The O'Neill for Congress message is clear.  If the government is going to spend our money....THEY MUST INSIST....that anything bought with stimulus funds be MADE IN AMERICA.  Last week we delivered that message to 400 households.  This week we are going to double that number.  Join us.

Want to canvass with the team...or with your own team in your own neighborhood?  Call  Tyler.   330 208 0815

This week, Rep. LaTourette proposed an Amendment to the Clean Air Act. If enacted, the amendment would have delayed the enforcement of EPA restrictions on carbon monoxide and methane emissions for another two years. In an attempt to justify this skirting of environmental responsibility, Rep. LaTourette talked about the cost to Northeast Ohio. Unfortunately, by attempting to postpone these standards, the Congressman was merely trying to appease the corporate donors that continually support his candidacy.

Following this proposed amendment, Environment America, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, and the National Resources Defense Fund purchased a full-page ad in the Washington Post. The ad condemned Rep. LaTourette for these blatant anti-environment measures and asked constituents to push for change. Today, this same ad ran in the Akron Beacon Journal.

This election cycle, Northeast Ohio must election a representative willing to enforce the current environmental standards and bring the region into the modern era. The economic progress of the district does not have an inverse relationship to the environment, but we need the proper leader to strike this balance. Bill O'Neill understands this balance and will deliver results in the coming years.

Ohio needs reliable safeguards for our families, not politicians who undermine them.

LaTourette Amendment would delay Clean Air Act

Soon after BP and FEMA plug the leak, the media will forget this disaster and move on to more immediate and dramatic events. But, we must remember the lack of accountability to which this company held itself. We must remember that they had no contingency plan in place before this happened. We must remember that the only reasonable conclusion is that they didn’t care about the risk that this might happen.

This indifference to consequences is of the same character that Wall Street exhibited when it placed bets in derivative markets. The system was set up to favor quick profits over long-term market stability and Wall Street bigwigs took advantage of this setup for their personal benefit. Their shortsightedness led to long-term threats to our economy. This is what happens when we trust companies, whose only goal is to maximize profits, to hold themselves accountable. It just doesn’t happen.

Someone needs to care about the next 100 days, because in these next 100 days, American and Transnational corporations will make decisions that affect every single American family. We must ensure that these decisions do not sacrifice livelihoods of these American families for the sake of short-term corporate profit.

Election day is just under 100 days away. Take this time to ask yourself if you want to keep the incumbent in place who has toed the absolutist, uncompromising deregulatory party line for his entire 16-year career in Congress. Or, ask yourself: do you want a new Representative in Bill O’Neill who has practical and reasonable solutions to hold companies accountable when their decisions injure our natural resources and family pocketbooks.

(Follow the links below to donate to the gulf coast cleanup effort)

http://www.lagulfresponse.org/

http://www.healthygulf.org/

The Ashtabula Star Beacon posted an article highlighting Bill’s remarks to the crowd. Bill also touched on how Important Wall Street Reform is for seniors. Over $2 trillion were lost in savings and retirement accounts due to risky Wall Street behavior. The incumbent Congressman voted against this as well. Rep. LaTourette said ‘no’ to giving new rules to credit card and mortgage companies, ‘no’ to cracking down on predatory lenders, and ‘no’ to ending “too big to fail.”

With this series of votes, Special Interest Steve continues to prove how out of touch he is with the needs of Northeast Ohio. For more information on what Wall Street Reform and the Affordable Care Act mean to you, check out these websites: The Affordable Care Act and Wall Street Reform.

In describing the "train wreck in Washington," the Representative proudly presented his votes against TARP, the Stimulus Package, Obama's Healthcare Plan, and the future Cap and Trade bill. Instead of understanding the necessity of these economic programs and their value to the middle class of Northeast Ohio, Rep. LaTourette and the Republican Party continue to rail against spending. He said, "What creates jobs is lower taxes and lower spending."

Unfortunately, these trickle down economic theories were dis-proven in the 1980s. Rep. LaTourette's adherence to this dated economic plan is detrimental to our region's future. While Rep. LaTourette is toeing the national political line, he distances himself from the realities of the district. The government has a role in facilitating economic growth and providing our working class families with the tools they need to achieve prosperity.

Although the national debt is a significant problem that must be addressed, Ohio families need immediate economic relief that can only be provided with a comprehensive and modern economic plan. Rep. LaTourette would rather appease the extreme end of this party than present a clear-headed plan for an economic revival.

Bill is not beholden to these national political movements and the economic interests of his future constituents are his number one priority. Bill's pledge is to deliver tax credits to small businesses and help create green manufacturing jobs throughout our district.

Also on the horizon is our campaign headqarters grand opening. On July 5, after the annual Independence Day parade in Stow, the O'Neill headquarters, 3404 Kent Rd, will be holding a free hamburger and hotdog cookout. Everyone is invited.

Speaking at the cookout will be State Rep. Mike Moran, State Senate Candidate Frank Comunale, State Auditor Candidate David Pepper, and Bill O'Neill. The event will be a fun time and a good chance to hear what these candidates will do to better Northeast Ohio.

Also on the horizon is our campaign headquarters grand opening. On July 5, after the annual Independence Day parade in Stow, the O’Neill headquarters, 3404 Kent Rd, will be holding a free hamburger and hotdog cookout. Everyone is invited.

