Saturday, July 4, 2009

A sparkler and obama have much in common





Both are dangerous. Both only last for a short time. They both glow and then fade as they are exposed. Neither has a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

The danger of sparklers comes through underestimating their potential to burn and expecting that all children will be responsible. It's no coincidence that the only firework given directly to children is one of the leading causes of firework accidents. The danger of obama is underestimating his potential to destroy America. Obama is the leading cause America is still in a recession and he is directly responsible for his purposeful destruction of the US economy.

Obama is a FRAUD...Educate yourself here and learn of the FRAUD "obama"

Thursday, July 2, 2009

IS Obama A Pedophile Protector




Obama supports perverts and wants them to have "civil rights", why?

I think he is a closet you know what. President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, has indicated that he would like to see the legislation become law. The legislation is, "The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009," or "The Pedophile Protection Act."

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, lobbying for a new "hate crimes" law during a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, fumbled a number of explanations and failed to cite cases that in the last five years have been "improperly prosecuted". "Holder attempted to justify passage of the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Instead, he worked against it. Holder emphatically said most Americans are not given equal protection with homosexuals (and homosexual pedophiles) by the hate bill. Holder also presented no evidence that states are failing to prosecute hate crimes and need big government to get involved!
"This is a desperately serious matter. With a politicized judiciary, who knows where it will go?" he continued.


Keep in mind this is an attempt to prosecute people who disagree with homosexuality/pedophiles and speak out against these perverts. It is also an attempt to limit free speech. Ask yourself why obama is pushing this bill. Then ask yourself is obama a closet homosexual? I believe anyone who wants "gay rights" for homosexuals/pedophiles must be of the same "cloth". Obama wants federal law to protect perverts. Only a pervert would want a pervert protected. Of course this law would not protect perverts but prosecute anyone who speaks out againts perverts, including obama. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexuals, designating them as a "protected class." However, it could leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person. It earned its nickname when Rep. Steve King suggested an amendment during its trek through the U.S. House that would specify pedophiles could not use the law to protect their activities. Majority Democrats flatly refused.

"This could create a chilling effect on religious speech, connecting innocent expression of religious belief to acts of violence against individuals afforded special protections," he wrote. "The criminalization of religious speech, such as speech against the practice of homosexuality, has already been seen in other countries with similar hate crimes legislation in place."

"Some people are going to be put in jail for things that they say," he said. "Hate crime legislation. That's where they determine what's in your mind when you commit a crime. That's when they decide what you were thinking … If you were thinking unapproved thoughts, that would make the crime you committed even worse."

Obama said, "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance." THIS IS ANOTHER OBAMA LIE. The "lifestyle" as the homosexuals call it is what obama wants protected as a civil right. In other words obama is saying he wants queers/sodomites to have the "civil right" of preversion. Only a pervert would want other perverts to have the federal government protect their preverted "lifestyle". This is why I believe obama is a homosexual or pervert. Obama is a multifaceted FRAUD. If you support homosexuals/pedophiles to the point you want them protected by federal law to practice preversion it obvious you like what they do and condone it. Obama just doesn't tolerate preversion he promotes it under the guise of "civil rights" when in fact he is promoting a sick preversion. Obama is as I said a closet pervert and/or homosexual who promotes preversion and condones it as "normal". Some would say this is "hate speech" but there is no such strange bird. Some would say this is hateful speech but keep in mind I have only stated obama's true position about wanting to support homosexuals/pedophiles by protecting them. I have speculated about obama's true nature through conjecture as I am only an observer of "obama's lifestyle" of supporting homosexuals/pedophiles. What else am I to conclude, that he just wants to help sodomoites/pedophiles because he believes in freedom of speech? Only an IDIOT would believe obama is anything other that who he supports and admires. Obama is a FRAUD! We have a "closet" president. A FRAUD. This is freedom of speech. Obama wants to take this right away and make it a crime to make an observation or speak the truth. Obama was very slow to speak out against the fake iran dictator killing and beating people in iran for speaking out againt their fraud government. Why? Obama knows freedom of speech is powerful as is the second amendment which he is also attacking. Obama must hide behind the fake media presentations he presents as speeches. His speeches are just radical propaganda to trick and confuse the American public. He knows he must act fast and ram as much deception though congress as possible before he is exposed as a total FRAUD! Hurry obama the public is slowly catching on to your deception.

