Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Allen West spokesman defends 'nanny state' bill
BizPacReview.com ^ | March15, 2012 | Michele Kirk

Posted on 03/15/2012 8:26:19 AM PDT by Ollies girl

Congressman Allen West announced his support and co-sponsorship of the Safe Teen and Novice Uniform Protection, or STANDUP Act, at a teen driving event at Jupiter High School on Tuesday, as reported in BPR’s March 14 article “Allen West hits a Porsche while simulating texting and driving.”

The act, if passed, would ban teens from driving while texting, restrict driving with other teens and impose other limitations on young drivers. With 50 members of Congress, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and Allstate Insurance Co., among others, signed on, the bill seems to be “in good hands.”

But the conservative congressman, normally a prime target for left-wing criticism, is being blasted from his base on this one.

(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: allenwest; florida; nannystate; texting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
I love Allen West, but I have to say I am disappointed that he did not take a more consistent route here. Why not go to the State Legislature and use his influence to push it by State. This is "nanny state" at it's best and all for "our own safety". I actually agree with the restrictions FOR TEENS, but why not keep it away from the Feds?
1 posted on 03/15/2012 8:26:26 AM PDT by Ollies girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Rumors that Sarah and Col Allen West could be a ticket and then this piece by you noob.


2 posted on 03/15/2012 8:28:34 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

RINO


3 posted on 03/15/2012 8:29:07 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

newb or oldb who cares, is it true?


4 posted on 03/15/2012 8:32:11 AM PDT by raccoonnookkeeper (I keep raccoons in a nook!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Doesn’t sound like a federal issue to me.


5 posted on 03/15/2012 8:37:23 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

I would want to hear more about this before I blasted him, but some people do lose their way when it’s “for the children.”


6 posted on 03/15/2012 8:38:03 AM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

I believe AZ just passed a texting while driving law. believe it is a State issue. And I agree with the law. I text and drive sometimes. And I shouldn’t. If my husband knew, he’d kill me.

If I can’t control that urge, can you imagine teenagers? It is incredibly dangerous. OK.. From now on, I will not text while driving..I will not text while driving...I will not text while driving..I will not text while driving...


7 posted on 03/15/2012 8:41:19 AM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - SocratesHill not text while dri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonnookkeeper

I don’t care about the noob issue either - and I’m not thrilled with this vote. But not sure this is really a pure nanny state issue at all.

Use of the public roads is not exactly like smoking in your own house or yard. Not like running your own business. Not like texting while you drive a jeep on your own farm or land.

This is not a pure issue and to draw a line in the sand on this would be foolish.


8 posted on 03/15/2012 8:41:59 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: manc

Yes, I am new to FR, but I don’t see how that makes my opinion any less valuable than everyone else.


9 posted on 03/15/2012 8:43:34 AM PDT by Ollies girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

If one actually does some searching about the ‘Standup Act’ the latest information is almost a year old. This has languished and will continue to do so. It is NOT on any docket. If West signed on as a co-sponsor that is not all that unusual but he was not an orginator as this bill was first introduced in 2010. The Act is one of those ‘you will comply or we will withhold funds’ bit of legislation.

Seems like you worked really hard to find a non-story about West that was negative


10 posted on 03/15/2012 8:44:33 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Yes, I agree: this is not a matter for the federal government.


11 posted on 03/15/2012 8:46:36 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

“I text and drive sometimes. And I shouldn’t. If my husband knew, he’d kill me.”

He may never get the chance if that’s how you drive.


12 posted on 03/15/2012 8:49:13 AM PDT by equaviator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

If he cosponsored it he is know better than the originator. The Federal Gov. should keep their worthless selves out of state business.

I’m tired of for the children legislation.


13 posted on 03/15/2012 8:50:21 AM PDT by beandog (Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beandog

let’s do a thought experiment. You assume this is “state business and “for the children.”

Does that mean you have a bullet proof suit that will protect you from a teen causing you to wreck on an interstate highway that you might drive on?

Or do you think that in a wreck, only the folks in the drivers’ car are at risk of death or injury. Or maybe you only drive on state roads.

Like I said, this bill is not great by me, but I reject the notion that it is nanny statism the way many other pieces of legislation are.


14 posted on 03/15/2012 8:53:50 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: manc; Ollies girl
Rumors that Sarah and Col Allen West could be a ticket and then this piece by you noob.

Why are you busting this poster. She didn't do anything wrong. This story is a legit news story. Do you think that the Federales should be involved in teen texting and driving? This is a state issue if there ever was one and most states are tackling it as we speak. West needs to but out of this.

15 posted on 03/15/2012 8:54:24 AM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Don’t like it, I suggest you get your state legislator to pass a bill similar to this one. I would also suggest if a state doesn’t have a law against it, don’t drive in that state. That is where this issues belong.


16 posted on 03/15/2012 8:56:24 AM PDT by beandog (Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: beandog

You are confusing the bill itself versus your argument against the bill. I am not sure I like either one.

I stand by two statements that speak to the weakness of your argument but DO NOT NECESSARILY support the bill itself either:

A: with the interstate highway system, bills involving autos are not necessarily “state” issues. Sorry, they just are not. I love 10th Amendment issues but not every issue is one of those. Just isn’t.

B: this is not “for the children” legislation. Not only “children” are at risk here. If anything, it may be to protect law abiding responsible adults from irresponsible children. The “for the children” legislation is always to protect the children FROM mainly conservative adults. Apples and oranges.


17 posted on 03/15/2012 9:00:53 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Hey ollies girl,
get off Colonel Wests back.
He is running in MY district. I have already contributed to his campaign and will be attending a dinner with him next month after which I’ll write about it.
My current congress thief is alcee hastings. A former federal judge impeached for taking bribes in a drug case.
The district has been a Gerrymandered one for years.
Do I approve of EVERYTHING Colonel West ascribes to?
Hell NO, BUT he is a crap load better than anyone else you can come up with girl.


18 posted on 03/15/2012 9:00:53 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beandog

There have been may bills intro’d in the FL state legislature since 2010. They all have gone down in flames.

Speaker of the FL House Dean Cannon says it infringes on personal freedoms and that there are many more things besides texting that can cause a driver to be distracted.

Can’t say I disagree with him.


19 posted on 03/15/2012 9:01:51 AM PDT by Doors
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl
A lot of what is in the bill makes sense...ON THE STATE LEVEL. I am all for states banning texting while driving and making sure their young drivers are properly trained. I don't think of it as inherently, “nanny state”.

However, on the Federal level, it is outrageous. These, “we'll give you funding if you comply with our mandate laws” completely undermine states rights.

They are nothing short of Federal extortion and can be used to pretty much mandate ANYTHING. They essentially say, “comply with our rules or the citizens of your state will continue to send huge amounts of money to Washington and get even LESS back than citizens of states that comply.” As a result, state and local taxes will have to rise to make up for the decreased kickback of the taxes the Federal government already fleeced the taxpayers for.

Colonel West should be ashamed of himself for undermining the Constitution and promoting additional Federal abuse of power.

20 posted on 03/15/2012 9:01:51 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl
(Ask Allen West)
21 posted on 03/15/2012 9:10:10 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I agree with you. Texting while driving is stupid and very dangerous to anyone on any road. It should be outlawed everywhere, enforced and punished with loss of license. This is one instance where a uniform national policy would be a good thing. Where ever you find yourself in the USA you will lose your license if you are caught texting while driving. Enforce that for 6 monthes and it would no longer be a problem.


22 posted on 03/15/2012 9:11:02 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

You make some good points, but with due respect, your conclusion is ludicrous. Allen West did not invent the notion that we have an interstate highway system, but we do. Thus, driving cannot be a “state” issue.

It just can’t. So to say West should be ashamed is a knee jerk over react. To disagree is something else. But sorry, you cannot justify interstate highways as a state issue. Think of the practical impossibilties of what you are saying .


23 posted on 03/15/2012 9:15:16 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

C for your info Interstate Highways belong to the states not the feds.


24 posted on 03/15/2012 9:15:47 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Doors

>>>Speaker of the FL House Dean Cannon says it infringes on personal freedoms and that there are many more things besides texting that can cause a driver to be distracted.

Can’t say I disagree with him.<<<

I think that argument is bull. Texting is clearly a huge distraction, both to the eyes, mind and hands.

You could make the same argument about drunkeness. Other things cause accidents besides drunk driving, so why violate “personal freedoms” by banning drunk driving?

States should strongly consider this type of legislation. But, the Federal government trying to force states to do this is an outrageous assault on states rights.


25 posted on 03/15/2012 9:16:01 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I think it is "nanny state legislation" and, as with many others, coercion is based on additional federal funding for the states that comply and reductions in existing federal funding for those states that don't. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation would have the authority to adopt regulations going beyond those specifically stated in the legislation. Then, the initially compliant states would be stuck with the new regulations as well as those in which they had initially acquiesced.

That is the way these things work. There is no violation of the Tenth Amendment per se. However, the legislation would further diminish the abilities of the states to adopt their own requirements, suited to them, in favor of a one size fits all policy.

I respect Colonel West and, given an opportunity, would vote for him for President enthusiastically. However, I think he got stuck in a trap here. He should change his mind and so state.

26 posted on 03/15/2012 9:17:54 AM PDT by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

But in practicality, it’s a “joint venture” at best and besides, the very nature of how they connect states to each other make it a really bad issue to bring states rights into.

This is just a stupid hill to die on when there are so many agregious and pure tenth amendment and nanny issues out there. This issue does not fit that category and while some points can be made here or there, it simply is a poor issue to make a states rights stand on.


27 posted on 03/15/2012 9:18:22 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

I understand the coercion issue of federal highway funding and that is problematic.

Having said that, driving habits are not an issue of privacy unless you are on your own land. Sorry, this is totally different than smoking in your car or any other issue on a very practical issue.

You can get all righteous all you want, but driving on a shared road is only private activity under the “your right to swing your fist stops at my face” theory.

There is no right to drive carelessly on shared roads because that infringes on the rights of others driving on those roads.


28 posted on 03/15/2012 9:22:15 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Show me in the constitution where the feds have the power.


29 posted on 03/15/2012 9:26:45 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl
I actually agree with the restrictions FOR TEENS, but why not keep it away from the Feds?

So, age discrimination is OK under certain circumstances "to keep us safe"? Why not do the common sense thing and make driving while distracted a ticketable offense, no matter who it is, or how old they are? The proof would have to be a demonstrated loss of control of the vehicle - weaving etc. We are in the mess we are in because very time someone sees the potential for something bad to happen, they make a new and specific law, whcih adds up to the point where there are so many laws that nobody can keep track of them. I'd wager that most of us, going through a normal law-abiding day, break a few laws we aren't even aware of.

30 posted on 03/15/2012 9:29:06 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Nonsense! The MOST the Federal government should do is set minimum licensing standards, that would allow other states to decide not to honor licenses from states that don’t comply.

For example, if Vermont gave licenses to 12 year olds, with little or no training, Maryland should not have to honor Vermont licenses (though it would be free to do so if it chooses to). Other than that, the Fed should stay out of intrastate driving.

Are the Feds making trying to impose these requirements, ONLY for driving on interstate highways or all roads?

You might not be aware that that same “interstate highway” argument has been used to argue that practically ALL commerce, is interstate commerce, and therefore subject to Federal regulation, because it takes place in the vicinity of an interstate highway.


31 posted on 03/15/2012 9:31:02 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I think I understand your argument, and I’m not sure I disagree, but I’m having trouble distinguishing the effect of this bill with others that are more clearly an issue.

For example, If I am driving through a state, I become subject to the whims of people in that state who now have access to me. Some legislators think that carrying handguns is a threat to public order, and so want restrictions on that right, which most of us here think is at LEAST a state’s rights issue (we don’t think states have a lot of right to restrict either, but that’s another argument).

But what if the feds decided to say that people on interstates could not carry weapons, and told states to change their carry laws thusly or lose highway funds. How would that be different in principle than the feds telling states not to allow children to text while driving, or to set the ages at which kids were allowed to drive, or put restrictions on kids driving at night until the reach a particular age (the bill seems to cover more than just texting after all)?

Is the mere fact of an interstate highway system enough for conservatives to cede to the federal government power over all state laws as they relate to those highways?

This issue came up with the speed limit laws, and the laws prohibiting states from allowing private vendors to run rest stops on the interstate system. The feds use this to stick their noses WAY under the tent.

As another example, since people drive cars on the interstate, would we be unable to argue “states rights” if the feds decided to make a national safety inspection regime, and required every state to force all their residents to do these inspections and put stickers on their cars?

The feds of course already do stuff like this, for emmissions standards, in areas where they deem pollution to be too severe. So it’s not like we haven’t already LOST the argument.

But I’m not sure I’d say that ANY hill which fights back in any way against this isn’t a good hill to start with. You won’t start taking back the territory if you keep ceding more of it.

BTW, I have nothing against Allen West, and I’m not trying to attack HIM for this bill (I remember when he was pilloried for voting on the debt ceiling increase — you can’t be a legislator without occasionally casting votes that upset people).


32 posted on 03/15/2012 9:31:28 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Welcome aboard. May your stay be pleasant as well as informative. Just roll with the punches. This site can get a bit rough at times.


33 posted on 03/15/2012 9:34:59 AM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

>>>I understand the coercion issue of federal highway funding and that is problematic.

Having said that, driving habits are not an issue of privacy unless you are on your own land. Sorry, this is totally different than smoking in your car or any other issue on a very practical issue.

You can get all righteous all you want, but driving on a shared road is only private activity under the “your right to swing your fist stops at my face” theory.

There is no right to drive carelessly on shared roads because that infringes on the rights of others driving on those roads.<<<

I agree 100%. That is why STATES should have laws to promote safe driving. The FEDERAL government has absolutely no business getting involved, however.


34 posted on 03/15/2012 9:35:26 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Certainly it is not a matter of "privacy." Neither are laws against murder, larceny and rape.

Some laws designed to prevent drivers from texting and doing other stupid things would likely be beneficial. However, that does not mean that this a matter as to which the Federal Government should preempt the abilities of the states to adopt such legislation as they may decide is best for them. Things may well be different in, for example, Montana than in Pennsylvania. If the states were homogeneous, they might be unnecessary.

35 posted on 03/15/2012 9:37:43 AM PDT by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Looks like West has been drinking the Kool-Aid!

An under 10 minute animated video explaining government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k


36 posted on 03/15/2012 9:39:24 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (I really want Obozo to have another term -- in Leavenworth! 25 to life sounds about right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Looks like West has been drinking the Kool-Aid!

An under 10 minute animated video explaining government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k


37 posted on 03/15/2012 9:39:26 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (I really want Obozo to have another term -- in Leavenworth! 25 to life sounds about right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

Looks like West has been drinking the Kool-Aid!

An under 10 minute animated video explaining government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k


38 posted on 03/15/2012 9:39:34 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (I really want Obozo to have another term -- in Leavenworth! 25 to life sounds about right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

busting her/him, er that is no where near busting trust me, it;s a question but seeing as you brought it up then a person just joins, finds a negative and posts it on a guy who is rising .

Yep that deserves a question by some I reckon by you maybe not.


39 posted on 03/15/2012 9:45:59 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl
Common sense safety is not nanny state.

Texting while driving is stupid, dangerous and can have serious consequences to others on the road, not just yourself. My mother was T-boned and injured by a woman yakking on a hand-held cell phone, which isn't as dangerous as texting. FWIW, a teen is actually less dangerous while texting than an older adult. But they are also more likely to engage in this asinine behavior.

I agree with you, however, in principle about tryng to keep these regulations away from Fedzilla. Particularly now that states are passing these laws.

40 posted on 03/15/2012 9:46:21 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ollies girl

maybe but you’re new and yet you find the time to post a negative thread on here about a raising star in FL and who the left wants to take down.

We’ve had many who register, fit in and start to put down certain republicans i the way you have.

Not saying you are but I hope you can see where some of us might see how this can come across.

Ollies girl where are you BTW?


41 posted on 03/15/2012 9:48:17 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

exactly
another poster said this is a year old and why bring this up again?
Then it is posted by a noob, maybe with good intentions , maybe not but it seems a waste to post this when it is old and I’,m certain folks who just sign up can find more positive threads about our rising stars


42 posted on 03/15/2012 9:51:47 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

texting and driving is dangerous to others, the amount of time I have seen young college girls trying to drive and text while nearly causing accidents is shocking and yes it pisses me off to see it knowing these idiots can seriously kill innocent people and all because they can’t call up on speaker they have to send that text


43 posted on 03/15/2012 9:53:35 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mtrott
The States conceded their Rights a looooonnnnnggggg time ago.

The 10th Amend. and Division of Power have been replaced by the “Golden Rule”:

“He who has the gold, controls the rules”

44 posted on 03/15/2012 9:55:24 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: manc

I’m not new and I appreciate this post. I’m a conservative first and a Republican second.


45 posted on 03/15/2012 9:55:30 AM PDT by Jacvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: manc; Ollies girl
Manc you should look at her posting history, brief as it may be. Looks to be ok.

Ollies welcome to FR.

46 posted on 03/15/2012 9:56:06 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

sorted then I was asking a question the post is a year old, why raise it.

All she had to do was to answer.


47 posted on 03/15/2012 10:00:44 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: manc

I agree, talking always helps.


48 posted on 03/15/2012 10:03:47 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

luxuriate in the purity of your own irrelevancy and unworkability then. But don’t you dare cross a damned state border, or you will be in violation of your own pure demands.


49 posted on 03/15/2012 10:15:35 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Doors

“...there are many more things besides texting that can cause a driver to be distracted.”

How ‘bout those roadside memorials where the chances are better now than ever that the person died as a result of somebody’s distracted driving?

I’d be for banning roadside memorials since they’re meant to get the attention of drivers. Wouldn’t it be terribly ironic if you or someone you know and love were to die in traffic as a result of having been distracted by one of those roadside memorials?


50 posted on 03/15/2012 10:17:17 AM PDT by equaviator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson