KOMMONSENTSJANE – House Repeals Biden-Era Methane Tax on Natural Gas in 221-205 Vote.

03/01/2025

ttps://istandforfreedom.com/house-biden-methane-tax/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=main

House Repeals Biden-Era Methane Tax on Natural Gas in 221-205 Vote

Good decision for the American taxpayers/voters. The politicians who voted against it should be voted out of office. They don’t want to help the people get back on their feet.

By Noah Stanton

House Repeals Biden-Era Methane Tax on Natural Gas in 221-205 Vote

Share

Americans have been feeling the squeeze at the pump and on their utility bills for years. Hardworking families across the country continue to struggle with the economic aftermath of the oe Biden administration’s policies.

Indeed, seniors on fixed incomes have been forced to make difficult choices between heating their homes and buying groceries. And honestly, haven’t we all had enough of watching our paychecks evaporate before our eyes?

In a decisive move that signals a new direction for American energy policy, the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to repeal a Biden administration regulation that imposed a tax on methane emissions from natural gas operators. The vote of 221-205 represents a significant step toward fulfilling Republican promises to lower energy costs for everyday Americans.

Biden’s Energy Crackdown Faces Reversal

The Natural Gas Repeal Act, introduced by Republican Texas Rep. August Pfluger, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, aims to rescind one of the Biden administration’s final regulatory actions. The legislation utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which gives Congress authority to repeal regulations issued in the final months of a previous administration.

Only seven Democrats supported rolling back the regulation. Meanwhile, Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick joined Democrats in voting to preserve it. No surprise there – when have Democrats ever met a tax they didn’t like?

“People don’t want to do business when you regulate them out of business…. I think Biden’s stated goal was to cancel fossil fuels and try to regulate people out of business,” said Pfluger.

The methane emissions tax would have imposed significant financial burdens on American natural gas producers. These costs would inevitably be passed down to consumers through higher energy prices. I’ve seen firsthand how these regulations crush small energy producers while the political elites lecture us about climate change from their private jets.

The regulation, first proposed in January 2024, represented one of the Biden administration’s last attempts to restrict domestic energy production. The tax would have discouraged investment in American energy infrastructure and made the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy sources. Industry experts warned that it would lead to job losses in energy-producing states.

Fulfilling Promises to American Voters

House Republicans view this vote as delivering on their campaign pledges to reduce energy costs and regulatory burdens.

“In November, the American people overwhelmingly voted for lower energy prices, and today, House Republicans took another step towards fulfilling that mandate,” Pfluger told reporters. “In the latest effort to reverse Biden’s disastrous energy policies, the House passed my bill to nullify the EPA’s rule implementing the ill-conceived natural gas tax.”

Republican North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven has introduced companion legislation in the Senate. A procedural vote is scheduled for Thursday evening, with the measure expected to pass along party lines.

President Donald Trump is poised to sign the repeal into law once it reaches his desk. This action aligns perfectly with his campaign promises to restore American energy dominance and reduce unnecessary regulations that harm economic growth.

Remember when gas prices were reasonable under Trump’s first term? We’re heading back in that direction.

Lower Energy Costs for American Families

The repeal of this regulation represents more than just a policy change. It also directly impacts household budgets across America. When energy companies face fewer regulatory burdens, they can produce more affordable energy for consumers. Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration & Production Council, emphasized the importance of this action.

“While American oil and gas producers are laser focused on continuing to reduce emissions, it’s critical to undo these punitive implementing rules while we will continue to work with Congress to repeal the underlying statute for the tax that risks driving up energy costs,” she said.

Industry leaders have consistently maintained that they can balance environmental responsibility with affordable energy production without heavy-handed government regulations. American energy companies have already made significant strides in reducing emissions through innovation and technology.

The repeal also sends a clear message that America is recommitting to energy independence. When the United States produces more of its own energy, it becomes less vulnerable to foreign supply disruptions and price manipulation. In the end, it’s time we stopped begging other countries for resources that we have in abundance right here at home.

