trying to attack the only pro-European group in Moldova."

Grenell also argued that withholding money from Moldova could push the nation back into Russian hands.

"Randy Weber does not know what he is doing," he said. "It sounds like he just stepped in it, that some lobbyist got to him."...

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/house-science-committee-russia-secretly-backed-anti-fracking-campaigns

a pair of House Republicans are hoping to inspire a Russia investigation of their own.

Reps. Lamar Smith and Randy Weber, both of Texas, say the Kremlin funneled money to environmental groups with the aim of undermining U.S. oil and gas interests. [one wonder if they are also interested in collusion]

In a six-page letter dated June 29, the GOP lawmakers asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to investigate whether Russia secretly backed American environmental campaigns against fracking, a technology that helped the U.S. overtake Russia in gas production. They argue the Kremlin intended to distribute “propaganda” and “misinformation” about fracking to prop up its own natural gas sector in the face of increasing U.S. exports, Politico reported in July.

Short for hydraulic fracturing, fracking is a method of injecting high volumes of chemical brine into rock formations to extract oil or natural gas. The method is over 60 years old, but as it became more widespread, American communities and green groups began to wonder about negative consequences.

While some scientists remain concerned about fugitive methane emissions and their contribution to climate change, the most publicized qualms centered not around fracking itself but the disposal of fracking chemicals and wastewater. By 2014, hundreds of complaints had rolled in from small-town residents who said their well water was fouled by fracking chemicals.

Most of the early opposition to fracking came from local coalitions, but Smith and Weber directed their accusations to larger green groups. Their letter alleges that Russia used a Bermuda-based shell company to direct funds to nonprofits in the U.S., which eventually made their way to big-name groups like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.

Caught in the fray

The groups dismissed the allegations as a cheap ploy to distract the public from Mueller’s ongoing investigation. "If Congressional Republicans are so concerned about Russian influence, they should start seriously investigating that country's interference in our election, not attacking long-standing environmental organizations,” Melinda Pierce, legislative director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement, as cited by Mashable.

“This is false,” David Willett, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters, told Politico. “We have no connections to Russia and have been an effective advocate for environmental protection for over 45 years. This seems like nothing more than an attempt at distraction away from the Trump campaign’s well-publicized interactions with Russian interests to influence the election.”

Smith and Weber both have longstanding ties to the oil and gas sector. Smith received more than $736,000 in campaign contributions from the industry during his 30-year Congressional career, over $200,000 of which came after he took the seat as chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Weber, who also serves on the committee, raked in over $200,000 from oil and gas companies since 2011, and the sector remains his largest campaign backer.

If you believe campaign contributions can sway a lawmaker’s behavior, this isn’t a bad tactic for Smith and Weber: By stoking fears about a Russian connection at a time when U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest point since the Cold War, the pair can discredit environmental groups and bolster their buddies in the gas sector. Their campaign financing alone isn’t enough to dismiss their theory as bogus, but proving such a money train exists takes facts, not conjecture.

A few days after Trump’s inauguration, Smith said Americans should get their news “directly from the president” and derided the media’s use of anonymous sourcing, so it’s worth taking a look at the sources he and Weber use for their flagrant claim.

Consider the source

“We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians,” the alleged transcript reads. The context of this statement is murky, as journalists including Ben Lefebvre of Politico and Matthew Sheffield of Salon pointed out.The most controversial source cited in the letter is a speech attributed to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The transcript excerpt, said to be from a paid speech Clinton gave to a Canadian marketing firm in 2014, is part of the document dump published by WikiLeaks in the run-up to the election.

Clinton promoted shale drilling in Europe as secretary of state, so it is unclear whether she was referring to environmental groups in Europe or the U.S. It’s also unlikely that Clinton would use the term “phony environmental groups” to describe well-established organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters, regardless of any questions about unknowing receipt of Russian funds.

And the authenticity of the transcript remains in question, as the campaign “has refused to confirm or deny the content of any of the leaked materials,” wrote Lefebvre of Politico.

The letter also cites Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former secretary-general of NATO. “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,” Rasmussen said in a speech that strangely came one day after Clinton’s alleged remarks.

As Sheffield of Salon pointed out, “He did not present any evidence for his allegation.” And the Congressmen’s connection to the United States is even weaker: “Other officials have indicated the same scheme is unfolding in the U.S.,” they wrote simply.

To whom they are referring is unclear, but they also cite the January intelligence report that formally accused Russia of hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. The report notes anti-fracking coverage on Russia’s international television station, RT, but the unclassified versionmakes no mention of a money-laundering scheme involving green groups.

A deeper dive into the footnotes reveals that the bulk of the Congressmen’s theory relies on a 2015 report from a right-wing think tank called the Environmental Policy Alliance. The Alliance has positioned itself as a watchdog that seeks to expose the “hidden agendas” behind environmental organizations, though Sourcewatch calls it a “front group.”

The report highlights $23 million that Bermuda-based Klein Ltd. donated in 2010 and 2011 to the American nonprofit Sea Change Foundation, which distributes funds to groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. It goes on to present a tangled web that allegedly connects Klein and its co-founders to Russian businessmen, but the Alliance notes that it can’t prove anything and admits, “It is unclear who is funding Klein.”

In their letter, Smith and Weber argue that although “the source of Klein’s capital has not been documented,” these business connections are enough to “strongly suggest” Klein is being funded by Russia’s oil and gas sector.

Representatives from both Klein and Sea Change vehemently denied receiving Russian funds. An attorney representing Klein decried the allegations as “completely false and irresponsible” in an interview with Salon and seemed to threaten legal action. And a Sea Change spokesperson told Politico that its grants were not earmarked for anti-fracking campaigns.

The bottom line

On its face, it appears that Smith and Weber are using decontextualized and circumstantial evidence to equate Klein and Sea Change—and, by extension, environmental groups—with fraudsters and money launderers. But it’s important to understand this letter for what it is: a petition for the start of an investigation.

As one House Science Committee aide who requested anonymity told Politico, “The chairman is saying there’s data points pointing to this theory, and he’s saying the Treasury secretary can shine some light on this.” That being said, the use of phrases like “covert anti-fracking campaigns” are clearly used to sensationalize the argument when really it relies on evidence that is shoddy at best.

The Sierra Club has already said it can confirm its grant money from Sea Change came from a private American donor. And although Energy Secretary Rick Perry indicated he expects Mnuchin to take up the investigation, whether or not he will remains unclear. Given the ongoing discussions about tax reform and the debt ceiling, he may very well have bigger fish to fry.

Mary Mazzoni is a freelance environmental journalist and editor based in Philadelphia

==

nyag push back:

...

The Honorable Lamar Smith July 26, 2016 Page 7 of 10 the vague and shifting statements of purpose by the Chair and Committee members “leave the matter in grave doubt.” See id. at 206. The Subpoena does not describe the investigation’s subject matter or how the material sought might further the Committee’s inquiry. Nor has the Committee pointed to any specific authorizing resolution. Other sources shed minimal light on the inquiry’s true goal:  The May 18, 2016 letter professed (at 1) that the Committee was “conducting oversight of a coordinated attempt to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, and scientists of their First Amendment rights and ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.” The letter went on to question the state investigators’ “impartiality and independence” and their use of state “taxpayer dollars” (at 4), and whether the investigations “run counter to an attorney general’s duty to serve” the public interest or “amount to an abuse of prosecutorial discretion” (at 1).  The letter of June 17, 2016 (at 2) shifted the focus from state to federal taxpayers, relaying a new purpose of “ensuring that all scientists, especially those conducting taxpayer-funded research, have the freedom to pursue any and all legitimate avenues of inquiry.” The letter concluded (at 3–4) by stating that “[t]he Committee’s investigation is intended to determine whether” the various state investigations were “chill[ing] scientific research, including research that is federally-funded.”  The letter of July 6, 2016 (at 2) goes farther, calling it “a goal of this Committee” to protect the ability of all scientists “to conduct research uninhibited by the potential adverse effects of investigations by law enforcement”—now apparently without regard for whether the investigation is lawful or chills protected speech, as distinguished from unprotected speech, including speech used to perpetrate fraud.  Finally, at a press conference about the Subpoena, the Chair and several Committee members returned to the premise that state officials were abusing their discretion. According to Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), “[p]rosecutors shouldn’t be in this business. It really is an abuse of power.” To Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), the Attorneys General are acting “way beyond the scope of their job duties.” According to Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), the Attorneys General “are using taxpayer dollars from their states to manufacture charges to send a political message,” which “demonstrates a clear deviation from the legal duties of an Attorney General and the possible abuse of their judgment.” Chairman Smith likened the investigations “to a form of extortion” to prod settlements, so that the Attorneys General “can obtain funds for their own purposes.”5 As the Supreme Court has held, “an authoritative specification” of the investigation’s subject matter is “necessary for the determination of pertinency.” Gojack, 384 U.S. at 717