Leo Donofrio Speaks About The Fraud Obama

Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?

(This Link Doesn't Work Because Leo Deleted His Blog. I Did However Preserve His Thoughts.)

Leo Asks A Question And Again Exposes Obama As A FRAUD!


Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

The State Department is part of the Executive Branch. The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see URL). Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents.

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.


Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record. He stated:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

The magic question is:

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?

What was their logic? The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen. I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.

However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

Why does it require two citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents? This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators. Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern. What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.

Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son. These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.

To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?

WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?

What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question? This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511. Get a quote on the record answering this question.

I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.

Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents. It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.

Again, that section states:

“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”

Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?

Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”. This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly. In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship. Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.

In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”. This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US. Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.

I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511, but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
.....................................................................................

Mick Says:
June 24, 2009 at 6:58 am

Leo,
I commented on this subject in your previous post before I knew that you had written this one. This 7 Fam statute and Resolution 511 are certainly related. The Amendment attempt by McCaskill and Resolution 511 were careful not to combine the 2 parts of the equation Soil and Blood, which would imply that Obama is Presently Not Qualified. Of course they would argue that Jus Soli is all that is required to be a NBC because of the 14A, It is a Birthright to them. Those born abroad, they would say, totally ignoring the constitution, are NBC because of statute (Naturalization Act of 1790) and not by Birthright Entitlement. It is amazing that such an error is in the State Department Manual (it forgets the Naturalization Act of 1795). I would say that the 14A has been the most usefully abused Amendment by those who wish to undermine the Constitution. In title 8 section 1401 of the state department manual it is actually stated that “Subject to the Jurisdiction” only applies to the exclusion of diplomats since those born in the US are already Subject to the Jurisdiction of the US. It all goes back to Gray’s obliteration of the Juridictional clause. My question is why is WKA controling Law to this manual and not Perkins v. Elg which was 33 years later?
The State department in Title 8 Chapter 12 Subsection 3 says that a child born of a single citizen service parent abroad before 1952 was a “Citizen”, provided he have 5 years residency in the US beore age 21.
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401a.html

Obama supporters like to frame the question of who is a Natural Born Citizen by saying “Whom, in other words is a US citizen at birth?” This is where they turn themselves into a pretzel. The question should be “whom is a US Citizen at birth and Not subject to the Jurisdiction of any foreign government?” They imply that all of these US Citizens at birth listed in Title 8 Section 1401 are NBC? What a wicked web they weave! All because of the muddying of the Jurisdictional Clause!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[Ed. (Leo) And this is why Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison is so relevant - no provision can make any other provision useless... if 14th Amendment citizenship was equal to natural born citizenship then there would be no need for the natural born citizen clause, it would be superfluous. Furthermore, that very argument is inadmissible according to Marbury, one of the most important and upheld cases of all time. You can't even argue that according to Scotus. You don't see too much discussion of Marbury among the Obama eligibility supporters. It's not possible to get around it so they generally ignore it.]

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

JACKSON CELEBRATION Rev Sharpton Grinding Woman At Apollo


JACKSON CELEBRATION: Rev Sharpton Grinding Woman At Apollo

Gov Mark Sanford Is Grinding The Voters of South Carolina!

Beat it Sanford....Just beat it, beat it, beat it...

Monday, June 29, 2009

Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate On Sale At Ebay With A Twist



The fact naranja wants anyone to email him or her with a specific question makes me very suspicious. Do not email this person because it could be a crude way for obama and his motley crew to use this against you. If this person is stupid enough to display his evidence in public it will surely be confiscated or stolen. The only safe way for naranja to get the truth out about obama is to make sure several sources have been contacted to publish the "kenyan borth certificate" in the event of some kind of a coverup or "accident" etc. Ya know this is too good to be true and ya know what they say about that.


colmado_naranja says he has written a dissertation about the FRAUD barack hussein obama II. This person also has stated he has a certified copy of obama's kenyan birth certificate. Ebay has yanked this persons auction 4 times. If naranja has an authentic copy of obama's kenyan birth certificate it would prove beyond any doubt obama is a FRAUD. Its hard for me to believe this person selling this information is real. If he or she is I hope the kenyan birth certificate is in the hands of someone who will publish it just in case anything happens to naranja. Obama I am sure will stop at nothing to hide his true identity. Obama wants complete control of our freedoms. He is a TRAITOR!

(The information below as of 10:02 edt Jun 29, 2009 is posted on ebay for sale at a current top bid price of $21,100.00 dollars.) The Seller

Check the seller's reputation
Score: 69 | 100% Positive

....................................................................................

THE TRUTH ABOUT USA PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II


I've written a dissertation about the physical birth (which took place on August 4th, 1961) of United States President Barack Hussein Obama II. This is what you are bidding on.



You are welcome to pay for my dissertation via Paypal, as eBay prefers and essentially stipulates.

You are however welcome to view my dissertation, in person, before making your payment. Feel free to bring along with you a forensic examiner to authenticate my dissertation.

You may refuse payment should you find that my dissertation is without merit. Upon request (during in-person viewing of dissertation) all supporting evidence will be made available to you.

Winning bidder is invited to view my dissertation, in a face to face meeting with me, on the steps of the Iowa Capital Building. The Iowa Capital Building is located at East 12th & Grand, Des Moines, Iowa 50319.

Message me with any questions that you might have regarding this auction. I reserve the right to not answer specific questions who's answers would no doubt be wallpapered across the internet by breakfast time. I will however reply to all questions, time permitting. My replies may contain specific answers, and they may not. This will be at my discretion.

If the need arises I may be contacted via telephone. Contact me via Ebay message if you believe that your question or questions merit a phone call.

International bidders are welcome.

If you would prefer the dissertation to be shipped to you this will be done free of charge. International shipping will be a flat fee of $75.00. All shipping will be insured, and overnight via USPS, UPS, or FEDEX. You pick.

HAPPY BIDDING !!!

....................................................................................

By the way i'll be publishing a dissertation about naranja and the aftermath of his auction on ebay. The bidding will start at $500.00 on Jul 9, 2009 and end Jul 12, 2009. Documentation will be provided to those who request it by email so I can spam the hell out of every idiot that emails me. Empety_suitboy at ebay.

....................................................................................

From WND

eBay administration has sent a notice to those who have asked questions of colmado_naranja and received a response through the site's buyer-seller message system
:

"Our records show that you recently received an email from colmado_naranja through the Ask Seller a Question or Contact eBay Member features. This email may be fraudulent," the eBay notice warns. "This kind of email is often called a 'phish' or 'phishing attempt,' and the people who send them are known as 'phishers.' Phishers use these methods to try to get your personal information, such as user names, passwords and credit card details. Because the emails may sometimes come through the eBay system, the phisher may seem to be trustworthy and have a good reason to contact you."

The notice then instructs, in multiple places, "Do not respond to the sender either through the eBay system or your email account."

While WND has made repeated contacts with colmado_naranja, the validity of his claims – as well as the previously advertised "Kenyan birth certificate" – remain a mystery. The seller has refused to allow the document to be seen or photographed.

At least one investigator, who has traveled to Africa and sought the birth certificate from the Mombasa hospital, however, told WND he remains "skeptical" of the eBay auction's claims.

I think the seller is a FRAUD like obama.

US House IS CRAZY Passing Cap AND TRADE BILL

MYTH : CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact. The "Cap and Trade" bill is all about co2 and its effects. Yet the co2 effects are just 0.037% of the atmosphere! The "cap and trade bill" is an instrument only to take away our precious freedoms. The left wing radical extremists in congress and the "white house" want you to believe they are helping you but in fact are destroying your freedoms!

