Now Joe is trying to pass himself off as defender of education

It's so sad. Joe is so scared of losing his seat in Congress, he's willing to do and say anything.

Joe Knollenberg is not a defender of education

I feel compelled to write in response to Joe Knollenberg’s recent letter to the editor in the Birmingham Eccentridc regarding his legislation to provide a $5,000 scholarship for high school students that enter college and major in math, science, engineering or health-care related field.

Great idea Joe, but you’re a little late to the party. If I could ever get to meet with you face to face, I’d ask why you’re only now proposing legislation to address the education needs of our children. Just to refresh the voters’ memory, back in 2005, Joe Knollenberg voted to slash funding for primary schools by $784 million. Joe also voted to cut federal student aid by $12.7 billion that would have allowed middle class students to obtain low cost loans. That same legislation increased the interest rate charged on the loans that are still being offered. Now Joe Knollenberg would have us believe he’s on our side. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. When Joe Knollenberg was in the majority and he felt his seat was not at risk, he felt perfectly safe slashing education funds.

Now that he feels his seat in Congress is in jeopardy, Joe feels the need to introduce legislation. I say voters are smarter than you give them credit for, Mr. Knollenberg.

In a recent document that was referenced in Congressional hearings involving the General Services Administration, Mr. Knollenberg is listed as “may not run.” Even though he has announced he is running, it makes one think, maybe the White House knows something we don’t know as Joe’s constituents.

Bye Bye Joe

Both the Democratic Party and the Republics consider Knollenberg to be on the endangered list in terms of the 2008 election.

The 9th District is only marginally ~1% Republican now. By 2008 that will have changed in part because of demographics and in part because the Republic Party as a brand has a reputation somewhere below that of Enron.

Add to that Knollenberg's unconditional support of George Bush's war in Iraq when the vast majority of voters in this District oppose the war and you have a recipe for Knollenberg being defeated by a landslide.

Bye bye Joe.

Why don't you do us all a favor and just resign now.

Oh, and take your smarmy lobbyist staffers with you.

Rove document lists Knollenberg as "may not run"

During a hearing today in front of Henry Waxman's committee a Powerpoint presentation was being discussed. On page 10 of the presentation there is an asterisk next to Joe's name which indicates that Joe may not seek re-election. Is there something you're not telling us, Joe? Maybe this blog is having a bigger effect on Joe's re-election plans than we thought.

Knollenberg Gets Even Cozier With Lobbyists

Joe Knollenberg must know that voters are starting to realize just how EXTREME he is and how out of touch he is with the District.

He has already started campaigning for 2008!

Not only has he started campaigning, but he has started to line up lobbyists and is collecting their big checks. He has a big fundraiser scheduled for April 25th in Washington DC. He is charging lobbyists $1000 per ticket just to get in. I wonder what how many favors a $1000 buys from Joe these days?

Oh, and the fundraiser is a function of ROMP -- an organization started by TOM DELAY!!! Yep. Joe Knollenberg is still following Tom Delay's lead. Maybe this is how Tom Delay pays back rubber stamp Congressman like Joe Knollenberg.

Of course just last week Knollenberg was at a fundraiser with Karl Rove. Rove of course is good friends with the lobbyist and convicted felon, Jack Abramoff.

Joe sure knows how to pick his felons lobbyists criminals friends.

Why Does Joe Knollenberg Hate Free Speech?

Most members of Congress have at least some appreciation of the Constitution -- including the Bill of Rights.

Joe Knollenberg is the exception. Joe Knollenberg's actions indicate he is an ardent opponent of free speech.

Here are a few examples of how Knollenberg tries to stifle free speech:

1. Knollenberg has started a "blog" but refuses to accept public comments on his blog
2. Knollenberg's Chief of Staff, a Washington DC Lobbyist, attacks voters who exercise their free speech rights by writing letters to the editor or by engaging in peaceful protests
   
3. Knollenberg consistently objects to members of Congress who propose resolutions that he objects to -- he doesn't just indicate his objection to the substance of the resolution, he argues they shouldn't even offer the resolution in the first place.

Then again, Knollenberg seems to object to everything about the 1st amendment. We know for example that he believes that government should ignore the portion of the first amendment that precludes the government from establishing religion -- because Knollenberg is a Christian Nationalist, Knollenberg believes the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" and doesn't think citizens who are not christian should be able to challenge government actions to promote the Christian religion.

We already addressed this in a previous post where we noted that that Joe Knollenberg voted YES on the Christian Supremacy Act.

Poor Joe doesn't like it when the Democrats play politics

From Joe's blog:
http://www.knollenberg.house.gov/blog/?p=27

"Support our Troops
Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution recognizing March 26th as “National Support Our Troops Day.” I introduced the same resolution last year and the House passed it unanimously! However, this year Speaker Pelosi won’t even allow a vote on my resolution. There is only one reason for this: POLITICS. Why won’t a Democrat Speaker allow a Republican member to offer a resolution honoring our troops? POLITICS!It’s time for the politics to end and the bipartisan support of our troops to begin."

OMG! Politics in Congress! Who could ever imagine that.

Yes, we should support our troops, Joe, and the best way to do that is TO BRING THEM HOME!!!! Funny how short the Republicans' memory is -- when they were in charge it was okay to block votes on resolutions, but now that the Democrats are in the majority, it's all of a sudden something to cry about.

And, by the way, Joe, Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic Speaker, not the Democrat Speaker.

Knollenberg Wastes Taxpayer $$$ To Spread Campaign Lies

Joe Knollenberg just send out another campaign flyer on taxpayer money.

He doesn't even bother to try to send out fake newsletters anymore, he just sends out regular campaign literature.

This is just another in a long line of examples of Joe Knollenberg's refusal to exercise common sense when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars.

The flyer is humorous though in the sense that it states in bold red type: "Knollenberg Votes NO on Oil Subsidies..."

What is funny is that if he hadn't voted for them in 2005, he wouldn't have been embarrassed into voting against them in 2007!!!

Joe Knollenberg voted to give Big Oil companies billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Joe is on the Wrong Side of the Iraq Issue

Once again, Joe Knollenberg is on the wrong side of an important issue.