Key Takeaways:

  • House Republicans fulfilled their promise to voters by repealing Biden’s punitive methane tax on natural gas.
  • The repeal will help lower energy costs for American families struggling with high utility bills.
  • President Trump is expected to sign the legislation, marking a return to American energy dominance.
  • This vote demonstrates that elections have real consequences for kitchen-table issues like energy prices.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – ‘They have not even tried’: Judge urged to keep injunction on Trump’s ‘unequivocally unconstitutional’ anti-DEI orders – plaintiffs say government repeating failed arguments.

3/01/2025

Supreme Court Justice Roberts needs to step in until cooler heads prevail. Justice is not being served for the voters. Illegal law fare is still being served by this leftie judge.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/they-have-not-even-tried-judge-urged-to-keep-injunction-on-trump-s-unequivocally-unconstitutional-anti-dei-orders-plaintiffs-say-government-repeating-failed-arguments/ar-AA1A0xMx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=56f1961e61754581b9ac71bc10b373a8&ei=30

Rogue leftie judges still working against the voters.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/they-have-not-even-tried-judge-urged-to-keep-injunction-on-trump-s-unequivocally-unconstitutional-anti-dei-orders-plaintiffs-say-government-repeating-failed-arguments/ar-AA1A0xMx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=56f1961e61754581b9ac71bc10b373a8&ei=30

President Donald Trump departs after speaking at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025 (Pool via AP).

President Donald Trump departs after speaking at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025 (Pool via AP).

A membership organization that won a nationwide injunction against an executive order targeting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives wants a federal judge to stick to his guns.

In late January, President Donald Trump signed executive orders attempting to root out DEI from federal government contracts and barring government contractors with DEI programs of their own. Additionally, Trump directed the U.S. Attorney General to “deter” such “programs or principles” and to consider launching “civil compliance” investigations to effectuate such deterrence.

On Feb. 21, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, a Joe Biden appointee, issued a preliminary nationwide injunction against each of the three anti-DEI directives, finding they “abridge the freedom of speech” and are “unconstitutionally vague on their face.”

On Feb. 25, the government filed a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal along with a memorandum arguing the injunction “intrudes on the Executive’s authority to enforce the law.”

Related Coverage:

On Thursday, the plaintiffs, led by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, replied to the government’s motion, saying the defendants “have not identified any errors” in the judge’s opinion or offered “any reason for the court to reverse its position.”

The plaintiffs say precedent in the Maryland federal court system is on their side — citing a case that stands for the proposition that “modification of an existing preliminary injunction is proper only when there has been a change of circumstances between the entry of the injunction and the filing of the motion that would render the continuance of the injunction in its original form inequitable.

Related video: Judge rejects immediately restoring AP’s access to White House (WCSH-TV Portland, ME)

WCSH-TV Portland, ME

View on Watch

The plaintiffs also cite controlling precedent in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — which includes Maryland — which says a party moving to alter an injunction should be expected to provide “some evidence or statistics relevant to the effects of the order was not available at the time the trial judge made his or her decision.”

“Defendants have not identified any such ‘evidence or statistics relevant to the effects of the order;’ they have not even tried to do so,” the reply reads. “This Court balanced the equities and correctly found it necessary to preliminarily enjoin enforcement. Defendants have not identified any basis to suggest the Court of Appeals would find this Court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. This Court’s decision to grant the preliminary injunction was correct when initially entered, remains correct now, and should remain in effect.”Walking on clouds would feel this way - Now 70% Off!

In his order, Abelson said the enjoined provisions violate the Fifth Amendment‘s prohibition on unconstitutionally vague laws and are also in violation of the First Amendment‘s guarantee of free speech.

The government’s latest response offers no new arguments directly addressing those constitutional claims, the plaintiffs note.

