Category Archives: Get Involved

Senator Mike Lee on the Protect IP Act

Thank you for your recent letter to Senator Lee regarding S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

When the Judiciary Committee first received this bill, Senator Lee raised a number of concerns about portions of the bill that could threaten Internet security and stifle innovation in the online retail market.  At the time, Senator Lee pledged to work with the chief cosponsors of the bill, Judiciary Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Senator Chuck Grassley, to fix the offending provisions in the bill.

After several months of trying to find the proper balance between protecting intellectual property rights and not unduly burdening online businesses, the Senator determined that the bill as it stands still goes too far and he will not support it.

That said, Senator Lee still believes that the protection of private property rights is an essential foundation of our nation’s free market economy, and online piracy poses a significant threat to the intellectual property rights of American innovators.  He remains committed to addressing this problem and finding the right solution to hold infringing pirate web sites accountable to the rule of law.

For more on what Senator Lee is working on, you can follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/senatormikelee and on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SenMikeLee.

Thank you again for writing and please don’t hesitate to contact our office if there is anything we can do to be of assistance in the future.

Best,

Peter Blair

Office of Senator Michael S. Lee
(202) 224-5444

Message from Bryan Farnsworth, Candidate for 1st Utah Congressional District Representative

Hi,
I am Bryan Smith Farnsworth, candidate for the 1st Utah congressional district representative seat. I am a proud Marine Corps veteran and Eagle Scout that is worried that our rights are not being properly defended. I will fight for your rights.

My pet issue besides the above is Healthcare and the FDA. I am an herbalist, being a former Purchaser for Dr. Christopher’s herb shop. I am very upset to find that the FDA has recently banned the sale of Comfrey when it is sold as something to take internally by mouth. They say it could cause liver damage.

Herbalists have known this for a long time (Dr. Christopher knew this) that Comfrey damages the liver, so you have to be careful about giving it to someone who might have liver problems like an alcoholic.

They need to be treated with liver tonics first. Dr. Christopher said you should only use it while mending bones and then stop. This ban is so ridiculous. There are so many pharmaceuticals that damage the liver, and even over the counter NSAIDs like aspirin and ibuprofen that damage the liver yet the FDA has no problem with allowing consumption of those drugs. Even sillier still, is the fact that they still let Christopher’s put Comfrey in the salve that you put on the skin surrounding the injured bone or cartilage as if the medicine doesn’t get absorbed and introduced to the bloodstream and effect the liver. Give me a break; they know you can give medicine via patches. I’m thinking that they allow the salve because if they didn’t they might have to ban shampoos and soaps that have stuff they would never allow to be
sold as something to put in your mouth. I have lots of other problems with the FDA. That’s just one example. If elected, I will seek to be on the committee that overseas the FDA so I can help them out; their thinking is ridiculously illogical.

Even if I was OK with universal healthcare (which I’m not), I wouldn’t be OK with it as long as the doctors and hospitals only give people the option of using pharmaceuticals that have gangster-like profit margins, instead of at least suggesting scientifically proven herbal alternatives as a choice instead of a drug that if you get one of the side-effects, they have a drug for that, and if that drug causes problems, they have a drug for that, too. The side-effect phraseology is misleading. In my opinion it would be more honest to call it an allergic reaction to something that your body finds toxic.

Please, friends, whenever you go to a doctor for a diagnosis and prescription, before you buy the drug, look online to see what the natural alternatives for that drug are. The possible allergic reactions are way lower, of course, given the fact that God didn’t make the herb out of carcinogenic petrochemicals.

I need volunteers. I will have a website soon. For now, contact me through utgop.org

Take care of yourselves,

Bryan

Does Mitt Romney support taxing the Internet?

Romney Proposed (Then Backed Away From) Plan To Implement “Internet Tourism Tax” On Users Of Online Travel Booking Sites Like Expedia And Travelocity

In 2005, Romney Backed Away From His Plan To Implement An “Internet Tourism Tax” After Being “Spooked By Even The Suggestion He Might Raise Taxes.”

“Governor Mitt Romney, spooked by even the suggestion he might raise taxes, has backed away from precedent-setting legislation that would have changed the way travelers pay hotel occupancy taxes when they get rooms from companies like Hotels.com, Expedia, and Hotwire. The rationale for the legislation was fairly simple: State and local occupancy taxes should be assessed on the rates consumers actually pay for their hotel rooms. That’s the way it works now only when a traveler buys a room directly from a hotel. When the traveler purchases a room through a third-party website, taxes are assessed on the lower wholesale rate the website paid for the room.”  (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Plan Would Have Raised $12-18 Million In New Taxes.