Speaking at the cookout will be State Rep. Mike Moran, State Senate Candidate Frank Comunale, State Auditor Candidate David Pepper, and Bill O’Neill. The event will be a fun time and a good chance to hear what these candidates will do to better Northeast Ohio.

This vote, which cut down party lines, is a prime example of a Congressman unwilling to step out from the ranks of the Republican Party no matter the quality of the bill. The Act will bring needed tax relief to those attempting to create jobs on a scale to moderate scale. The Congressman's vote is indicative of a government official detached from the realities of his local constituents. Policymakers universally embrace tax cuts for small businesses; however, LaTourette rails against these so called budget issues. Northeast Ohio is in need of leadership willing to proactively support local job growth regardless of party interests and corporate profit motivations.

“Dilly-dallying by the House meant that the Senate went on holiday without acting at all on a measure that at least would have renewed the prior extensions. The result of all of this: About 39,000 Ohioans have lost their unemployment benefits and another 100,000 may be without help by the end of this month.

The main reason that Congress is balking at extending the safety net is one we would normally applaud: a sudden outbreak of concern about the nation's ballooning deficit and debt. But suddenly slamming the door on millions of needy Americans is penny-wise, pound-foolish and cruel at a time when the economy simply cannot reabsorb them. “

At a time when people are going through long periods of unemployment, incumbent Steve LaTourette has put politics over people. The incumbent has voted to raise the debt ceiling on three separate occasions previously and against limiting spending. When it came time for protecting Northeastern Ohio’s struggling families, politics has trumped common sense.

Extending aid to the unemployment provides $1.64 in economic stimulus for every dollar spent according to Moody’s Economy.com. The Congressional Budget Office has cited the extension of benefits as one the most cost efficient and effective forms of economic stimulus.

The Republic Party would like the nation to believe that there is a groundswell of support for their "Agenda of No." However, this recent Associated Press poll indicates that the nation simply wants the incumbents removed and jobs created.

Bill O'Neill is committed to defeating a 16-year incumbent and bringing modern middle-class jobs to NEO.

AP Poll (4/17/10)

A simple examination ofthe Due Process Clause of the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) reveals thefoundations of the argument for same-sex marriage being a fundamental right for American citizens. The applicable provision reads, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” These rights were later made applicable to all States in the Equal Protections Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Due to their complimentary nature, both amendments are cited when arguing in favor of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

State statutes, such asCalifornia’s recent Proposition 8, that ban same-sex marriage are an unequivocal encroachment on the liberty of homosexual couples. It may be quite difficult to prove that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned specificissue of same-sex marriage being incorporated into the term “liberty,” but it was their intention to prevent unreasonable restrictions on personal freedom. Justice Kennedy writes in Lawrence v. Texas,“They [the Framers] knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serveonly to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” (419). A prohibition against same-sex marriage is an impediment to freedom. Over the last century, the decisions of the Supreme Court support for such a broad definition.

As far back as 1923, the Court recognized the fundamental right that is marriage. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court stated, “While this Court has not attempted todefine with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed…it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the rights of the individual to contract, to engage in the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry…” (309). Nowhere in the opinion does the Court make the distinction between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage. Had the Court felt vehemently that the legal entity of marriage needed to be protected from those seeking same-sex unions it would have made such an explicit statement.

In a later consideration of liberty as it relates to education, the Court outlined its test for legislation. “As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) (310). From a policy perspective, the opponents of same-sex marriage are hard-pressed to satisfy this standard. Those railing against this fundamental right do not take constitutional or policy positions, but religious stances. In 2004, thenPresident Bush stated, “The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." A definition of marriage in line with these sentiments would be directly contrary to the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion…” Laws denying the existence of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage lack a single connection to the “competency of the state”absent an immeasurable religious or moral quality.

In the 1960s and 70s, the Court continued to consider the boundaries of the right to marry. The Court has consistently extended these freedoms. Chief Justice Earl Warren writes in Loving v. Virginia, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential tothe orderly pursuit of happiness by free men…The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry may not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations” (312). In Zablocki v. Redhail,the Court reaffirmed Loving and further embraced the liberty of all those seeking marriage. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “Although Loving arose in thecontext of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance to all individuals” (318). It is a logical extension of logic to assume that a future Court would follow suit and find a homosexual classification to be subversive to the principles of equality outlined by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court would be in error to find a fundamental right to marriage between all races, but prevent certain sexual orientations from enjoying the same right.

If the existence of a fundamental right to same sex marriage had not been established by 2003, Lawrence v. Texas should have finished the task. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The petitioners [gay male couple] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime” (418). Even though Lawrence dealt with a statute that criminalized homosexual conduct, its effects are far greater. Together with earlier decisions, the Court has now ruled that the government cannot unreasonably impede one’s sexual conduct or freedom to marry, thus recognizing the right to same-sex marriage.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia outlines why a legal distinction between traditional and same-sex marriage is now likely unconstitutional. He writes,“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couplesexercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’? (422). Although presented in a dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia’s language emphasizes how fundamental the right to a same-sex marriage is when considered on its most basic constitutional level.

It is the hope of many that the court of public opinion will soon turn to recognize the fundamental and constitutional right that is same-sex marriage. “Gay marriage is a constitutional right. That might make the folks at the National Organization for Marriage squirm, but they better get used to hearing that sentence. History is on the side of equality, and so is the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence,” writes Michael Jones, Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School. Only time will tell if the wheels of the judicial process will generate an outcome in line with the Court’s prior decisions.