We know the majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq. In a recent poll, USAToday found that 59% of Americans thought the war in Iraq was a mistake in the first place.

46% of Americans don't think we can win in Iraq.

58% think we should withdraw troops within the next 12 months.

Once again, Joe Knollenberg is ignoring the will of the people.

Joe Knollenberg is still advocating the failed strategy of "Stay the Course".

Knollenberg's Vote Today Hurts Our Troops

In addition to assuring funding sufficient for the Pentagon to properly equip the troops, the supplemental spending bill that passed the House today (also known as the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act" also supported the troops in other ways as well.

The Act would hold the Bush Administration and Iraqi government accountable and would get our troops out of the way of the current civil war by engaging in a strategic redeployment by 2008.

In addition, the bill expanded funding for veterans’ health care and hospitals.

The bill also funded efforts to refocus military efforts on Afghanistan and fighting terrorism.

The only thing the opponents could come up with was that the bill was "micromanaging" the war. But that is disingenuous. There are legislative off-ramps that would allow the President to waive any provisions that were too restrictive. There was no excuse not to support this bill.

Joe Knollenberg voted NO on all of these things.

But I think the part that is still most disturbing is that Knollenberg refuses to vote for legislation that would mandate that the troops have proper body armor.

Again, this 30 second video illustrates the consequences of Knollenberg's stubborn refusal to give our troops the proper body armor:

Knollenberg Votes Against The Troops Again!

Joe Knollenberg voted against the troops again!

HR 1591 was the supplemental funding bill. It includes funding for the war in Iraq. Unlike previous legislation funding the war in Iraq, the Democrats have insisted that any troops that Bush sends to Iraq have at least the minimum amount of body armor that a soldier should have.

Specifically, the bill prohibits

the use of funds under this Act to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified to the congressional appropriations committees in advance that the unit is fully mission capable.

There is an "escape" provision that "Authorizes the President to waive such prohibition and deployment limits on a unit-by-unit basis for reasons of national security."

Knollenberg voted NO on this bill because it contained provisions like that that were intended to protect the troops by guaranteeing they would not be sent into harm's war without at least having the proper protective equipment including the current technology for bullet proof vests. Knollenberg would allow our troops to go into battle using the old and outdated vests that were used in Vietnam.

This 30 second video shows that using the most current technology for bullet proof vests is a matter of life and death.



Rather than support the troops, Joe Knollenberg has once again chosen to just vote his Party line.

Knollenberg Doesn't Want You To Know That He Supports Privatizing Social Security

Looking though Joe Knollenberg's website again, it is interesting to note not just what he says, but what he doesn't say as well.

Joe Knollenberg supports privatizing Social Security. He realizes that this puts him on the opposite side of the issue than the vast majority of voters, so now he won't admit it.

Make no mistake about it, if a bill came before Congress to privatize Social Security, Joe Knollenberg would vote for it.

Before the last election he submitted a survey response to AARP that stated he supported privatizing Social Security -- he just prefers to call it "personalizing" it instead of "privatizing".

Funny how he won't put that on his website though. Then again, he won't even admit on his website that he is a Republican.

Knollenberg's Spends Money Irresponsibly

We've already pointed out that Knollenberg's Chief of Staff is Washington DC lobbyist. Yes. Knollenberg's Chief of Staff is a lobbyist, just like the infamous felon Jack Abramoff!

But now Knollenberg and his lobbyist have put up a billboard and website asking for contributions. The press articles report that the billboard cost $10,000 and the website cost $1,500. Now they are trying to raise campaign funds to cover that cost -- but they are trying to raise them in amounts below which they have to track and report the individual donations to the FEC!

Are Knollenberg and his lobbyist, Trent Wisecup, trying to skirt campaign finance laws?

Of course we also have to question the judgment of anyone who would put up a billboard like that for $10,000.

Unfortunately for us, Knollenberg spends taxpayer money just as wildly as he spends his millions in campaign funds.

Joe Knollenberg Still Just Wants To "Stay The Course" In Iraq

Joe Knollenberg still wants to "Stay the Course" in Iraq.

He has said the same thing about Iraq month, after month, after month.

According to his Chief Lobbyist, Trent Wisecup, Knollenberg is impatient and wants to see progress soon. But he keeps saying that over and over and over. And there is no progress. But he never changes his message.

He is like a bird that just repeats the same phrases over and over again.

Awwwk. Polly wants a cracker. Awwwk.

Therein lies the problem with Joe Knollenberg -- he doesn't DO anything!

Knollenberg has not put forth a single proposal to resolve the problem in Iraq. Knollenberg has not worked with other members of Congress to come up with a bipartisan solution.

Month After Month After Month Knollenberg Says the Same Thing About Iraq.

And Month After Month Knollenberg Does The Same Thing -- NOTHING

All Knollenberg does is repeat the same tired rhetoric. Well, the voters in this District are just as tired as Old Joe's rhetoric. They'll finally put him out to pasture in 2008.

More Crazy Talk From Joe

It looks like Joe has finally gone over the edge: On Sunday, March 18th , Joe Knollenberg said:

"A random thought on a Sunday evening in Oakland County … if the“professional environmentalists” (those who get paid to shut down job-producing and wealth-generating industries like the automotive sector of the economy) wantAmerica to behave more like Western Europe on climate change … why do theycontinue to oppose allowing us to use nuclear power and diesel engine technology more fully?"

Does anyone know anyone who gets "paid to shut down job-producing and wealth-generating industries"?

I've never met anyone with that job title. How would they fit it on a business card?

That is just crazy talk.

Not mention his paranoia about people opposing diesel technology -- many of the new engines being produced today are diesel engines! What is he talking about? It is the auto industry's choice as to whether they want to use gasoline or diesel engines. The engines in Europe combined with the pollution standards here in the US would be great. Who is arguing against that?

Knollenberg has gone from a do-nothing Congressman to an hallucinating Congressman. I'm not sure, but it might be an improvement. At a minimum, it is more entertaining.

Knollenberg Voted Against Arming Our Troops!! Again.

This is outrageous. This is a matter of life and death.

Last week Joe Knollenberg voted to send our troops to Iraq without proper body armor.

Knollenberg thinks our troops only deserve Vietnam era body armor -- he won't vote to supply them with the proper body armor. This 30 second video by a veterans group illustrates the difference.