“Defendants make little effort to carry their burden here: they do nothing more than point this Court to the arguments raised in their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, which this Court already rejected in its comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion assessing Plaintiffs’ claims and their likelihood of success on the merits,” the memo in opposition to the motion to stay reads.

In terms of merits arguments, the plaintiffs insist the government has offered nothing new for the court to even consider here.

“Moving parties must make a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits to justify a stay,” the reply argues. “It is not sufficient to make ‘precisely those’ arguments for the stay that failed on the merits of the preliminary injunction.”

The government did, however, offer a new argument in terms of the harm they claim they are likely to suffer should the injunction remain in effect. They say the court’s order “improperly intrudes on intra-executive policy implementation” with federal agencies as well as Trump’s “stated priority of enforcing the anti-discrimination laws consistent with those agencies’ legal authority.” All this, the government claims, goes against the “public interest.”

The plaintiffs rubbish this argument as unpersuasive, at length:

The “core problem” is that the challenged provisions violate “core constitutional protections,” and therefore the preliminary injunction cannot be said to harm Defendants. The challenged provisions manifest this administration’s commitment to restricting, if not silencing, individuals and institutions whose viewpoints do not align with its political beliefs. That is a “blatant” and “egregious” brand of content discrimination that is unequivocally unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Defendants claim injury will befall them if they are not permitted to enforce such patently unconstitutional restrictions. Not so. While the President wields “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,” the President is still bound by “the general provisions of the Constitution.” The Executive’s duty is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But this duty does not extend to enforcing laws that are unconstitutional. There can be no improper impediment or injury to the Executive’s authority where the actions exceed its constitutional authority.

“Because Defendants cannot show harm, they attempt to conflate their purported injury with the public interest,” the reply goes on. “Without merit, they imply that enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions is in the public interest. However, ‘it is always in the public interest for unconstitutional laws to be prohibited from future enforcement.’”

And, the plaintiffs say, the court previously rejected the defendants’ efforts to show the public had any interest in the anti-DEI orders.

“Defendants failed to explain how the ‘government’s interest in immediately imposing a new, not-yet promulgated interpretation of what it considers “eradicating discrimination” outweighs the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and irreparable harm they are suffering’” the reply continues, in a footnote. “Defendants have not even attempted to do so in their motion for a stay.”

The post ‘They have not even tried’: Judge urged to keep injunction on Trump’s ‘unequivocally unconstitutional’ anti-DEI orders, plaintiffs say government repeating ‘failed’ arguments first appeared on Law & Crime.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Kommonsentsjane - Internet Alert, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – It’s kind of suspicious that you have no documents’: Fani Willis ordered to turn over tranche of files after repeatedly violating open records laws over Jan. 6.

03/01/2025

Did she have the documents the whole time and lied to the court?

Law & Crime

‘It’s kind of suspicious that you have no documents’: Fani Willis ordered to turn over tranche of files after repeatedly violating open records laws over Jan. 6 committee communications

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/it-s-kind-of-suspicious-that-you-have-no-documents-fani-willis-ordered-to-turn-over-tranche-of-files-after-repeatedly-violating-open-records-laws-over-jan-6-committee-communications/ar-AA1A1iqF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=f40447d1aacf49788d94d2856188852a&ei=11

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis arrives during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March, 1, 2024, in Atlanta (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis arrives during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March, 1, 2024, in Atlanta (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool).© Provided by Law & Crime

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis must turn over a tranche of documents for a judge’s inspection in a public records case where her office was found to have repeatedly violated open records laws.

As Law&Crime previously reported, those violations occurred when the prosecutor’s office, in response to open records requests, denied having any documents showing any communications with special counsel Jack Smith or members of the since-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.13 Mistakes Investors With $1 Million Make—and Ways to Avoid Them

Late last year, in response to a lawsuit filed by the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the district attorney’s office to provide the requested documents and/or explain their continued absence, leaving open the possibility of attorney fees.

Now, after falsely claiming any such records exist for months, and after being assessed a fine of $21,578 in attorneys’ fees and costs, Willis and her office admit there are such documents. The DA is continuing to withhold those documents from the nonprofit on the basis that “they are exempt pursuant” to a section of Georgia law.

Related Coverage:

Following the default judgment, Judicial Watch asked for a special master to scour the agency’s files for the documents or for the court to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents. Willis, in turn fiercely opposed a special master as “incredibly intrusive.

Related video: Fani Willis reiterates request for Georgia Supreme Court to review disqualification decision (WXIA-TV Atlanta)

Well, back here at home.

WXIA-TV Atlanta

Fani Willis reiterates request for Georgia Supreme Court to review disqualification decisionUnmute0

View on Watch

“Fani Willis was caught red-handed hiding records by Judicial Watch and the court,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “We’re asking the court to appoint a special master because Willis simply can’t be trusted to come clean.”

During a Friday hearing, McBurney said it was simply far too soon to appoint a special master — but made clear he would not discount the necessity of such a move in the future. Formally, that motion was held in abeyance. The majority of the hearing hashed out how to deal with the forthcoming in camera review of the documents in question.

“I can appoint a special master,” McBurney said — but noted that it would be an expensive undertaking that would be paid for by both sides. And in the interest of economy, the judge said he would take the first stab at surveying the files the DA’s office is refusing to turn over.

The court first sought to determine the general universe of documents.

“If it’s 55 pages, we don’t need a special master, I can do that,” McBurney said. “If it’s 5,550 pages, I’m not looking at 5,500 pages. Well, I will, but I’ll get that done over the next four years. And that’s not helpful to anyone.”

Attorney John Monroe, representing Judicial Watch, said there were entirely different concerns about the number of documents at stake.

“Our big concern is we don’t have any confidence in the universe of documents,” Monroe said. “They responded without doing a search. And then they didn’t even do a search until after the complaint was filed. They don’t have any records of what they searched. They say they didn’t search even the cellphones of the six people that they knew were involved in some communication or dialogue or something with the January 6th Committee.”Walking on clouds would feel this way - Now 70% Off!

The nonprofit’s attorney then put a fine point on his argument.

“And then, when you ordered them to do, I think, what would have amounted to, like, the fifth search, when they previously said they didn’t have any records at all — privileged or otherwise — now they say they have some records that are privileged. It’s just very difficult to have any confidence.”

On top of that, the plaintiff’s attorney added, the DA’s office claims they lack the expertise to use a certain piece of property cellphone-searching technology. On this point, the judge jumped in to agree the prosecutors presumably do, in fact, use that specific technology on “every cellphone they seize from a murder defendant.”

Monroe went on to say two reasons support the appointment of a special master. First, he said a special master would alleviate “the horrible lack of confidence in their searching capabilities or effort that they’re putting into it” and could “provide technological support.” Second, he said appointing a special master would help to monitor compliance with the court’s order ”

“There’s just no way to know that there has been compliance,” Monroe summed up.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘This court disagrees’: Judge strongly rejects ‘absurd’ and legally baseless effort by Fani Willis to avoid subpoenas for documents and testimony about Trump RICO prosecution

The judge, for his part, was highly sympathetic to the plaintiff’s position — even going so far as to offer a detailed criticism of the way the DA’s office has acted in the case up to this point.

“It’s kind of suspicious that you have no documents,” McBurney said — addressing the DA’s lawyer. “And then no documents because we didn’t search. And we did search and we have no documents. Then everything except what he gave the DA’s office is somehow excepted.”

Attorney Brad Bowman, representing the government, said the DA’s office had uncovered around 212 responsive documents — and conceded there were two instances of documents he thought seemed to be missing something “based on what was provided.”

The DA’s lawyer went on to explain that email accounts were searched, as well as physical files. He added that cellphones were also searched but did not know whether the aforementioned proprietary technology was used to search the phones — and he said that technology, Cellebrite, would be employed if needed.

“We do oppose the special master request,” Bowman said.

The DA’s office now, however, was willing to turn the documents over to the court — but insisted they should not be publicly released.

That answer more or less convinced the judge — for now at least.

The judge said he would issue an order in the near future containing deadlines for the DA’s office to comply. That order, the court said, would also direct the DA’s office to provide a detailed affidavit about how the search was conducted — and an appendix with the search terms used to conduct the search. Before any of that, however, the court anticipated some back-and-forth motions practice about what the affidavit and the appendix would contain.

The plaintiffs, winning on their request for an in camera review, went on to voice concerns about the sufficiency of that relief.

“I’m troubled by the fact that we’re still leaving the DA’s office to their own devices on how to do the search,” Monroe said. “Especially with the track record.”

The judge signaled, quite volubly, that he was sympathetic to those concerns — but made clear the court was not ready to subject the DA’s office to more invasive measures at present.

“You should continue to be the skeptic and voice that skepticism,” McBurney advised — holding out the idea of a special master down the line. “I remain open to that concept, this is a graduated approach. If I look at the 212 pages and am grossly underwhelmed and it’s just patent that there’s got to be other things out there. Then, we’re done with the DA telling the county attorney: ‘Don’t worry, I got this.’ We’ll bring in the professionals. That will be messy. And, so, I won’t do that lightly … No options are off the table.”

The post ‘It’s kind of suspicious that you have no documents’: Fani Willis ordered to turn over tranche of files after repeatedly violating open records laws over Jan. 6 committee communications first appeared on Law & Crime.

****

What happens when you lie to the court?

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – Hollywood Star Joins the Movement to Boot Gavin Newsom From Office for ‘Gross Mismanagement’

02/28/2025

ttps://thinkamericana.com/hollywood-star-joins-the-movement-to-boot-gavin-newsom-from-office-for-gross-mismanagement/?utm_content=zid-96364135

Hollywood Star Joins the Movement to Boot Gavin Newsom From Office for ‘Gross Mismanagement’

 Mike Vance

 February 28, 2025

 News

Mel Gibson blasted California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He blamed them for the Palisades and Eaton fires that tore through Southern California.

Share

Watch on

Gibson stood with Saving California in Altadena on Wednesday. He backed efforts to recall Newsom.

“We deserve much more and much better,” Gibson said. “There is absolutely no adequate excuse the governor or mayor can make for this gross mismanagement.”Ezoic

The fires hit hard. Altadena and Pacific Palisades were devastated. Gibson lost his home in the Palisades Fire on Jan. 7.

“Was it incompetence? Was it indifference, complacency, carelessness? Was it negligence? Absolutely,” he said.

Gibson, now a Hollywood ambassador for President Trump, pushed for federal oversight. He said an investigation should happen before California gets aid.

The numbers are staggering. The Palisades Fire killed 29 people and burned 23,448 acres. It destroyed 6,833 homes and businesses. The Eaton Fire scorched 14,021 acres, wiping out 9,418 buildings.

“A lot of people have left, and I don’t blame them,” Gibson admitted. “Even … people who were liberal, it didn’t suit them anymore. But if everybody leaves, what’s going to happen?”

Fox News host Sean Hannity recently left New York for similar reasons. Gibson agreed that many A-listers were fleeing high taxes and strict regulations.

Still, he’s staying. He plans to work with Trump to fix Hollywood. “People are going somewhere else because it’s more cost-effective,” he said. “But I think it can be fixed.”Ezoic

Trump appointed Gibson, Jon Voight, and Sylvester Stallone as Hollywood envoys. Gibson promised to meet with them and “educate” himself on solutions.

He expects Trump to “get some results here quickly.” He took another swipe at Newsom, criticizing the state’s failing tax incentives.

“I know Newsom gave some tax incentives, but maybe not enough because it’s still not working,” Gibson said. “There are other things that offset that.”

About The Author

Mike Vance

Mike is a long time political journalist that writes for a number of different publication. We are thrilled to have him writing for us.

****

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment