PUSHBACK: climate alarmists get sued over false statements

ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL SUING TOM STEYER, ENERGY GROUP FOR ‘DEMONSTRABLY FALSE’ STATEMENTS

By Jason Hopkins

Arizona Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a lawsuit against Tom Steyer and a renewable energy campaign he supports for launching, what Brnovich claims, is a defamatory campaign against him.

Filed on Wednesday, the lawsuit names Steyer and Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona as defendants. Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona — which has benefited from millions of dollars in donations from Steyer — is campaigning to require Arizona electric utility companies derive half their power from renewable energy sources by 2030. The ballot proposal is officially known as Proposition 127.

Brnovich’s lawsuit is in response to Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona’s campaign against him. The renewable energy group has aired attack ads against him, claiming he “bailed out” the state’s largest electric utility company by wording the Proposition 127 ballot language in a way, it argues, puts the proposal in a bad light.

Originally written by the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, Brnovich added language to the ballot measure that said utility companies would have to meet the renewable energy mandate “irrespective of cost” if the proposal passes.

While Proposition 127 supporters have criticized him for the change, the attorney general argues his office acted accordingly, wording ballot language in a way that is most informative to voters. Brnovich has maintained that the changes are “factually accurate.”

“We always want to err on the side of giving voters as much as information as possible, especially consumers,” the Republican lawyer said to the Arizona Republic. “[W]hen you add a provision to the constitution that starts mandating that 50 percent of that energy has to come from different sources and non-nuclear sources, that will have an impact on the cost.” (RELATED: Tom Steyer One Step Closer To Dictating Arizona’s Energy Industry)

As the renewable energy proposal has lagged in the polls, Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona (CEHA) has seemingly shifted its campaign from promoting Proposition 127 to attacking Brnovich, who is running for re-election this year. CEHA has aired attack ads calling Brnovich “corrupt” and have openly called on Arizona voters to boot him from office in November.

“At some point, I think enough is enough, and just because I’m a ‘public figure’ doesn’t mean you get to lie,” Brnovich said, adding he has “lived here my entire life, so when people see my name with really inflammatory words or defamatory words, it affects not only me, it affects my entire family.”

The fight over Proposition 127 has become the costliest ballot measure campaign in Arizona history, with both sides spending around $40 million. NextGen Climate Action, a group founded and funded by Steyer, has supplied millions in support of the measure. Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility, stands against the proposal and has funded millions to defeat it.

Arizona is not the only state where Steyer has dropped millions of dollars to push renewable energy mandates. The billionaire environmental activist has led similar campaigns in Michigan, Nevada and elsewhere across the country.

Via the Daily Caller

Advertisements

113 thoughts on “PUSHBACK: climate alarmists get sued over false statements

  1. Maybe told this story before. The late USSC Justice Scalia was at a judicial event in AZ, on the dais with Brnovich. Before his address, Scalia turned to Brnovich and said, “Mark, I’d like to buy you a vowel”.

    • Perhaps it’s time for a class action lawsuit against Steyer for his efforts to bring about a doubling or tripling of every person’s electricity rates and the harm it inflicts on those people who are on limited fixed incomes in every State where his efforts have been fruitful. Statewide class action suits for real damages inflicted could potentially separate him from his billions and effectively shut him down.

      • But he would have a simple defence. Just present the evidence humans are causing net harmful climate change – easy.

        • What harm? Thus far, even if anthropogenic, climate change has had either positive or neutral effects overall. And proving the CO2 model would be a stone b!thch.

        • Courts do not recognise scientific arguments – these are seen as the prerogative of scientists. The Courts do not want to be the place where scientific truth is decided.

          However, they DO accept the evidence of ‘experts’ – there is a standard court protocol for that. You have to give evidence that you are an expert and then the court will typically take your word on technical matters withing your area of expertise.

          All the defence counsel has to do is state that the IPCC says that humans are causing harmful climate change. And the court has to accept this….

          • The point about expert witness testimony thrusts both ways. The court only has to accept the defense’s expert testimony at face value if the plaintiff fails to offer an expert of its own. The courts are quite happy to evaluate the competing claims of opposing expert witnesses. All Brnovich has to do is get an expert witness, say Richard Lindzen, to testify as an expert and demolish whatever defense the defendants expert offers while pointing out the benefits of increased plant food in the atmosphere.

          • Actually no. Experts can be refuted by other experts and the IPCC has been shown to lie and doctor data. Witness dismissed. The jury will ignore the testimony. Thanks for playing.

          • The IPCC is not a scientific organization and it’s members are not scientists. Real scientists follow the Scientific Method, “climate scientists” REFUSE to do so. Scandal after scandal, fraud after fraud has been the work of IPCC “climate scientists”. Those scandals and frauds have been well documented here and at Climate Audit. And the cretins who perpetrated those frauds – Mann, Jones, Brifra, Overpeck, Schmidt, etc., etc, etc. – are all still the people in charge at the IPCC.

        • Ah it is a fact that we are not causing climate change. We may be influencing it but there is no way to find out. If you want to remove your influence please feel free to go live in outer space. We are sick and tire of you eco-terrorists trying to tell the rest of us how to live. The US causes less pollution than any other industrialized country in the world. China causes more than all of the other industrialized countries in the world combined. Go help them.
          America: Love it or Leave it!
          GOD Bless and GOD Help us,
          rich!

      • I couldn’t agree with you more. Let’s use the lawfare tactics of the Environmental Left against them. Perhaps Scott Pruitt would like to take the case. Steyer has become such a monumental hypocrite and nuisance like so many of his ilk assuming that their position on CC and AGW is the only possible scientific explanation for the slight rise in GT since the LIA and the moral high ground justifying almost any means to achieve their extremist ends that if achieved will make our economy less competitive and our nation less prosperous. It would be great to go on the offense for a change. A defamation lawsuit would cost him time, money, and resources; it would be good for the morale of AGW/CCC skeptics; it might be the stimulus for State Republican AG’s to jointly sue Steyer and the entire Environmental NGO/ NPO/ DC lobby crowd ala the Tobacco Inc settlement; a public hearing about the Endangerment Finding could lead to over turning this gross regulatory abuse of the CLean Air Act. It might even lead to the education of one more Judge that CO2 is not a pollutant but a biologic necessity for plant life and hence the entire food chain.

    • That’s what they always said about Kent Hrbek, the great 1st baseman for the Minnesota Twins if the 80’s and 90’s.

  2. Brnovich’s problem is that he is in the 9th Circuit, so any appeal of a victory or his appeal of a dismissal would be heard by a notoriously leftist appeals court.

        • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships, although the 9th Circut’s district courts are authorized 112 judgeships. As of today, there are six (6) vacancies on the appeals court and eighteen (18) vacancies on the district courts.

          • Good. Lots of vacancies for Trump to fill. Too bad for Dems Obama didn’t get around to filling them.

          • Paul,

            Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader from 2007-15. Republicans voted for both his USSC picks before Garland. McConnell merely followed the Biden Doctrine with respect to him.

            Here are federal judges nominated by Obama confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate. Note the overwhelming approvals:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

            54 Kara Farnandez Stoll Federal January 7, 2015[Rn 15] July 7, 2015 95–0 July 9, 2015 Incumbent –
            55 Luis Felipe Restrepo Third January 7, 2015[Rn 15] January 11, 2016 82–6 January 13, 2016 Incumbent –

            261 Wilhelmina Wright D. Minn. April 15, 2015 January 19, 2016 58–36 February 18, 2016 Incumbent –
            262 John Michael Vazquez D.N.J. March 26, 2015 January 27, 2016 84–2 January 29, 2016 Incumbent –
            263 Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger S.D. Iowa September 15, 2015 February 8, 2016 83–0 February 16, 2016 Incumbent –
            264 Leonard Terry Strand N.D. Iowa July 21, 2015 February 11, 2016 93–0 February 12, 2016 Incumbent –
            265 Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. M.D. Tenn. February 4, 2015 April 11, 2016 92–0 April 12, 2016 Incumbent –
            266 Paula Xinis D. Md. March 26, 2015 May 16, 2016 53–34 May 18, 2016 Incumbent –
            267 Robert F. Rossiter Jr. D. Neb. June 11, 2015 June 27, 2016 90–0 June 29, 2016 Incumbent –
            268 Brian R. Martinotti D.N.J. June 11, 2015 July 6, 2016 92–5

            261 Wilhelmina Wright D. Minn. April 15, 2015 January 19, 2016 58–36 February 18, 2016 Incumbent –
            262 John Michael Vazquez D.N.J. March 26, 2015 January 27, 2016 84–2 January 29, 2016 Incumbent –
            263 Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger S.D. Iowa September 15, 2015 February 8, 2016 83–0 February 16, 2016 Incumbent –
            264 Leonard Terry Strand N.D. Iowa July 21, 2015 February 11, 2016 93–0 February 12, 2016 Incumbent –
            265 Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. M.D. Tenn. February 4, 2015 April 11, 2016 92–0 April 12, 2016 Incumbent –
            266 Paula Xinis D. Md. March 26, 2015 May 16, 2016 53–34 May 18, 2016 Incumbent –
            267 Robert F. Rossiter Jr. D. Neb. June 11, 2015 June 27, 2016 90–0 June 29, 2016 Incumbent –
            268 Brian R. Martinotti D.N.J. June 11, 2015 July 6, 2016 92–5 July 11, 2016 Incumbent –

            3 Jennifer Choe Groves July 30, 2015 June 6, 2016 voice vote June 8, 2016 Incumbent –
            4 Gary Stephen Katzmann July 30, 2015 June 6, 2016 voice vote September 15, 2016 Incumbent –

            2 John E. Sparks July 30, 2015 April 5, 2016 voice vote April 19, 2016 Incumbent –

          • C. Paul Pierett October 25, 2018 at 4:01 pm

            Too bad Obamacare was so unpopular, and forced through without changes which would have garnered GOP votes, causing Democrats to lose both the House and Senate.

          • The right of a majority of the Senate to reject a court nominee, even by not taking it up, is absolute. So how did McConnell “steal” a Supreme Court seat?

          • Tillman, since you mentioned Obamacare, too bad with control of both houses of Congress, and the presidency, the GOP was unable to repeal it.

          • Paul,

            The failure of repeal owed to McCain’s personal dislike of Trump. Had he voted as he promised Arizonans he would, the Senate would have repealed the monstrosity, pressuring the House to compromise.

          • Fascinating how whiny liberals get when reality doesn’t go their way.
            Holding up permanent appointments near the end of a president’s term has been standing operating procedure for over 200 years.

            Yet the usual suspects whine because they didn’t get special privileges.

          • MarkW says: ” near the end of a president’s term”

            Scalia died Feb 13th. Obama’s term ended 11 months later. That is not “near the end. ”

            McConnell stole Obama’s appointment.

          • C. Paul Pierett October 25, 2018 at 4:47 pm

            There are only 51 Republicans now.

            Trump has done all he can effectively to repeal it.

            If, as seems likely, the GOP gains Senate seats in next month’s election, then that body should repeal it de jure as well as de facto. But the GOP might lose the House. In any case, Republican members of Congress need to agree on a replacement plan.

            Even Bernie says the scheme is way too expensive, which of course it was designed to be.

          • Halla, the majority of the Senate did not vote to “not take it up.” That move was strictly due to Mitch McConnell.

          • Halla: “it is possible to force a vote.”

            You obviously don’t understand the rules of procedure for the US Senate.

            McConnell stole Obama’s nomination.

          • Halla, forget “forcing a vote”……they didn’t even hold hearings in the committee!!!

            ….
            McConnell stole the nomination from Obama.

          • C. Paul Pierett October 25, 2018 at 4:59 pm
            President Obama did not have his pick stolen.
            Not big on Constitutional Law are you.
            The Senate has the responsibility off advise and consent. read it twice then a third time.
            Biden set the precedent give the blame to who it belongs
            LOL

            michael

          • Morlock, Biden did not set any precedent. He was not the majority leader of the Senate (like McConnell), and he was not a Senator either. You should read the Constitution with regards to the powers of the Vice President. His only “power” is to break a tie vote in the Senate. Since Biden did not cast a tie breaking vote with regards to Garland, you’d better come up with something better.

            McConnell stole the SCOTUS nomination from Obama.

          • Iteration number 2: Morlock, Biden did not set any precedent.

            Arguing for something is different than taking action. McConnell STOLE Obama’s nomination. Biden was flapping his yap, and nothing more.

            I guess you just don’t understand the meaning of the word PRECEDENT.

            If we follow your logic, President Trump has set the precedent that it is permissible to grab women by their genitals when one is “a star” and can “get away with it. “

          • You do seem incapable of disputing the facts. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
            ..
            ..
            The only “precedent” set was by McConnell stealing the SCOTUS appointment from Obama.

          • C. Paul Pierett October 25, 2018 at 7:25 pm
            Biden was speaking as the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, not running off at the mouth. He established fact of the power of the Committee to refuse a hearing
            Trump was a private citizen holding no office in government why are confusing his remarks as Constitutional Law or Senate rules?

            U.S. Constitutional history has a number of such instances.
            The midnight judges & Mulberry vs Madison is the first case and served to establish the authority of the Court. It also involved appointments.

            michael

          • Morlock, iteration number 3.
            ..
            Biden was SPEAKING (your words.)

            Biden did not take any action therefore he did not set a PRECEDENT.
            ….
            If you disagree with me, please point out which hearing he refused to hold.

            McConnell was not the chairman of the committee that refused to take up Garland’s nomination. McConnell stole the SCOTUS nomination from Obama.

          • I think that has all descended into a political debate which is

            1.) Not relevant to this forum
            2.) Is sort of moot, it’s done you can’t undo it
            3.) Boring as hell

          • LdB October 25, 2018 at 9:42 pm

            Actually it does. The article is about the AZ State Attorney General taking legal action over lies.
            Can we say Senator McConnell? Saying he stole something that he possessed; the responsibility of advise and consent, is the same as the statements made against Brnovich for informing the public as to the legal ramification of prop 127.

            michael

          • Decade-old quotes taken out of context are not facts. Mindlessly repeated talking points are not facts. The TDS is strong with this one.

          • CPP, it’s amazing how liberals change definitions of words in order to fit whatever version of reality they are trying to create today.
            Whenever a liberal doesn’t get what he wants, they immediately start screaming about how dey was robbed. It’s so predictable, it’s pathetic.

          • Like most liberals, CPP has a tenous grasp of reality.
            First he declares that someone else doesn’t know anything about Senate rules, then he proclaims that there is nothing a minority leader can do to stop a vote.

          • Tom, CPP is applying the old legal maxim.
            When the law is on your side, pound the law.
            When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
            When neither is on your side, pound the table.

            CPP is busy pounding the table.

          • Not big on Constitutional Law are you.
            The Senate has the responsibility off advise and consent. read it twice then a third time.

            A responsibility they refused to exercise!

        • Stole a nomination from Obama?
          The left is as persistent as they are ignorant.
          And the damage done by Obamacare, and democrat obstruction in reforming it is completely relevant.

          • If Obamacare is so damaging, why is the GOP struggling to find a way to cover “pre-existing conditions?”

          • Because it is impossible to cover pre-existing conditions.
            The idea that you can wait until you get sick before buying insurance means that there is no such thing as insurance.

          • I went to high school with United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann Aiken, whose recent decision regarding “children” suing for climate change damages was featured here.

            The District of Oregon is of course in the notorious 9th Circuit.

        • John Tillman

          “Trump nominated a guy from my county, but he had to withdraw due to things he wrote in college.”

          On that basis, every left wing politician should resign.

          Oh, wait! Silly me, they just wrote left wing extreme remarks which is entirely acceptable in today’s western environment!

          ~S’ok, the dog’ll eat my vomit~

          • If you want to be a judge in future, don’t do or say anything you don’t absolutely need to do or say. And if you want to advance, write as few opinions as possible.

            That’s where we are now.

            The withdrawn candidate was young, so his college days weren’t all that long ago. I knew his dad slightly and his grandmother well. She was a banker, collector of American Indian artifacts and county commissioner.

    • The first problem is to get elected. He doesn’t want them slandering his good name without some kind of response. By suing them, he gets to paint them as the villains.

      The outcome of the lawsuit will be after the election when it doesn’t matter.

      • When he sues, can’t he ask for an immediate restraining order? Something like, do not air these specific commercials?

      • The Supreme Court would probably not take the case unless there was a desire to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the dominant libel decision. Perhaps they might, with Kavanaugh on the Court.

  3. And in related news the NY Attorney General is once again attempting to sue Exxon for not taking the threat of irrational political speculation to their oil assets seriously.
    The gist of the suit is that Exxon is defrauding shareholders because they should have down-graded the value of their oil holdings and proven reserves in reaction to the threat of potential environmental regulations.

    Grasping at straws?

    • Did I get that right? The State of NY is planning to impose costly regulations on Exxon-Mobil, and is suing them for not taking those future regulatory threats into account?

      So if I threaten to beat you up, I can collect in advance for the medical bills I threaten to inflict upon you???

      Orwell would be proud!!!

      • No, the state of NY isn’t necessarily piling on regulations, they just expect that Exxon can divine the future and accurately calculate the impact of all the regulations that people have discussed, imagined or have yet to imagine. The NYSAG is a freakn’ oxygen thief.

      • Meanwhile, ExxonMobil is asking the Supreme Court to stop what many have characterized as a politically motivated investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when. In the company’s briefing to the Supreme Court, ExxonMobil asserts that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey launched her investigation to make good on her promise to take “quick, aggressive action” in order to “speed our transition to a clean energy future.”

        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/25/the-supreme-courts-next-climate-change-case/

  4. Go out and buy an Arizona result makes it easier to enforce your will in California?
    On the upside, one day California may be buying a lot of electricity from Mexico, which Steyer cannot afford to buy off.

  5. The exact same initiative is on the Nevada ballot – Question 6. Mandates 50% of electricity come from “renewable” sources by 2030. Must be funded by the same idiot billionaire. Problem here is all the sensible money has been spent fighting Question 3, which would write into the Nevada Constitution (!) that electric utilities be deregulated (remember Kalifornia and Enron?) so no ads against Question 6 have been running, only some for this clean energy mandate madness. I fear it will pass in NV simply because idiots may believe that “renewable” means both “cheaper” and “reliable”, and there is no countering messaging going out.

    • Tragic.
      Steyer, and the other Silicon Valley oligarchs are not our friends.
      Allowing them to transform our nation into their private feifdoms is not healthy for America.
      Steyer is one of the worst of the oligarchs.

      • Graduated from Yale University summa cum laude in economics and political science, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He was captain of the Yale soccer team. [Wikipedia]

        Not your typical Silicon Valley type. But he lives in San Francisco.

    • There was no “deregulation” in California. They just re-wrote the regulations to make them weirder and even more unworkable.

  6. Hi everyone, this ballot 127 in AZ. is odd. There is no need for it We get power from Hoover dam, The Salt river Project and Palo Verde nuclear plant. Not sure if the one coal power plant is still running on the Navajo Res.

    If you look at the link below you can examine the different power companies and outputs California is short about 25% of needs AZ way over produces. I wonder if this is a “power” grab to get the dams outpower for California.

    https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/status?end=20181023T00

    michael

  7. Yay, it’s about time that someone sues these morons for, in effect, screaming fire in the theater when no fire exists.

    Regards,
    Bob

    • Amen!

      “They’ve” used the (stacked) courts for decades to make unconstitutional and other nonsense “legal”.

  8. Steyer is in the windmill business.
    He knows he can only make more billions if the subsidies continue.
    Everything he does politically seems to be based on imposing laws to safeguard his investments.
    At our expense.
    He seems to clever to actually believe the climate apocalypse claptrap.
    He is just chasing more billions.
    Eff him.

    • I know Steyer’s name but is he really in the turbine (not windmill) business? I’ve searched quickly and didn’t see it but that’s betwixt running kids around, so not exactly thorough.

      • Unless you know which stocks he owns you can not say is not in the “windmill” business.

  9. And I wish they wouldn’t call Steyer a “billionaire environmental activist”
    Its half true.
    He is a billionaire.
    His uber large lifestyle demonstrates he could give a crap about the environment.
    And his advocacy is because of his renewable energy hedge fund investments.

    “Tom Steyer Billionaire Climate Hustler” is the more correct moniker for that carnival barker.

  10. It’s about time climate alarmism is brought in front of the courts to show the real and demonstrable effects it has on society.

  11. On a similar note, all firms which claim to use ‘100% renewable energy’ when they actually take in a mixed electricity supply should be prosecuted for deceptive practices. By doing this they are convincing the nontechnical members of the public that the stuff actually works 24/7.

  12. That’s what they always said about Kent Hrbek, the great 1st baseman for the Minnesota Twins if the 80’s and 90’s.

  13. As a famous community organizer once put it: “punch back twice as hard”.

    Hardly Christian, I know. Neither is the statement.

  14. Michigan recently caved in to Steyer over renewable energy.

    Why do the people of Michigan put up with Steyer, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, League of Women Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists and other groups?

  15. BBC keep pushing Alarmism on Radio 4 today (26OCT18) they said UK coastal waters (accord to IPCC) will rise by a metre by end of this century !

  16. Another “who knew ” lawsuit only this time against the earth has a fever self dealers .
    About time these lying A holes started paying for the damage this con game has done to people all over the world .
    The more I listen to MSM liberals the more they sound like HAL the smug , destructive super computer of 2001 a Space Odyssey. The Deplorables have had enough HAL your getting unplugged .

  17. I would think that if the energy companies were going to lose money that they would just close their doors and stop doing business in AZ. Because of involuntary servitude provisions of the federal constitution, the energy companies cannot be compelled to do business in AZ or anywhere else where they are bound to lose money. If people think that the use of fossil fuels is bad then they can just stop making use of all goods and services that makes use of fossil fuels. No new laws are needed. At the very least these people can turn off the main breaker to their homes and leave them off. It is money from those who make use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.

  18. “…you mentioned Obamacare, too bad with control of both houses of Congress, and the presidency, the GOP was unable to repeal it.”

    Memo for C. Paul Pierett: I’m coming into the conversation late, but, actually, Obamacare is being repealed. In lieu of Congressional action, Trump’s just doing it administratively, a piece at a time.

    One thing is for sure: the ACA as it exists now is not what was rammed through by Pelosi and Reid. Obama changed a lot of it on his own–in numerous cases with specious authority to do so–because, frankly, he had no choice due to political considerations. The ACA is still alive in considerable part due to Obama’s “pen and phone,” but he didn’t count on much of it also dying by pen and phone under Trump. Shucks, Obama touting the ACA was the equivalent of him trying to sell you an ’88 Yugo with a Racing Orange finish and dropped-in small-block 327 as a “muscle car”–fantasy totally colliding with reality.

    Exhibit A: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/01/26/obamacare-70-changes-make-it-a-very-different-law-than-congress-passed/#600e8d866c4d

    Exhibit B: https://freebeacon.com/issues/trump-azar-advance-ambitious-health-agenda/

  19. That’s why UN needs that much online translators:

    Noch keine Übersetzung vorhanden.
    Jetzt Übersetzung hinzufügen

    STEIRERMEN SAN VERY GOOD SONGTEXT
    STEIRERMEN SAN VERY GOOD

    Es gibt in Zell am Ziller, so fesche Ladykiller
    die glaubn nur in Tirol, fühl’n sich die Damen wohl.

    Da frag i mi “Was will er, der Kerl aus Zell am Ziller?”

    woaß, auf wen sie fliagt.

    1.Steirer men san very good, very, very good for Hollywood
    Arnold und sein Steirerschmäh, kennan’s drübn in U.S.A.

    Steirer men san very good, very, very good for Hollywood.
    Dirndl, schau dir alle an, dann möchst an Steirermann.

    2.Steirer men san very good, very, very good for Hollywood
    Arnold und sein Muskelschmäh, kennans drübn in U.S.A.
    Steirer men san very good, very, very good for Hollywood.
    Muskeln, Schönheit und a Hirn, des kannst exportier’n.

    Dann san do noh die Wiener, die glaub’n, a Signorina,
    die steht auf Weaner Schmäh, do sog i glei “o je”.
    Die Steirer Qualitäten, die san, des kunnt i wetten,
    jo rundherum längst annerkannt, sogar im Burgenland.

    1.Steirer men san very good…

    Drum Madl gib guat Acht, wenn oana ummalocht, dann tua net ummanand,
    nimm an Buam aus unser’m Land.

    2.Steirer men san very good…

    1.Steirer men san very good… dann nimmst an Steirermann.

    Noch keine Übersetzung vorhanden.
    Jetzt Übersetzung hinzufügen
    Lyrics powered by http://www.musixmatch.com

  20. Why doesn’t Tommy Boy just pay for renewable energy sources himself? Or pay all of Arizona’s utility bill for a couple years.

  21. Obama care
    Trump got the penalty for failing to buy insurance removed
    from the law. I was a tax, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, and
    that made it constitutional. With the penalty gone, and with a
    conservative court, a case is making its way through the courts.
    It should finally be unconstitutional, no matter republican
    Rhinos.

Comments are closed.