During the same Appropriations committee meeting, Knollenberg also voted to slash funds for veterans healthcare again!

We have contacted votevets.org to see what we need to do to modify this so it can be run here so voters see just how Knollenberg "supports" the troops.

If you are interested in helping, send an email to Joe@knollenberg.org and we will add you to our contact list.


[Thanks to Sharon for her post on this issue and to Bruce for raising the issue to my attention.]

Why Does Joe Hate the Troops?

From a post at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/111114/789

Joe was among the Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee who unanimously opposed requiring that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor. Again.

Let's see what he does when this bill comes up for a vote in the full House -- I think we all know what he'll do.

Correction on Joe's vote on HR 1362

For the record, I was wrong in my post on Joe's vote on HR 1362 regarding government contractors. He actually wound up voting yes on this bill. He had voted no on an earlier vote related to this bill, but wound up voting yes on the actual bill.

Sorry for the error.

Survey Shows Joe's Wrong on Mileage Claims

Poor Joe, he can't get anything right. He's wrong on the war and now this. A Detroit Free Press survey show that 67% of those polled in Michigan would pay at least $500 and up to $2000 for vehichles that get better gas mileage. Read the article here.

Looks like Joe wasted his $10,000 for that big old billboard on I-75.

What do you think?

The Real Reason Joe Knollenberg Opposes CAFE Standards

Joe Knollenberg has been out proclaiming himself the defender of the universe auto industry because he opposes increasing the CAFE standards for cars and trucks.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is:

. . . the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Knollenberg claims higher CAFE will destroy the Auto Industry. This is particularly interesting since 2 years ago his current Chief lobbyist of Staff was advocating FOR higher CAFE standards, stating that he supported Bush's proposal to raise CAFE standards because they were:

based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, which would increase fuel efficiency without a negative impact on the U.S. automobile industry.

Gosh. I wonder why those higher standards would now suddenly devastate the auto industry. NO explanation from Joe or his lobbyist on that one.

Now the CAFE standard for cars has been set at 27.5 mpg for the last 17 years. Doesn't it seem like the auto companies could (and in fact probably have) done something to increase gas mileage over the last 2 decades?

Higher CAFE Standards Mean Less Money For Joe From Big Oil
But, it all makes sense now. Raising CAFE standards means consumers will use less gasoline. If we buy less gasoline, big greedy oil companies like ExxonMobil won't make as much of a profit. Maybe instead of making $40 Billion in profits every year they will only be able to make $38 or 39 Billion.

And Joe certainly doesn't want the oil companies to see any reduction in their profits -- because that might mean they would give him less money for his campaigns.

Joe Knollenberg is very cozy with the big oil interests. So cozy that he votes FOR Big Oil Profits and against average middle class families.

Here is a sample of Joe's PRO OIL/ANTI-Family votes:

* Knollenberg voted against cracking down on the oil and gas industries price gouging [HR 3402, Vote 500, 9/28/2005]
* Knollenberg voted for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries [HR 6, Vote 445, 7/28/2005]

The real reason Knollenberg opposes increasing CAFE standards is because Oil industry lobbyists told him to.

Another Cozy Relationship Link Between Knollenberg & George Bush's Failed Policies

Joe Knollenberg has been a reliable rubber stamp Congressman for George W. Bush.

Knollenberg votes the way Bush tells him to vote.

Interestingly, there is another close tie between Knollenberg's lobbyist, Trent Wisecup, who is also Knollenberg's Chief of Staff, and George Bush's lobbyist -- they both were executives at the same firm!

Here is the DC Navigator's Press Release proudly announcing that Bush's lobbyist was joining the lobbying firm where Wisecup was a Vice President.

We know Joe votes how Bush tells him to vote.
And we know Joe votes how lobbyists tell him to vote.
Now he has both Bush and the lobbyists telling him how to vote.
Too bad our Congressman cannot think for himself.

Knollenberg's Chief of Staff Must Be An Expert At "Dirty Tricks"

Joe Knollenberg's Chief of Staff is the bigshot Washington DC lobbyist, Trent Wisecup. He was most recently a lobbyist affiliated with a group called "DC Navigators".

But he wasn't just any lobbyist. He also worked directly on election campaigns, including Governor Schwarzenegger. (Which just makes the anti-Arnold billboard he put up for Knollenberg all the more strange.)

More specifically, according to the DC Navigators website, Wisecup "directed the campaign’s opposition research and rapid response teams."

That of course means that Wisecup's job was to dig-up and make-up, dirt on any opponents. Richard Nixon was an expert at such dirty tricks. Apparently such low ethical standards are still in force in the Republican Party.

Lying About the Background of an Opponent
What types of things would a scumbag opposition research & rapid responder do? Lie of course. (No wonder lobbyists are so good at that job!)

In the case of Schwarzenegger's campaign in 2003, his opposition research and rapid responder lied about the background of a stuntwoman who had accused the movie star of groping her while filming. How did the scumbag opp researcher respond? By lying about the woman's background. They claimed she was a felon with a long criminal background. It wasn't true. She had never been in trouble with the law. If you want more, just google the name Schwartzenegger and "dirty tricks" and you'll get plenty of hits.

Who Pays Wisecup's Salary?
Another interesting point -- who does Wisecup really work for? Is he working for Knollenberg or is he still a lobbyist? He is listed as Knollenberg's Chief of Staff, but his name doesn't show up on the list of House staffers and their salaries. And we know that his lobbying firm opened up a Detroit office a few years ago.


How Can You Trust A Congressman Who Fills His Staff With D.C. Lobbyists?
Don't you think that after all the scandals involving Republican Congressman and Washington D.C. lobbyists, that any rational Member of Congress would avoid hiring a lobbyist at all costs? Not Joe. Oh No.

Joe prefers to keep his lobbyists and their fists full of fundraising dough real close.

Who does Wisecup work for? The lobbying firm?

Maybe the better question is who does Joe Knollenberg work for? It certainly isn't the voters of the 9th District. I think we'll find out more as we continue to investigate his campaign contributions, extensive earmarks for campaign donors, and other things he has done in exchange for campaign cash and other party favors.

Congressman like Joe Knollenberg are a Lobbyist's
Best Friend.