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.




CAP AND TRADE HIDDEN DETAILS

These CRAZY RADICAL LEFT WING EXTREMISTS IN CONGRESS have included one of many different ways to TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM. AMONG THEM:
(Before you can sell your house a government regulator must approve it. For example your roof must be cool enough!)



(VII) standards for practices and materials to achieve cool roofs in residential buildings, taking into consideration reduced air conditioning energy use as a function of cool roofs, the potential reduction in global warming from increased solar reflectance from buildings, and cool roofs criteria in State and local building codes and in national and local voluntary programs;


Cap and Trade Crazy Details

Complete Cap And Trade Bill Here (The Government IS CRAZY!) GOD HELP US ALL!

CALL YOUR SENATOR AND RAISE HELL ABOUT HR 2454! STOP THE MADNESS!

...................................................................................

Hidden away in the 932 pages of the Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 2454) are a multitude of governmental dictates unrelated to carbon cap-and-trade. For example, one provision of the bill will give the federal government authority over all local building codes. By 2012 all new buildings must be 30 percent more energy efficient, and by 2016 the efficiency figure jumps to 50 percent.

Federal government putting its fingerprints on everything. This means your freedom is being taken away America! Wake up and Raise Hell. Call and write the nuts in congress!

How about our Energy Secretary, Steven Chu? (Another Crazy NUT!) He's full of grand ideas. His latest idea is to paint everybody's roof white to reflect the sun's rays to help combat global warming.
Advertisement

At a recent symposium Professor Chu said painting all rooftops white and lightening the color of roadway surfaces would be equivalent to the greenhouse gas reductions achieved by removing all cars from the roads for 11 years. One thing about the Obama team: they've mastered the art of "precise" calculations.

Chu said he got the idea from Art Rosenfeld of the California Energy Commission. Rosenfeld was instrumental in getting tough new building codes in the state. Since 2005, California has required white for commercial flat roofs, and they are now pushing for mandatory lighter, more reflective residential and pitched roofs.


States will be forced to adopt state-wide building codes to carry out the fiat. States failing to meet the requirement will be subject to withholding of federal funds, and the Energy Department will be authorized to enforce the code when the state fails. Carbon cap-and-trade is supposed to achieve its goal through market incentives--more appropriately, market disincentives. That being the case, why in the world does Congress feel the need to mess with our local building codes, and the conduct of our daily lives? The federal government is beginning to remind me of roadside kudzu, uncontrollable.

As our nation's unemployment rate climbed to 9.4 percent this month, the Washington, D.C. rate declined to 5.6 percent. Why? The fed is hiring bureaucrats by the bus load--better make that train load. Runaway government and legislation like the Waxman-Markey Bill continue to chip away at the individual freedoms some of us still hold dear.

And to make matters even worse, HR 2454 is the political response to a dying cause, anthropogenic global warming. As the earth continues its decade-long cooling trend, the UN's somber climate models are losing credibility by the day. More than 31,000 American scientists say there is no convincing evidence global warming is a threat (www.petitionproject. org), and some scientists are now more concerned about a developing ice age (Google: "The Coming Ice Age" by David Deming).


STOP THE CRAZY LIBERAL NUTS IN WASHINTON!


Federal government putting its fingerprints on everything

....................................................................................
Climate change in the form of "global warming" is a MITH! It cannot be proven. It is only a computer projection and speculation.


Global warming is a MYTH!

FRIENDS OF SCIENCE REVEALS THE MYTH OF "GLOBAL WARMING" or so called climate change
....................................................................................

SEC. 304. GREATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDING CODES.

`(a) Energy Efficiency Targets-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the national building code energy efficiency target for the national average percentage improvement of a building's energy performance when built to a code meeting the target shall be--

`(A) effective on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code;

`(B) effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and

`(C) effective January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.

`(2) CONSENSUS-BASED CODES- If on any effective date specified in paragraph (1)(A), (B), or (C) a successor code to the baseline codes provides for greater reduction in energy use than is required under paragraph (1), the overall percentage reduction in energy use provided by that successor code shall be the national building code energy efficiency target.

`(3) TARGETS ESTABLISHED BY SECRETARY- The Secretary may by rule establish a national building code energy efficiency target for residential or commercial buildings achieving greater reductions in energy use than the targets prescribed in paragraph (1) or (2) if the Secretary determines that such greater reductions in energy use can be achieved with a code that is life cycle cost-justified and technically feasible. The Secretary may by rule establish a national building code energy efficiency target for residential or commercial buildings achieving a reduction in energy use that is greater than zero but less than the targets prescribed in paragraph (1) or (2) if the Secretary determines that such lesser target is the maximum reduction in energy use that can be achieved through a code that is life cycle cost-justified and technically feasible.

`(4) ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS IN ENERGY USE- Effective on January 1, 2033, and once every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall determine, after notice and opportunity for comment, whether further energy efficiency building code improvements for residential or commercial buildings, respectively, are life cycle cost-justified and technically feasible, and shall establish updated national building code energy efficiency targets that meet such criteria.

`(5) ZERO-NET-ENERGY BUILDINGS- In setting targets under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider ways to support the deployment of distributed renewable energy technology, and shall seek to achieve the goal of zero-net-energy commercial buildings established in section 422 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17082).

`(6) BASELINE CODE- For purposes of this section, the term `baseline code' means--

`(A) for residential buildings, the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) published by the International Code Council; and

`(B) for commercial buildings, the code published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004.

`(7) CONSULTATION- In establishing the targets required by this section, the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

`(b) National Energy Efficiency Building Codes-

`(1) REQUIREMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- There shall be established national energy efficiency building codes under this subsection, for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets established under subsection (a), not later than the date that is one year after the deadline for establishment of each such target.

`(B) EXISTING CODE- If the Secretary finds prior to the date one year after the deadline for establishing a target that one or more energy efficiency building codes published by a recognized consensus-based code development organization meet or exceed the established target, the Secretary shall select the code that meets the target with the highest efficiency in the most cost-effective manner, and such code shall be the national energy efficiency building code.

`(C) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH CODE- If the Secretary does not make a finding under subparagraph (B), the national energy efficiency building code shall be established by rule by the Secretary under paragraph (2).

`(2) ESTABLISHMENT BY SECRETARY-

`(A) PROCEDURE- In order to establish a national energy efficiency building code as required under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall--

`(i) not later than six months prior to the effective date for each target, review existing and proposed codes published or under review by recognized consensus-based code development organizations;

`(ii) determine the percentage of energy efficiency improvements that are or would be achieved in such published or proposed code versions relative to the target;

`(iii) propose improvements to such published or proposed code versions sufficient to meet or exceed the target; and

`(iv) unless a finding is made under paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a code published by a recognized consensus-based code development organization, adopt a code that meets or exceeds the relevant national building code energy efficiency target by not later than one year after the effective date of such target.

`(B) CALCULATIONS- Each code established by the Secretary under this paragraph shall be set at the maximum level the Secretary determines is life cycle cost-justified and technically feasible, in accordance with the following:

`(i) SAVINGS CALCULATIONS- Calculations of energy savings shall take into account the typical lifetimes of different products, measures, and system configurations.

`(ii) COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS- Calculations of life cycle cost-effectiveness shall be based on life cycle cost methods and procedures under section 544 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8254), but shall incorporate to the extent feasible externalities such as impacts on climate change and on peak energy demand that are not already incorporated in assumed energy costs.

`(C) CONSIDERATIONS- In developing a national energy efficiency building code under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider--

`(i) for residential codes--

`(I) residential building standards published or proposed by ASHRAE;

`(II) residential building codes published or proposed in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC);

`(III) data from the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) on compliance measures utilized by consumers to qualify for the residential energy efficiency tax credits established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005;

`(IV) data and information from the Department of Energy's Building America Program;

`(V) data and information from the Energy Star New Homes program;

`(VI) data and information from the New Building Institute and similar organizations; and

`(VII) standards for practices and materials to achieve cool roofs in residential buildings, taking into consideration reduced air conditioning energy use as a function of cool roofs, the potential reduction in global warming from increased solar reflectance from buildings, and cool roofs criteria in State and local building codes and in national and local voluntary programs; and

`(ii) for commercial codes--

`(I) commercial building standards proposed by ASHRAE;

`(II) commercial building codes proposed in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC);

`(III) the Core Performance Criteria published by the New Buildings Institute;

`(IV) data and information developed by the Director of the Commercial High-Performance Green Building Office of the Department of Energy and any public-private partnerships established under that Office;

`(V) data and information from the Energy Star for Buildings program;

`(VI) data and information from the New Building Institute, RESNET, and similar organizations; and

`(VII) standards for practices and materials to achieve cool roofs in commercial buildings, taking into consideration reduced air conditioning energy use as a function of cool roofs, the potential reduction in global warming from increased solar reflectance from buildings, and cool roofs criteria in State and local building codes and in national and local voluntary programs.

`(D) CONSULTATION- In establishing any national energy efficiency building code required by this section, the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

`(3) CONSENSUS STANDARD ASSISTANCE- (A) To support the development of consensus standards that may provide the basis for national energy efficiency building codes, minimize duplication of effort, encourage progress through consensus, and facilitate the development of greater building efficiency, the Secretary shall provide assistance to recognized consensus-based code development organizations to develop, and where the relevant code has been adopted as the national code, disseminate consensus based energy efficiency building codes as provided in this paragraph.

`(B) Upon a finding by the Secretary that a code developed by such an organization meets a target established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--

`(i) send notice of the Secretary's finding to all duly authorized or appointed State and local code agencies; and

`(ii) provide sufficient support to such an organization to make the code available on the Internet, or to accomplish distribution of such code to all such State and local code agencies at no cost to the State and local code agencies.

`(C) The Secretary may contract with such an organization and with other organizations with expertise on codes to provide training for State and local code officials and building inspectors in the implementation and enforcement of such code.

`(D) The Secretary may provide grants and other support to such an organization to--

`(i) develop appropriate refinements to such code; and

`(ii) support analysis of options for improvements in the code to meet the next scheduled target.

`(4) CODE DEVELOPED BY SECRETARY- If the Secretary establishes a national energy efficiency building code under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--

`(A) to the extent that such code is based on a prior code developed by a recognized consensus-based code development organization, negotiate and provide appropriate compensation to such organization for the use of the code materials that remain in the code established by the Secretary; and

`(B) disseminate the national energy efficiency building codes to State and local code officials, and support training and provide guidance and technical assistance to such officials as appropriate.

`(c) State Adoption of Energy Efficiency Building Codes-

`(1) REQUIREMENT- Not later than 1 year after a national energy efficiency building code for residential or commercial buildings is established or revised under subsection (b), each State--

`(A) shall--

`(i) review and update the provisions of its building code regarding energy efficiency to meet or exceed the target met in the new national code, to achieve equivalent or greater energy savings;

`(ii) document, where local governments establish building codes, that local governments representing not less than 80 percent of the State's urban population have adopted the new national code, or have adopted local codes that meet or exceed the target met in the new national code to achieve equivalent or greater energy savings; or

`(iii) adopt the new national code; and

`(B) shall provide a certification to the Secretary demonstrating that energy efficiency building code provisions that apply throughout the State meet or exceed the target met by the new national code, to achieve equivalent or greater energy savings.

`(2) CONFIRMATION-

`(A) REQUIREMENT- Not later than 90 days after a State certification is provided under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall determine whether the State's energy efficiency building code provisions meet the requirements of this subsection.

`(B) ACCEPTANCE BY SECRETARY- If the Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that the State's energy efficiency building code or codes meet the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall accept the certification.

`(C) DEFICIENCY NOTICE- If the Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that the State's building code or codes do not meet the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall identify the deficiency in meeting the national building code energy efficiency target, and, to the extent possible, indicate areas where further improvement in the State's code provisions would allow the deficiency to be eliminated.

`(D) REVISION OF CODE AND RECERTIFICATION- A State may revise its code or codes and submit a recertification under paragraph (1)(B) to the Secretary at any time.

`(3) COMPLIANT CODE- For the purposes of meeting the target described in subsection (a)(1)(A) for residential buildings, a State that adopts the code represented in California's Title 24-2009 by the date two years after the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 shall be considered to have met the requirements of this subsection for the applicable period.

`(d) Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Upon the expiration of 1 year after a national energy efficiency building code is established under subsection (b), in any jurisdiction where the State has not had a certification relating to that code accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B), and the local government has not had a certification relating to that code accepted by the Secretary under subsection (e)(6)(B), the national code shall become the applicable energy efficiency building code for such jurisdiction.

`(2) STATE LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION- In a State in which the relevant building energy code is adopted legislatively, the deadline in paragraph (1) shall not be earlier than 1 year after the first day that the legislature meets following establishment of a national energy efficiency building code.

`(3) VIOLATIONS- It shall be a violation of this section for an owner or builder of a building to knowingly occupy, permit occupancy of, or convey the building if the building is subject to the requirements of--

`(A) a State energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B);

`(B) a local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (e)(6)(B); or

`(C) a national energy efficiency building code adopted under subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) or made applicable under paragraph (1) of this subsection,

if the building was constructed out of compliance with such code.

`(e) State Enforcement of Energy Efficiency Building Codes-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Each State, or where applicable under State law each local government, shall implement and enforce applicable State or local codes with respect to which a certification was accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B) or paragraph (6)(B) of this subsection, or the national energy efficiency building codes, as provided in this subsection.

`(2) STATE CERTIFICATION- Not later than 2 years after the date of a certification under subsection (c)(1) or the establishment of a national energy efficiency building code under subsection (b), each State shall certify that it has--

`(A) achieved compliance with--

`(i) State codes, or, as provided under State law, local codes, with respect to which a certification was accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B); or

`(ii) the national energy efficiency building code, as applicable; or

`(B) for any certification submitted within 7 years after the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, made significant progress toward achieving such compliance.

`(3) ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE- A State shall be considered to achieve compliance with a code described in paragraph (2)(A) if at least 90 percent of new and substantially renovated building space in that State in the preceding year upon inspection meets the requirements of the code. A certification under paragraph (2) shall include documentation of the rate of compliance based on--

`(A) independent inspections of a random sample of the new and substantially renovated buildings covered by the code in the preceding year; or

`(B) an alternative method that yields an accurate measure of compliance as determined by the Secretary.

`(4) SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS- A State shall be considered to have made significant progress toward achieving compliance with a code described in paragraph (2)(A) if--

`(A) the State has developed a plan, including for hiring enforcement staff, providing training, providing manuals and checklists, and instituting enforcement programs, designed to achieve full compliance within 5 years after the date of the adoption of the code;

`(B) the State is taking significant, timely, and measurable action to implement that plan;

`(C) the State has not reduced its expenditures for code enforcement; and

`(D) at least 50 percent of new and substantially renovated building space in the State in the preceding year upon inspection meets the requirements of the code.

`(5) Secretary'S DETERMINATION- Not later than 90 days after a State certification under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall determine whether the State has demonstrated that it has complied with the requirements of this subsection, including accurate measurement of compliance, or that it has made significant progress toward compliance. If such determination is positive, the Secretary shall accept the certification. If the determination is negative, the Secretary shall identify the areas of deficiency.

`(6) OUT OF COMPLIANCE-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Any State for which the Secretary has not accepted a certification under paragraph (5) by a deadline established under this subsection is out of compliance with this section.

`(B) LOCAL COMPLIANCE- In any State that is out of compliance with this section as provided in subparagraph (A), a local government may be in compliance with this section by meeting all certification requirements applicable to the State.

`(C) NONCOMPLIANCE- Any State that is not in compliance with this section, as provided in subparagraph (A), shall, until the State regains such compliance, be ineligible to receive--

`(i) emission allowances pursuant to subsection (h)(1);

`(ii) Federal funding in excess of that State's share (calculated according to the allocation formula in section 363 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6323)) of $125,000,000 each year; and

`(iii) for--

`(I) the first year for which the State is out of compliance, 25 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009;

`(II) the second year for which the State is out of compliance, 50 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009;

`(III) the third year for which the State is out of compliance, 75 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009; and

`(IV) the fourth and subsequent years for which the State is out of compliance, 100 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

`(f) Federal Enforcement- Where a State fails and local governments in that State also fail to enforce the applicable State or national energy efficiency building codes, the Secretary shall enforce such codes, as follows:

`(1) The Secretary shall establish, by rule, within 2 years after the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, an energy efficiency building code enforcement capability.

`(2) Such enforcement capability shall be designed to achieve 90 percent compliance with such code in any State within 1 year after the date of the Secretary's determination that such State is out of compliance with this section.

`(3) The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required for such enforcement. Revenue from fees collected shall be available to the Secretary to carry out the requirements of this section upon appropriation.

`(g) Enforcement Procedures- (1) The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section, pursuant to subsection (d)(3), in accordance with the procedures described in section 333(d) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6303). The United States district courts shall also have jurisdiction to restrain any violation of this section or rules adopted thereunder, in accordance with the procedures described in section 334 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6304).

`(2) Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.

`(3) In the event a building constructed out of compliance with the applicable code has been conveyed by a knowing builder or knowing seller to an unknowing purchaser, the builder or seller shall be the violator.

`(h) Federal Support-

`(1) ALLOWANCE ALLOCATION FOR STATE COMPLIANCE- Not later than June 1, 2011, and on that date in each year thereafter, the Administrator shall provide emission allowances to the SEED Account for each State that the Secretary identifies as a State from which he has accepted the State's certification under subsection (e)(5) for compliance with the then current national energy efficiency building codes. Such allowances shall be distributed from an amount of 0.5 percent of the allowances made available for each year pursuant to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 to each State in accordance with a formula established by the Secretary as follows:

`(A) One-fifth in an equal amount to each of the 50 States and United States territories.

`(B) Two-fifths as a function of the relative energy use in all buildings in each State in the most recent year for which data is available.

`(C) Two-fifths based on the number of building construction starts recorded in each State, the number of new building permits applied for in each State, or other relevant available data indicating building activity in each State, in the judgment of the Secretary, for the year prior to the year of the allocation.

`(2) ALLOWANCE ALLOCATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- In the instance that the Secretary certifies that one or more local governments are in compliance with this section pursuant to subsection (e)(6)(B), the Administrator shall provide to each such local government the portion of the emission allowances that would have been provided to that State as a function of the population of that locality as a proportion of the population of that State as a whole.

`(3) UNALLOCATED ALLOWANCES- To the extent that allowances are not provided to State or local governments for lack of certification in any year, those allowances shall be added to the amount provided to those States and local governments that are certified as eligible in that year.

`(4) USE OF ALLOWANCES- Each State or each local government shall use such emission allowances as it receives pursuant to this section exclusively for the purposes of this section, including covering a reasonable portion of the costs of the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of a State or local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification is accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B) or subsection (e)(6)(B), or the national energy efficiency building code.

`(i) Annual Reports by Secretary- The Secretary shall annually submit to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register, a report on--

`(1) the status of national building energy efficiency codes;

`(2) the status of energy efficiency building code adoption and compliance in the States;

`(3) the implementation of this section; and

`(4) impacts of past action under this section, and potential impacts of further action, on lifetime energy use by buildings, including resulting energy and cost savings.'.