...

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2016_07_26_nyoag_letter_to_sst_objecting_to_subpoena.pdf

==

==

wiki

Randy Weber (born July 2, 1953) an American businessman and a politician. He is a member of the United States House of Representatives. He has represented Texas' 14th congressional district since 2013, succeeding Ron Paul. He defeated former Congressman Nick Lampson on November 6, 2012, by a 53% to 45% margin. He was a member of the Texas House of Representatives, representing the 29th district. He is a member of the Republican Party.^[2]

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Early life, education, and business career
• 2 Early political career
• 3 Texas House of Representatives
  • 3.1 Elections
  • 3.2 Tenure
  • 3.3 Committee assignments
• 4 U.S. House of Representatives
  • 4.1 Elections
  • 4.2 Committee assignments
• 5 Controversies
• 6 Personal life
• 7 References
• 8 External links

Early life, education, and business career

He graduated from Alvin Community College and in 1977 earned a BS in public affairs from the University of Houston–Clear Lake. In 1981, he founded Weber'’s Air & Heat Air-Conditioning Company.^[3]

Early political career

He was a city councilman of Pearland, Texas for six years. In addition he served as Brazoria County Grand Jury Commissioner, Brazoria County Redistricting Committee, Texas Republican Party Convention delegate, president of Brazoria County Cities Association, member of the Brazoria County Republican Party, and chairman of the Pearland Area Republican Party Headquarters.^[4]

Texas House of Representatives

Elections

After State Representative Glenda Dawson died on September 12, 2006,^[5] a special election was held on December 19. Businessman Mike P. O'Day earned 48% of the vote, falling just short of the 50% threshold. Weber earned 28% of the vote, qualifying for the run-off.^[6] In the January run-off, O'Day defeated him 57%-43%.^[7]

O'Day decided to retire. Weber ran for the March 2008 primary and won with 59% of the vote.^[8] He won the general election with 60% of the vote.^[9] He won re-election to a second term in 2010 with 85% of the vote.^[10]

Tenure

Committee assignments

• Border & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (Vice Chairman)
• Public Education Committee^[11]

U.S. House of Representatives

Elections

2012

See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2012 § District 14

After Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas' 14th congressional district decided to retire, nine Republicans decided to run in the newly redrawn district. Weber received endorsements from Governor Rick Perry and Ron Paul. He ranked first with 28% of the vote, but failed to reach the 50% threshold. In the run-off, he defeated Pearland City Councilwoman Felicia Harris 62%-37%.^[12] He defeated former Congressman Nick Lampson on November 6, 2012, by a 53% to 45% margin.^[2] Based upon Weber's vote total in 2012, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball named Weber one of their "Underachievers" because he received only 53.5% of the vote in his Congressional district while Mitt Romney received 59.3%.^[13]

Committee assignments

• Committee on Foreign Affairs
  • Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations
  • Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa
• Committee on Science, Space and Technology
  • Subcommittee on Energy
  • Subcommittee on Environment