You're Invited to our first Joe Knollenberg Retirement Party

Sunday April 1, 2007 at 5 p.m. we're having our first Joe Knollenberg Retirement Party. Hope you can make it. Join the fun.

For more details about this invitation and to RSVP online, go to: http://www.party2win.com/retirejoeknollenberg/parties?e=retirejoe1&userid=38973

Knollenberg's Votes Hurt Our Schools

On his website, Joe Knollenberg makes statements about how he supports education. But his actions show just the opposite.

Knollenberg Votes to Slash Funding for Higher Education
Knollenberg claims that he is a "strong supporter of efforts to make college more affordable for students and their parents." But when it comes time to vote on those issues, Knollenberg's votes are AGAINST middle-class families.

But in fact, just the opposite is true. Knollenberg voted to CUT Federal Student aid by $12.7 billion -- the biggest cut in history! [S 1932 , Vote #670, 12/19/2005]

Knollenberg Votes To Slash Funding for Primary Education
Joe Knollenberg also consistently votes to slash funding for primary school education too. He voted to cut $784 Million out of the No Child Left Behind program. [HR 3010, Vote #598, 11/17/2005]

Does Joe Knollenberg Ever Tell The Truth, or is it Just All Spin To Him?
The only true statement I could find on his website was:

Raising the bar on public education is one of Congressman Knollenberg’s
top priorities.

He is "raising the bar" alright. He has raised the bar on the door and if he keeps going he is going to lock that door. And on the other side of that door are the middle-class families in Oakland County. The ones who are trying to help out their kids by saving for their college education but a few years of college now costs more than most families earn in a year.

Once again, Joe Knollenberg's positions are hurting middle-class families.

The Real Message Behind Joe Knollenberg's Billboard

Click on the Picture To Read The Real Message Behind Joe's Billboard

The Real Reason Knollenberg Opposes CAFE Standards

Joe Knollenberg has been out proclaiming himself the defender of the universe auto industry because he opposes increasing the CAFE standards for cars and trucks.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is:

. . . the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Knollenberg claims higher CAFE will destroy the Auto Industry. This is particularly interesting since 2 years ago his current Chief lobbyist of Staff was advocating FOR higher CAFE standards, stating that he supported Bush's proposal to raise CAFE standards because they were:

based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, which would increase fuel efficiency without a negative impact on the U.S. automobile industry.

Gosh. I wonder why those higher standards would now suddenly devastate the auto industry. NO explanation from Joe or his lobbyist on that one.

Now the CAFE standard for cars has been set at 27.5 mpg for the last 17 years. Doesn't it seem like the auto companies could (and in fact probably have) done something to increase gas mileage over the last 2 decades?

Higher CAFE Standards Mean Less Money For Joe From Big Oil
But, it all makes sense now. Raising CAFE standards means consumers will use less gasoline. If we buy less gasoline, big greedy oil companies like ExxonMobil won't make as much of a profit. Maybe instead of making $40 Billion in profits every year they will only be able to make $38 or 39 Billion.

And Joe certainly doesn't want the oil companies to see any reduction in their profits -- because that might mean they would give him less money for his campaigns.

Joe Knollenberg is very cozy with the big oil interests. So cozy that he votes FOR Big Oil Profits and against average middle class families.

Here is a sample of Joe's PRO OIL/ANTI-Family votes:

* Knollenberg voted against cracking down on the oil and gas industries price gouging [HR 3402, Vote 500, 9/28/2005]
* Knollenberg voted for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries [HR 6, Vote 445, 7/28/2005]

How Many Lobbyists Does It Take To Fill Joe Knollenberg's Campaign Coffer?

Knollenberg collects over $428,000 per year from special interests!!


Ever wonder how Joe Knollenberg raises so much money for his campaigns? Wonder who gives him the money? How much time he spends raising money?

The old fashioned way of sending a letter requesting donations is so 1990's. Why bother with that when there are much faster ways to get cash from Lobbyists!

Don't forget, Joe Knollenberg's Chief of Staff is a registered Washington DC lobbyist.

That is how Joe Knollenberg raises most of his campaign money -- through lobbyists and wealthy business owners to whom he directs federal contracts.

And Knollenberg raises a lot of money. Joe Knollenberg raised $2.2 million for the last election.

Fundraisers
Joe Knollenberg's Chief Lobbyist of Staff, Trent Wisecup, probably gives Joe advice on how to put the fun in fundraisers. One of their favorite tricks is to turn Tiger baseball games into major campaign fundraisers. [See #34.]

Money Collected From Lobbyists
According to PublicCitizen, Knollenberg raked in $204,016 directly from lobbyists between 2000 and 2005. That is an average of nearly $52,000 per year.

But we know that the lobbyists don't always put money directly into Congressional Campaign Funds, they like to launder clean it a bit first. They often donate the money to PAC funds and then the PAC turns around and gives that money to the Candidate. That does 2 things: 1) makes the money trail harder to track; and 2) allows each lobbyist to give more money to candidates. (If they give directly to the Candidate committee, they are limited to $2100 per candidate per election cycle whereas they can give up to $5000 to a PAC over the same time frame.)

Knollenberg collected $1,882,339 from PACs between 2000 and 2005. That is an average of over $376,000 per year in PAC funds. So that $376,000 plus the $52,000 per year that comes directly from lobbyists means Joe Knollenberg collects over $428,000 per year from "special" special interests!

That is a lot of money.
Next, we will start reporting on what FAVORS Joe did for his biggest DONORS.

Joe Votes No Again

No, no Joe does it again. He voted no on the Accountability in Contracting Act, H.R. 1362. Why does Joe want to keep giving Halliburton no-bid contracts?

"The House voted to limit no-bid federal contracts Thursday, alleging abuses and citing huge losses in contracts for Katrina recovery and Iraq reconstruction.The Accountability in Contracting Act was the last of five open government bills the House passed this week under new Democratic leaders critical of what they say has been the closed and secretive nature of the Bush administration.The bill, which now goes to the Senate, passed 347-73.

The White House opposed the contracting bill, as it did most of the other bills, saying it would complicate the administration's own efforts to make contracting more competitive.Democrats cited figures showing that federal contracts have nearly doubled in the Bush years, to about $400 billion a year, and that sole-source contracts, where there is no competitive bidding, grew from $67 billion in 2000 to $145 billion in 2005."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/15/national/w115950D64.DTL

Knollenberg Votes AGAINST Honesty From Government Workers

True to his extremist radical right views, Joe Knollenberg voted NO on legislation (HR 985) that would protect Federal workers from retribution for turning in people who were defrauding the government or otherwise acting wrongfully.

This is another example of Joe Knollenberg's Extreme Radical Right Positions

As described below by Sharon, HR 985 is the "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007". Basically it provides protection to any federal worker who discloses what they reasonably believe is "credible evidence of waste, abuse, gross mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety".

In other words, it would protect federal workers from losing their jobs and being demoted, etc. if they disclose "waste, abuse, gross mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety". Seems to me we want our government workers to be honest and forthright. We want them to come forward when they see their agency doing something that is wrong.

Why on earth would Joe Knollenberg NOT want government employees to report credible evidence of waste, abuse, gross mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety????

This legislation passed with not just a mere majority of votes in the House, but it passed with a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. It was a true bipartisan effort.

This is another example of Joe Knollenberg being on the
wrong side of an issue again.

When will Knollenberg stop listening to high priced lobbyists and special interests and start listening to constituents?

Apparently after 14 years of listening to lobbyists -- and hiring them to work on his staff -- honesty just isn't important to Joe Knollenberg.

Joe Votes Against Two Important Sunshine Bills

Although Joe did vote for H.R. 1255, which amends the Presidential Records Act (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1255/show), he voted against H.R. 1309 (308 yay; 117 nay), which strengthens the Freedom of Information Act and H.R. 985 (331 yay; 94 nay), the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007. What is Joe afraid of being exposed -- is he afraid of getting sunburn from all the sunshine? Maybe he just needs some sunblock.

Summary text of these two bills follows:

H.R.985 - Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007
To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.

Short: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 as introduced.
2/12/2007--Introduced.Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - Includes as a protected disclosure by a federal employee any lawful disclosure an employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of waste, abuse, gross mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior disclosure. Defines "disclosure" to mean a formal or informal communication, not including a communication concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise discretionary authority unless the employee providing the disclosure reasonably believes that the disclosure evidences: (1) any violation of law; or (2) mismanagement, waste, abuse of authority, or a danger to the public. Codifies the legal standard for determining whether a whistleblower has a reasonable belief that a disclosure evidences governmental waste, fraud, or abuse, or a violation of law. Includes under the definition of: (1) "personnel action" the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement; and (2) "prohibited personnel practice" implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement not containing a statement that it is consistent with specified provisions governing disclosures and conducting an investigation of an employee or applicant because of any protected activity. Authorizes the President to exclude certain agencies engaged in the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities from whistleblower protections if such exclusion is made prior to any personnel action against the whistleblower. Expands the authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board to impose disciplinary action for prohibited personnel practices. Requires a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on security clearance revocations after 1996, claims in connection with such revocations, and resulting actions. Allows an employee, former employee, or applicant who seeks corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board with respect to an alleged prohibited personnel practice to bring action in federal district court for de novo review. Provides that an employee of a covered agency may not be discharged, demoted, or discriminated against as a reprisal for making a disclosure of covered information to an authorized Member of Congress, authorized executive official, or the Inspector General of the covered agency. Sets forth provisions concerning: (1) reprisal complaints; (2) determinations by the covered agency on whether the employee was subjected to a prohibited reprisal; and (3) re-initiation of procedures to restrict an employee's access to classified or sensitive information after a corrective action to restrict such access was voided. Entitles employees of executive agencies that are not covered agencies, for purposes of any disclosure of covered information which consists of classified or sensitive information, to the same protections, rights, and remedies under this Act as if those agencies were covered. Amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and Armed Forces procurement provisions to modify remedy and enforcement authority s relating to the protection of contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of certain information. Makes certain prohibited personnel practices provisions applicable to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Includes within the meaning of "abuse of authority": (1) actions that compromise the validity of federally funded research or analysis; and (2) the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical, or technical information.

H.R.1309 - Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007
To promote openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.

Short: Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007 as introduced.
3/5/2007--Introduced.Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007 - Amends the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to prohibit a federal agency from denying a requester status as a news media representative for purposes of determining FOIA request processing fees solely on the absence more...of institutional association. Requires an agency to consider the requester's prior publication history or stated intent to distribute information to a reasonably broad audience. Provides that, for purposes of recovery of attorney fees and other litigation costs under FOIA, a complainant has substantially prevailed if the complainant has obtained relief through either: (1) a judicial order, an administrative action, or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree; or (2) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the opposing party in a case in which the complainant's claim or defense was not frivolous. Directs the Attorney General to notify the Special Counsel of and report to Congress on civil actions taken for arbitrary and capricious rejections of requests for agency records. Prohibits the tolling of the time limit within which agencies determine whether to comply with a request for records without the consent of the party filing the request. Requires agencies to establish systems to track requests. Adds requirements for reports by agencies to the Attorney General on such requests. Establishes the Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives to: (1) provide, as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation, guidance to FOIA requesters; (2) review policies and procedures by administrative agencies under FOIA; and (3) recommend to Congress and the President policy changes to improve FOIA's administration. Requires the: (1) Comptroller General to annually report on implementation of provisions for the protection of voluntarily shared critical infrastructure information; and (2) Office of Personnel Management to report on personnel policies related to FOIA. Declares that the government's policy is to release information in response to a request if such release is: (1) required by law; or (2) allowed by law and the agency does not reasonably foresee that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by an applicable exemption.

Local "Liberal Agitator" Disrupting Joe's "Bi-Partisan" Efforts

Liberal finds his voice in a conservative town

BY ANNETTE KINGSBURY STAFF WRITER
Bruce Fealk is a man on a mission.
A Democrat in a county dominated by Republicans, he acknowledges he wasn't politically active until a couple of years ago. Now, he's demonstrating, blogging, campaigning, setting up Web sites and, most recently, hosting a local-access cable television show that can also be viewed on the Web.

It's all aimed at getting more exposure for Democrats in Oakland County. Disappointed by mainstream media, Fealk has turned to the Internet, the explosively popular avenue for grassroots communication.

It Must Be Lonely For Joe All By Himself On the Wrong Side of Another Issue

Joe Knollenberg has come out against increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks.

Let's take a look at who has come out in support of increasing the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles:

Congress
A bi-partisan movement is coalescing in Congress to preserve our National Security by becoming less dependent on foreign oil. A major component of that initiative is to reduce the quantity of gasoline burned in our cars and trucks.

Major Industry
A coalition of major industries are calling on Congress to take action to conserve fuel. These industries include Southwest Airlines, Fedex, Dow Chemical Co., and Waste Management Inc. , UPS, Goldman Sachs, and a whole host of retired military officials. They are calling their bipartisan coalition "SAFE" for Securing America's Future Energy.

The Auto Industry Itself
Even the auto executives themselves recognize that their customers want more fuel efficient vehicles. They testified to that effect in front of Congress yesterday.

According to MSNBC:

Auto executives worldwide believe sales of hybrid cars and low-cost, fuel efficient models will outpace sales of sport utility vehicles, pickups and luxury models over the next five years because of lingering concerns about fuel prices, according to an annual survey released Wednesday.

The Majority of the People of Nearly every Other Industrialized Nation
A recent international poll found that a majority believe that global warming is an important issue.

Leaders in the Republican Party
Even the leadership of his own Republican Party, George W. Bush, Arnold Schwartzenegger, etc. are now considering addressing global warming and have already indicated their support for energy conservation.

It must be lonely Over there for Joe always being on the wrong side of every issue.


Will Joe Ever Learn That He Should Stop Listening to Washington DC Lobbyists
&
Start Listening to The Voters In the 9th District?

Knollenberg's Cozy Little Circle of Lobbyists

We noted below that not only is Joe Knollenberg's Chief of Staff a bigshot Washington DC lobbyist, but that he is so desperate to find someone who would support Joe Knollenberg, that he had to resort to getting family members to write letters to the editor.

Apparently the family member who wrote the letter referenced above is his wife, who is also the 9th Congressional District Chair for the McCain for Michigan Campaign. That of course is even more interesting since Wisecup used to be a lobbyist consultant for Mitt Romney -- who is not only running for President but who has been endorsed by Joe Knollenberg!

Cozy, isn't it?

Joe abstains from congratulating Greece on its anniversary

I'm sure Joe abstained from voting on this bill recognizing the 186th anniversary of Greek independence because of his work with the Armenian lobby and his role as co-chair of the Armenian caucus. Why does Joe hate Greece?

H.Res.228
Recognizing the 186th anniversary of the independence of Greece and celebrating Greek and American democracy.

Other Bill Titles
Official: Recognizing the 186th anniversary of the independence of Greece and celebrating Greek and American democracy. as introduced.

3/8/2007--Introduced.Extends the warm congratulations and best wishes of the House of Representatives to the people of Greece as they celebrate the 186th anniversary of the independence of Greece. Expresses the support of the House of Representatives for the principles of democratic governance to which the people of Greece are committed. Notes the important role that Greece has played in the wider European region and in the community of nations since gaining its independence 186 years ago.

Ah. The Plot Sickens.

Well, well, well.

What have we here? A close tie between Joe Knollenberg's LOBBYIST and Governor Schwartzenegger's lobbyist?

Knollenberg put up a billboard -- not in his own District mind you -- that says that the Governor of California is telling Michigan to "drop dead".

(According to a recent poll, most of the drivers who admitted to seeing the billboard said they "didn't get it". They couldn't see the connection between the Governor of California and Michigan and why he would be telling us to "drop dead".)

But the LA Times reports that Knollenberg's Chief of Staff, Trent Wisecup, -- who is also a fat cat Washington DC lobbyist -- worked for Schwarzenegger and for a political consulting firm run by a current Schwarzenegger advisor named Mike Murphy:

The congressman's chief of staff, by the way, is Trent Wisecup - who worked for Schwarzenegger on the 2003 recall and for Navigators, the political consulting firm managed in part by Schwarzenegger advisor Mike Murphy. The Knollenberg campaign spent $10,000 on the Detroit billboard and is soliciting $3 donations for additional runs.

The LA Times article also gives the Governor's response:

Aaron McLear, the govenor's spokesman, responded: "It is unfortunate that this congressman doesn't understand the serious threat our country faces because of greenhouse gas emissions. Gov. Schwarzenegger's leadership is allowing the auto industry to move into the future instead of this kind of backward thinking that will negatively impact job growth and the economy."

You tell him Governor.

Knollenberg Was For Higher CAFE Standards Before He Was Against It

Funny thing. Joe Knollenberg and his Chief Lobbyist, Trent Wisecup, were for increasing CAFE standards before they were against it.

FLIP. FLOP.

What Joe & His Lobbyist Are Saying Today
Trent Wisecup, the Washington DC lobbyist that Knollenberg hired as his Chief of Staff was recently quoted as saying: "The Congressman's position is we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But you need to do it by promoting alternative energy."
According to his own website:

Congressman Joe Knollenberg issued the following statement on President Bush’s proposal to significantly increase federal mileage requirements (CAFÉ) over the next 10 years:

“I am disappointed that the president has proposed a CAFÉ increase. If adopted, this proposal would lead to more job cuts and plant closings in Michigan. Raising CAFÉ standards would discriminate against The Big Three and accelerate the push of Toyota and Honda to grab more market share.

What Joe & His Lobbyist Were Saying Just 2 Years Ago
But just a few years ago, Knollenberg and Wisecup were singing the praises of George Bush for his proposal to increase CAFE. Wisecup wrote an article in the National Review where he said:

CAFE reforms based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, which would increase fuel efficiency without a negative impact on the U.S. automobile industry.

I don't think there have been any major changes in combustion technology in the last 2 years so it seems to me that if it were true 2 years ago that Congress could "increase fuel efficiency without a negative impact on the U.S. automobile industry", why wouldn't the same be true for today.

FLIP. FLOP. Which way is the wind blowing? What is Joe's position today? Oh, it just changed again?

No No Knollenberg Is Really On The Wrong Side of the Issue This Time

Joe Knollenberg thought he was going to come across as the defender of the auto industry, but instead he has made himself into the laughing-stock of the industry.

While everyone else, including the auto companies themselves, have agreed that they need to work to reduce emissions, Joe Knollenberg is out there claiming that changing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards will destroy the industry. And he is pointing the finger at a fellow Republican by trying to blame everything on California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The second headline in tonight's Detroit News tells the real story: "Toyota: Auto industry obligated to help solve problem of global warming."

The Detroit News reports that Toyota is willing to step up to the plate and reduce emissions. The Domestic autos are hopefully smart enough now to not let Toyota get the upper hand competitively by being able to market more fuel efficient vehicles so they will step up to the plate too -- they may kick and scream a little for show, but they will step up to the plate.

Meanwhile, Joe will still be outside yelling that the sky is falling. That increased CAFE standards will decimate the industry. CAFE standards haven't been changed in over a decade, but the industry is in chaos. The industry seems quite capable of self-destructing with or without changes in CAFE.

Of course, most people who have seen Knollenberg's big sign about Schwarzenegger say the sign doesn't really make any sense to them. They don't understand the point of the ad and don't even have any recollection of who sponsored it.

Seems Joe went after "The Terminator" in an attempt to make himself "The Defender", but it turned out that he just made himself into a Joke instead.

P.S. And here is the real dirty little secret -- the Big 3 already make cars that meet what the new standards would propose. The problem is they need to be able to sell those cars and that has been their problem all along. They are not making cars that consumers want to buy. Toyota and Honda are making cars that consumers want -- that is why their market share is increasing and Detroit's is decreasing.

Knollenberg's Anti-Environmental Record: Part 2

Joe Knollenberg must think the voters of the 9th District are stupid -- otherwise why would he tell us that he is an "environmentalist", when it is so clear from his voting record that he is really one of the most anti-environmental Congressman in history.

In a previous post we pointed out some of Knollenberg's anti-environmental votes and noted that we were unable to find even a single pro-environmental vote by Knollenberg.

Here is some more evidence of just how strongly anti-environmental Joe Knollenberg really is:

• Knollenberg added a rider to an appropriations bill prohibiting EPA from funding efforts to reduce greenhouse gases under programs like the Kyoto Protocol
• Knollenberg's biggest priority for years was to make certain that toilets could WASTE MORE WATER - rather than conserve water like a true environmentalist would propose
• Knollenberg supported a measure that prohibited EPA from tightening air pollution laws -- and even prohibited them from using their monitoring data to determine which areas of the country were meeting health based air pollution standards
• Knollenberg opposed EPA's efforts to use equal protection guarantees to assure that all Americans have clean air and clean water

In fact, Knollenberg is so anti-environmental, the Lana Pollack from the Michigan Environmental Council once gave Knollenberg an "award" consisting of a Ken doll with his head buried in a bucket of sand. It was a great metaphor for how Knollenberg treats most issues -- he hides from them -- but it is particularly appropriate for environmental issues because Knollenberg votes on them like a dummy with his head in a pile of sand.

It is easy to do a search online and find hundreds of articles about how anti-environmental Joe Knollenberg is -- but can anyone find an article about Joe doing ANYTHING positive and proactive for the environment?

Knollenberg Lies About His Environmental Record

On his new and improved website, Joe Knollenberg claims he is an”environmentalist”.

This is yet another example of where Knollenberg says one thing, but what he does is very, very different.

Knollenberg is a liar like Scooter Libby!


Knollenberg is NOT An Environmentalist By Any Stretch of Any Imagination
My definition of an environmentalist is someone who wants to protect the environment – all aspects of the environment. Based on his voting record in Congress, Joe Knollenberg is NOT an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Knollenberg Voted AGAINST Making EPA a Cabinet Level Department
Contrary to popular belief, the EPA is not a Cabinet level position. It isn’t equal to the Treasury, or Dept of Health & Human Services, or the Dept. of Education – all of which are cabinet level posts. Being a Cabinet level agency would elevate the importance of Environmental Issues by assuring that the leader of the Department was involved in Cabinet meetings. Right now, the Administrator of the EPA would not generally participate in such meetings and thus they have less influence over what the President learns or thinks about Environmental issues. Given the chance to elevate the EPA to a cabinet level position – Joe Knollenberg voted NO.

Here are some more of Knollenberg’s ANTI-Environmental Votes:

• · Joe Knollenberg Voted Against Strengthening Environmental Regulation of Mining Operations;
• · Joe Knollenberg Voted Against Expanding protections of the Endangered Species Act;
• · Joe Knollenberg Supported Legislation That Would Allow Private Property Owners To Harm delicate Environments and the Global Commons;
• · Joe Knollenberg Supports Legislation Allowing for Major Industrial Operations such as Oil Drilling to take place in pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;

In fact, looking through Knollenberg’s voting record, I was unable to identify a single vote by Knollenberg that was pro-environment. Knollenberg votes Pro-polluter instead.

Environmental Groups Rate Knollenberg As One of the Worst
The idea that Knollenberg is pro-polluter is supported by all the ratings given by environmental organizations.

According to the website, “On the Issues”, Knollenberg has voted to:

• · Reduce "critical habitat" for endangered species;
• · Speed up Forest Thinning Projects
• · Only rated 5% by the League of Conservation Voters (which means he has a poor record on environmental issues).

For a whole list of issues showing how Knollenberg is pro-polluter and anti-environmental, look here.

Here is a 1998 Article About Knollenberg’s Poor Record on Environmental Issues & The Fact that He Gets Lots of Campaign Contributions from Polluters.

Joe Knollenberg calls himself an environmentalist, but all of his votes in Congress have been anti-environmental protection.

We know Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby is a liar. He was convicted on four counts of federal felony charges of lying including perjury and obstructing justice.
The only difference between Scooter Libby's lies and Joe Knollenberg's lies is that Libby has been convicted of lying.

Joe Knollenberg should be ashamed of himself.

Knollenberg's Chief of Staff Is Not Only A Lobbyist

but he must recognize that Knollenberg is in over his head this year.

It appears that Trent Wisecup, Knollenberg's Lobbyist Chief of Staff, can't find anyone to write letters in support of Knollenberg so he is having his family members write letters to the editors of local papers to support Joe Knollenberg.

You gotta know your candidates is in trouble when the only people who support him are his paid staff and their family members.

Of course it is published in the Radical Right Wing Detroit News -- the only organization in the country with less credibility than the Bush White House. Notice how ALL the letters to the editor on that page agree with the Radical Right wing talking points?

A little relevant humor: The iRack

I hope our readers don't mind a little relevant humor.

Look, Joe, a 100 mpg car

I wonder if the Big 3 could start building these. Hmmm.

Cars that make hybrids look like gas guzzlers
Plug-in versions can go 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline
Sherry Boschert
Sunday, March 4, 2007

Toyota Prius owners tend to be a proud lot since they drive the fuel-efficient hybrid gas-electric car that's the darling of mainstream environmentalists and one of the hottest-selling vehicles in America. A few, however, felt that good was not good enough. They've made "improvements" even though the modifications voided parts of their warranties.
Ron Gremban of Corte Madera did it. So did Felix Kramer of Redwood City, and Sven Thesen of Palo Alto. Why? Five words: one hundred miles per gallon.
"We took the hybrid car to its logical conclusion," Kramer says, by adding more batteries and the ability to recharge by plugging into a regular electrical socket at night, making the car a plug-in hybrid.
Compared with the Prius' fuel efficiency of 50 mpg, plug-in hybrids use half as much gasoline by running more on cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity. If owners forget to plug in overnight, it's no big deal -- the car runs like a regular hybrid.
These trendsetters monkeyed with the car for more than their own benefit. They did it to make a point: If they could make a plug-in hybrid, the major car companies could, too. And should.
Kramer, Gremban and a cadre of volunteers formed the California Cars Initiative (online at calcars.org), and in 2004 converted Gremban's Prius to a plug-in hybrid in his garage. They added inexpensive lead-acid batteries and some innovative software to fool the car's computerized controls into using more of the energy stored in the batteries, giving the car over 100 mpg in local driving and 50 to 80 mpg on the highway. The cost of conversion is about $5,000 for a do-it-yourselfer.

Read the rest of the story here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/ING44OD4AS1.DTL

Joe Knollenberg Voted FOR the Christian Supremacy Act!!!

Oddly, Joe Knollenberg has been invited to speak to the JVS Networking and Awards Luncheon in organization.

I say oddly because Joe Knollenberg is NOT a supporter of the jewish community. Oh he claims to be alright – but he claims to be an environmentalist too and we know he isn’t one of those either.

Joe Knollenberg voted YES last year on HR 2679 – the Christian Supremacy Bill. Why is it called the Christian Supremacy Bill? Because it would make challenging a state or local government’s support of the Christian religion nearly impossible.

The synopsis of the Bill: “Vote to pass a bill that prohibits monetary awards and bans attorneys' fees in all civil action cases against any federal, state or local officials, due to an alleged violation of the “establishment of religion.”

Here is the type of lawsuit the Christian Supremacy Bill was trying to ban:

A jewish family living in the Indian River School District in Delaware were living a nightmare. They were the only jewish family in the area and their school district had created an “environment of religious exclusion” and state-sponsored religion. At Samantha Dobrich’s high school graduation in 2004, the class had an invocation by a local pastor who said about her:

“I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.

Other situations in the same school district included:

• The district's "custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer"
• The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies
• District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line.
• While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district.
• When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son "Jordan Doe" was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club regardless of his religion.
• The district schools distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books.
• Prayer is a routine part of district sports programs and social events
• A middle school teacher told students there was only "one true religion" and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry.
• Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion.
• Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus.

The family was able to sue the school board because the law provides that if the school board loses, they would have to pay the family’s legal fees. The Christian Supremacy Act was intended to prohibit families from being able to bring such suits by banning such payments for legal fees. Thus, any family that suffered religious discrimination but couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees would be precluded from pursuing their constitutional rights.

JOE KNOLLENBERG VOTED TO STOP LAWSUITS LIKE THE ONE FILED BY THE DOBRICH FAMILY. [HR 2679, Rollcall Vote # 480]

Of course, HR 2679 is only one part of a plan for “Christian Nationalism”. As stated by the Family Research Council, one of the driving forces behind Christian Nationalism – and a supporter of Joe Knollenberg :

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage...Our founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

Joe Knollenberg voted YES on the Christian Supremacy Act.

This makes the thought of his speaking at the JVS networking and awards luncheon extremely disturbing.

Why would JVS want someone who is so obviously anti-jewish to speak at their meeting? As a jew I find this particularly offensive.

Why doesn't Joe think ALL AMERICANS are entitled to constitutional protections?

Joe's Health Care Credit is a Joke. $200 credit won't solve our Health Care Crisis

Article published Mar 11, 2007
Reducing health care costs, diseases Bill encourages wellness programs in workplace
BY LINDA ANN CHOMIN STAFF WRITER
http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070311/HEALTH/703110402/1006

Joshua Kugelman would still be carrying around 270 pounds on his 6-foot-1 frame if Metaldyne hadn't launched its employee wellness program in early 2006. The product engineer has lost 52 pounds since the automotive supplier began partially subsidizing Weight Watchers at its facilities in Plymouth Township.
Kugelman's health benefits have far outweighed the minimal fee he pays to participate in weekly sessions. For months now he's been able to take only one blood pressure medication instead of his usual three.
"I don't think I would have done it otherwise," said Kugelman of Pontiac.
If U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg's Wellness and Prevention Act of 2007 is passed, more employees could not only reduce their risk for disease, but help lower health care costs. Studies have shown for years how unhealthy lifestyle choices lead to disease. The bill promotes screenings and prevention programs in the workplace by offering businesses a $200 tax credit for employees who join their wellness program. At least 50 percent of employees must participate. Additionally, the act provides a $200 tax credit for employees as encouragement.
H.R. 853 was introduced on Feb. 6 and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee. So far it has received support from the American College of Preventive Medicine, American College of Occupation and Environmental Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit Medical Center, Pfizer, AARP, and Oakland County Wellness Coalition.
In addition to tax credits, the bill provides a $20,000 loan forgiveness for individuals pursuing a preventive medicine specialty and achieving board certification between 2008 and 2012.