“[The proposal] would have raised an estimated $12 million to $18 million a year for the state by making consumers who book rooms here through travel websites pay more in state and local hotel occupancy and convention center taxes.” (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Romney’s Proposal “Worried Many Hotel Operators Here Who Feared They Might Get Caught In The Middle.”

“The proposed legislation worried many hotel operators here who feared they might get caught in the middle. The hotels feared the Department of Revenue might come after them for the additional tax money if the online resellers refused to voluntarily pass it along. Hotel operators worried they might have to chase the websites for the money or, worse, collect it from customers at check-in.” (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Boston Herald Called Romney’s Plan “Pennywise And Pound Foolish.”

“Bureaucratic quibbling aside, consumers will be stuck paying higher taxes if a proposed Internet hotel tax becomes law. That sure sounds like a textbook tax increase to us. In a state where tourism is the third biggest industry with an economic impact of some $11 billion a year, it is pennywise and pound foolish to raise taxes on hotel rooms booked through Web sites like Expedia.com or Travelocity .com for the relative pittance of $18 million.” (Editorial, “Hotel Tax ‘Loophole’ Sham,” Boston Herald, 7/9/04)

Romney “Got Cold Feet” And Dropped The Plan To Raise Taxes On Internet Tourism After Opposition From Low-Tax Advocates.

“The state Department of Revenue last year sought to tax all rooms the same way, no matter how they were purchased. The hotel industry blocked the measure, deriding it as an ‘Internet tourism tax.’ The department was ready to try again this year when Romney got cold feet and deleted it from a loophole-closing package. Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s communications director, said the governor dropped the initiative for two reasons. First, it failed to pass last year and its chances this year were considered slim. Second, Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, objected to it. ‘She thought it was a tax increase,’ Fehrnstrom said.”  (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Romney Proposed And Instituted Sales Tax On Downloading Software

Romney Proposed The New Tax On Downloaded Software.

“A recent proposal by Gov. Mitt Romney to tax software downloaded from the Internet has drawn mixed reactions from legislators and industry organizations.

Consumers must pay a 5 percent sales tax when they buy software in stores, but do not need to pay it when shopping online. The bill would tax programs downloaded from the internet with the state’s standard 5 percent sales tax.” (Andrew Shapira, “Romney To Support A Sales Tax On Downloaded Software,” [Boston University] The Daily Free Press, 4/25/03)

Sales Tax Applied To Downloaded Software For The First Time.

“Software that is delivered to the end user by download will, for the first time, be subject to Massachusetts sales tax starting next month. The same goes for so-called ‘load-and-leave’ delivery, through which a software maker installs the program on your computer. Lawmakers estimate the annual windfall to be somewhere along the lines of $50 million.” (Op-ed, Cosmo Macero Jr., “Download This: No More Free Ride On Net Software Buys,” Boston Herald, 3/7/06)

New Tax Approved “With The Full Support Of Romney.”

“The quiet tax hike was included in a package of ‘loophole’ closing legislation approved last year with the full support of Romney.” (Op-ed, Cosmo Macero Jr., “Download This: No More Free Ride On Net Software Buys,” Boston Herald, 3/7/06)

Software Sales Tax Expected To Impact Businesses The Hardest.

“[A]ccording to Department of Revenue spokesman Tim Connolly, the tax would not significantly affect the average consumer because most of the revenue would come from corporations rather than individuals.” (Andrew Shapira, “Romney To Support A Sales Tax On Downloaded Software,” [Boston University] The Daily Free Press, 4/25/03)

Romney Signed Multistate Pact And Passed Law To Allow For Internet Sales Tax In Massachusetts

Massachusetts Originally Opposed Internet Tax To Be Seen As A “High-Tech Friendly State.”

“To foster a reputation as a high-tech friendly state, Massachusetts took the lead in supporting a congressional moratorium on such taxes, which was extended in 2001 to November of 2003 with the support of President George W. Bush. Where some Main Street businesses saw unfair competition, state leaders saw the almost boundless potential of the Internet to open new markets, and Massachusetts as an incubator for new cyberspace technology.” (Editorial, “Internet Sales Tax Shortsighted Move,” Boston Herald, 3/19/03)

Romney Endorsed Plan That Would End Moratorium On Internet Sales Tax For 35 States, Including Massachusetts.

“Now, Romney has signed onto a plan for Massachusetts to join the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, with more than 35 other states to simplify sales tax rules and ultimately clear the way for all online merchants to collect taxes and return them to the coffers of the proper jurisdiction.” (Editorial, “Internet Sales Tax Shortsighted Move,” Boston Herald, 3/19/03)

Romney Signed Law To Enroll Massachusetts In The Multistate Collaborative.

“A new law signed by Gov. Mitt Romney enrolls Massachusetts in a multistate collaborative looking for a better way for states to collect taxes on Internet sales.” (Steve LeBlanc, “New Law Could Pave Way For Internet Sales Taxes In Massachusetts,” The Associated Press, 3/16/03)

Romney Signed Bill To Help Balance Budget.

“Romney spokeswoman Nicole St. Peter said the governor signed the bill after a suggestion from the legislature. ‘It was part of the budget balancing bill for the fiscal year ‘03,’ St. Peter said.” (Dennis Mayer, “Internet Sales Should Be Taxed, Romney Says,” [Boston University] The Daily Free Press, 4/25/03)

Romney’s Republican Predecessors Both Opposed Internet Sales Tax.

“Former Gov. Paul Cellucci and former acting Gov. Jane Swift both opposed Internet sales taxes. Swift last year vetoed the same bill Romney just signed.” (Steve LeBlanc, “New Law Could Pave Way For Internet Sales Taxes In Massachusetts,” The Associated Press, 3/16/03)

Senator Hatch on the Keystone Pipeline, Immigration

Fellow Utahns,

As you may have heard, President Obama announced that he has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project, which is expected to create thousands of jobs across the country.  According to legislation signed into law by the President at the end of last year, the President was given the sole authority to issue the permit to build the pipeline, which would lower the energy costs for Utahns and decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

The announcement shows yet another failure in leadership from a White House intent on paying back their political allies at the expense of hard-working Americans. The President could have helped create thousands of jobs across the country, but instead made it clear yet again that he favors playing politics over passing good energy policy.  With our unemployment across the country still unacceptably high, it is unthinkable and unwise of this administration to reject this pipeline which would have created good-paying jobs here at home.

This is truly disappointing because unlike the President’s failed trillion dollar stimulus, the Keystone pipeline is a shovel-ready, private-sector project that will spur job-creation now and in the future. It is just another example of how this White House is one of the most anti-American-energy Administrations in our nation’s history.

You have my commitment to continue to fight against misguided decisions like this, and other government regulations that hamper economic recovery by our private sector.

Hatch Statement on the President’s Political Decision to Change Immigration Rules

Earlier this month, President Obama decided to go around Congress and use his executive power to change immigration rules. The change made will allow illegal immigrants whose spouses or children are legal US residents to avoid paying penalties while they seek legal immigration status.

We are a proud nation of immigrants and also a country that respects the rule of law. Unfortunately, the President has opted to change long-standing immigration policy to score cheap political points and reward those who have come to our great country illegally. We need a President who is interested in working with Congress to find a comprehensive immigration solution that respects the rule of law, not a President solely focused on what policies best appeal to his political base.

Hatch on President’s Announcement to Reorganize Federal Agencies

Last week, President Obama announced that he would seek congressional authority to reorganize the Executive Branch, including merging six trade and commerce agencies.  I believe that eliminating wasteful government programs and reducing spending is a laudable goal and one we should all work to achieve.  After three years in the White House presiding over the largest expansion of government in generations, the timing of this announcement and the failure to consult Congress raise questions about the President’s commitment to a real reorganization and reduction in the size of the federal government.

To read more, click here.

Sincerely,

Senator Orrin Hatch

P.S. If you have any concerns which my office can help with, please visit my website at hatch.senate.gov.

Is Mitt Romney really a Republican?

In the first 2.5 years of his term as Governor, Romney picked Democrats and Independents 75% of the time!

July 2005: Romney “Passed Over GOP Lawyers For Three-Quarters Of The 36 Judicial Vacancies” He Had Faced At That Time.

“Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.” (Raphael Lewis, “Romney Jurist Picks Not Tilted To GOP,” The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

Romney’s Picks By The Numbers

“Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.” (Raphael Lewis, “Romney Jurist Picks Not Tilted To GOP,” The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

During His Full Term, Romney Chose Left-Leaning Jurists At Least 50% Of The Time, At Least 46 Registered Democrats Or Democrat Donors

A study of Romney’s 80 nominations to the bench shows that Romney chose at least 46 nominees who were registered Democrats or independent voters who had contributed to Democratic campaigns.

Which make us ask the question:

Which all his support of Democrats, is Mitt Romney really a Republican? Or is he just a RINA? A Republican in Name Only.

Stop SOPA