Controversies

In January 2014, during President Obama's State of the Union address, Weber in a tweet referred to the President as "Kommandant-In-Chef" [sic] and "the Socialist dictator." After the White House apologized for failing to send a more high profile leader to a demonstration in Paris following the January 2015 terrorist attacks in that city, Weber tweeted, "Even Adolph [sic] Hitler thought it more important than Obama to get to Paris."^[14] Weber then wrote that he needed to "apologize to all those offended by my tweet". He did not choose to withdraw his earlier tweet made during the State of the Union address.^[14]

==

• Rep. Randy Weber (R-29), ALEC International Relations Task Force Member^[15]

==

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033539

elected 2012

career

2011 - 2014 Total Receipts:	$2,151,411
2011 - 2014 Total Spent:	$1,835,295
Debts:	$176,500
Last Report:	Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2014

...view more data

Top 5 Industries, 2011 - 2014

...view more data

Source of Funds

	Individual Contributions	$1,227,846	(57%)
	PAC Contributions	$683,036	(32%)
	Candidate self-financing	$229,000	(11%)
	Other	$11,529	(1%)

==

--

The House of Representatives voted 237-190 on Wednesday afternoon to pass a bill that would limit the type of scientific research the Environmental Protection Agency can use when crafting regulations to protect the environment and public health.

Dubbed the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014,” the bill’s intention is to increase transparency at the EPA by making it so the agency can’t use any science that is “hidden and flawed,” according to bill sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). Smith and his Republican colleagues say the bill is needed so that the public can independently check the EPA’s basis for issuing regulations limiting air and water pollutants from various sources.

:{:{

While the bill may sound noble on its face, scientists overwhelmingly take issue with its tenets. For one, they say, the bill does not understand why some scientific data is confidential — namely because much of it uses private medical data of voluntary test subjects to test pollutants, while some contains trade secrets and industry data.

“Some of the best real-world public health research, which relies on patient data like hospital admissions, would be excluded from consideration because personal data could not, and should not, be made public,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew Rosenberg in Roll Call. “Demanding public release of full raw data the agency cannot legally disclose is simply a way to accuse the agency of hiding something when it has nothing to hide.”

This is the second time this week that the House has passed a bill seeking to hamper the activities of the EPA, despite there being no chance that either would become law. On Tuesday, the House quietly passed the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, which would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to advise the EPA, and prohibits independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board.

Republicans maintained on the House floor on Wednesday that their “Secret Science” bill wouldn’t require that personal data or trade secrets be made public. Indeed, the bill states that “Nothing … shall be construed as requiring the public dissemination of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.” Republicans maintain that data can still be used without disclosing personal information or trade secrets.

The White House disagrees, saying in a memo released Monday that doing so would cost the agency thousands of dollars for each scientific study it uses, thereby making it harder and more time-consuming to meet the requirements for each study it wants to use. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the EPA relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies per year, and that meeting the goals of the House “Secret Science” bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per study.

The result, the CBO noted, would be that the number of studies relied upon by the EPA would be cut in half. That would mean EPA regulations based on less sound science, and less EPA regulations overall.

“In short, the bill would undermine EPA’s ability to protect the health of Americans, would impose expensive new mandates on EPA, and could impose substantial litigation costs on the Federal government,” the White House memo reads. “It also could impede EPA’s reliance on the best available science.”

Opponents of the legislation on Wednesday took to the floor to voice their outrage, saying the bill represented a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” — a disingenuous play for “transparency” within the EPA, when all Republicans really want is less EPA regulation.

“The bill before us today is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a dangerous attack on the power of knowledge,” said Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA). “Rather than argue with the indisputable facts on air pollution — a losing bet — this bill attempts to discredit the science as secret, when in fact there’s nothing secret about it. The only secret here is the true intent of this bill.”

Republicans insisted this wasn’t true, saying their only intent was increased transparency in EPA rulemaking. Many made comparisons to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who controversially stated that President Obama’s health care law only succeeded because of a lack of political transparency in the administration, and “the stupidity of the American voter.”

“Why the defensiveness about transparency? Why the defensiveness about the truth? Why the defensiveness about more participation as it relates to science?” asked Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL). “What they have to defend is the orthodoxy that allowed the other side to create Obamacare and the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, said this is a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] scores it this way and so forth and so on.”

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), a co-sponsor of the bill, also brought Gruber into the conversation.

“It makes you kind of wonder if the opponents of this legislation, like Mr. Gruber, believe that the American people are ‘too stupid to understand’ the costly impact of the EPA’s overreaching regulations,” he said. “Trust me when I say Americans are not stupid, and they deserve and demand the truth from the start.”

==

Randy Weber is a member of ALEC and the Koch brothers are supporting ALEC. This says a lot about Randy Weber.

ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, with the help of many corporations, has written hundreds of model legislative bills and many have become state laws in the last two years thanks to the Tea Party and other conservatives without conscience. Some of those laws, like the Texas Voter ID law, have recently been blocked by the courts, but many are still law.

Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding. — The Nation, Aug, 2011

Randy Weber, ALEC, and the Koch brothers want a right-wing, authoritarian, plutocracy. Here is a summary of the model bills they are creating to make that happen:

Reducing Democracy, Voter Rights, and Federal Power:

“ALEC bills or resolutions would disenfranchise Americans and give corporations even more power to use their vast financial resources to influence elections in our democracy. These ‘model bills’ include the infamous Voter ID bills pushed through this year by new governors, many of whom have ties to ALEC.”

Limiting Health care for women and children:

“ALEC’s model legislation harms women and families in numerous ways, including proposals that would roll back no fault divorce laws, limit the regulation of day care centers, make it more difficult for impoverished children to receive the benefits of welfare, limit regulation of toxic and hazardous substances that adversely affect children’s health even more so than adults, bar lawsuits for injuries due to recalled drugs despite the spate of recalls of medicine used by children and young adults, and, among other things, outsource to for-profit companies the collection of child support.”

Promoting ‘Stand Your Ground’, Filling Privatized Prisons, and Selling Guns:

” … bills pushed by ALEC corporations result in taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the private prison industry by putting more people in for-profit prisons and keeping them in jail for longer. The bills also would put more guns on streets and interfere with local law enforcement decisions about how best to interact with immigrant communities.”

Killing Unions and Sending Jobs Overseas:

“Bills {to} limit workers rights and drain labor unions of resources for protecting employees, undermine consumer protections, favor the Wall Street financial agenda, limit the ability to cap exorbitant interest rates on credit cards and big bank fees. {These} bills and resolutions … also attempt to funnel tax dollars to for-profit corporations through privatization schemes and push the “free trade” agenda that has shipped good-paying American jobs overseas.”

Limiting Corporate Liability and the Rights of Injured Americans:

“These [bills] erode the rights of an injured person, or that person’s family, who files a complaint alleging that a corporation caused injury or death and should be held responsible for all the damages its actions caused.”

Privatizing Public Education, Undermining Teachers, and Promoting “Conservatives” on Campus, More:

“Among other things, these bills make education a private commodity rather than a public good, and reverse America’s modern innovation of promoting learning and civic virtue through public schools staffed with professional teachers for children from all backgrounds.”

Limiting Patient Rights and Undermining Safety Net Programs for Older Americans and Others:

“These anti-patient ‘model bills’ advance the interests of global drug companies and the health insurance industry, while eroding the rights and health of Americans.”

Promoting Dirty Energy and Corporate Agriculture over the Environment:

“These ‘model bills’ and resolutions thwart efforts to address climate change, streamline siting of nuclear power plants, and oppose efforts to address hazardous coal waste.”

Reshaping the Tax Code to Benefit Big Business and the ONE%:

“These ‘model bills’ and resolutions also push for extending the Bush tax cuts and attempt to use temporary legislative majorities to tie the hands of future majorities to raise taxes to meet citizens’ needs.”

A vote for Randy Weber is a vote for replacing our Public with Private – replacing representative governance that is accountable to We the People with corporate governance that is accountable only to major stock holders.

A vote for Randy Weber will increase national gridlock and further protect and empower the ONE%.b.

blog

==

}:}: