Yesterday,  Jon’s  history lesson focused on four infamous acts of violence which mark January 30 as a day of infamy.

In 1948, the world’s year was marked early by violence of the worst order.  On January 30, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in his beloved India.  A man of peace, Gandhi had led his people to freedom from the British reign, a major step in the final dissolution of the British Empire.   He led the people through a pacifist role, deploring violence, calling on his people to simply resist British force through peaceful resistance.  Jailed many times by the British,  he used long periods of fasting to emphasize to his people the kind of peaceful sacrifice which could lead them to freedom.

Many feared through the years that Gandhi would be killed by the British.  But, at the last it was one of his own people who shot him down.  A fellow Hindu, obviously deranged, shot him three times from a distance of three feet.  Gandhi, an extremely frail man,  refused to accept the kind of security that some world leaders had even at that time.  He was not a government leader.  He was a religious leader, very humble, and often used his fasting periods to “force” the British into an act that extended freedom a little bit.  He lived by the premise that a small man (which he considered himself to be), by taking small steps, could form the catalyst for big results.  Of course, the world did not see him as “small”, but his ego did not allow him to elevate himself---believing that all he did was further the intent of a supreme being on earth.

 Indians were decimated by his death, the world was shocked that a man of such peaceful persuasion had been shot to death right on a crowded public street in New Delhi.

 

Eight years later, 1956 began with a violent act aimed at one of the premier disciples of Gandhi.   On January 30,  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s home was bombed in Montgomery, Alabama.  Dr. King was a minister who also diminished his own value, taking to the streets to bring God’s word to his people who had a lot in common with the Hindus under British rule.  He followed the Gandhi model, leading  his people through peaceful, non-violent opposition to segregation which he believed was immoral and wrong. 

Dr.King was not at home at the time of the bombing; he was in the pulpit speaking to a meeting during the boycott of city buses in Montgomery.  Blacks, who were tired of having to sit in the back of the bus, had boycotted the buses, causing the city huge losses in revenue.  During this same time, Dr. King led his people in boycotts of lunch rooms where Blacks were not allowed to sit and eat with whites.

His wife, Coretta, and their 10 week old child were in the house, yet somehow escaped physical harm.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of  angry Black citizens flocked to the home, ready to take violent revenge.  In his usual calm fashion, Dr.King urged them to return to their homes, put away any weapons and resist the temptation to meet violence with violence.  He urged his followers to “love our white brothers” in spite of their hatefulness.

In 1956, the South was awash with violent reactions by whites to integration, particularly of schools.  Thurgood Marshall, one of the finest trial lawyers ever, had won the Brown v.Board of Education decision in the United States Supreme Court.  That decision, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that the “separate but equal” rule which had been the standard for school segregation for decades was not constitutionally acceptable.  His decision, for the Court, held that the public schools must be integrated.

Under the “separate but equal” doctrine, a state could escape integration by providing separate school facilities and teachers for Blacks, “equal” to the facilities offered to whites.  This doctrine was one of the most ludicrous examples of how the judicial system is basically cowardly, unwilling to look past the façade and face reality.  No reasonable, rational person could look at the separate facilities and believe for a New York minute that they were “equal”.

While segregationists urged that “separate but equal” was justice, any reasoning person knew that it was justice-----you know the rest.  At that time, engrossed in college studies leading toward my law training, it had not yet occurred to me that the system of justice is badly broken, and has been for a long, long, long time.

I saw segregation up close, having spent summers with my grandparents in Hartsville, South Carolina.  I lived in, saw, and didn’t really question the reality of or the mental, and physical impact of  segregation.  “Colored town” was the “other side of the railroad tracks” where all Blacks lived in complete segregation.  They went to “colored” churches. They ate in “colored” cafes.  They sat in the back of the bus.  They sat in the “colored only” sections of bus stations and railroad stations.  They drank from “colored only” water fountains.  They swam in “colored only” ponds, not city swimming pools.  They sat in “colored only”balconies in movie houses.  They did not have organized sports leagues for kids, they had to play in undeveloped farm fields.  Often their “baseball” was a rock or large ball of string tightly wound. Their school athletic teams did not play the white teams.  Cities had “black conferences” and “white conferences”.  Blacks  went to “colored” doctors. They went to the “colored only” emergency rooms.

 Even the courtrooms were segregated, with the Blacks being relegated to a balcony if one existed, if not to the back row and standing room.  (“To Kill a Mocking Bird” did not, and does not, exaggerate.)  The jails were segregated, and Blacks were sent to the “chain gang” even for minor offenses so that white criminals did not have to be integrated in jails or prisons.  (The “chain gangs” were groups of prisoners who were actually chained together and required to do road work and other public works projects, sleeping and living in tents or Quonset huts.  Often, in a very corrupt southern political atmosphere, the chain gangs would be assigned to work the cotton and other fields belonging to an important political figure or rich man.  “Cool Hand Luke” was not and is not an exaggeration.) 

And,  when they died, Blacks were handled only by “colored morticians”.  (As late as the mid 1960s, as an assistant United States Attorney in Baltimore, I urged a federal judge to grant probation to a convicted tax evader because he was the only “colored” mortician who served four counties in southern Maryland.  I advised the Court that without him there would be no mortician to serve the “coloreds” in those counties. The judge gave the probation and specified that it was only because of his value to the public. 

The schools Blacks  attended were not equal to those that whites attended.  The “colored” schools were old and ramshackle, cold in the winter and hot in the spring and fall.  Teachers were Black and were paid salaries much lower than their white counterparts.  Kids walked to school while whites rode school buses.  But, as long as there were school facilities available for  Blacks, school books for them to read, and teachers to teach them, the courts held that due process and equal protection were satisfied.  Sticking their heads into the sand, judges had ruled that separate but equal satisfied the United States constitution. 

Then,  Brown v. Board of Education ripped through the fabric of deceit and ordered that “separate” could never be “equal”.  Efforts to integrate the schools following the decision were met with violent uprisings by whites.  President Eisenhower sent troops to the south to restore and maintain civil order, and to forcibly bring integration into the public schools.  Throughout the South, angry whites resisted integration of schools, restaurants, and  buses.   Policemen were photographed turning dogs loose on  Black children, firemen turning firehoses on Blacks with such force as to knock them to the ground.  The angry face of  “Bull” Conners who lead the Montgomery Police and their dogs in street attacks on children became the ugly face that represented the South.

In this hateful atmosphere, Martin Luther King followed the teachings of Gandhi, and narrowly missed dying  just 8 years to the day from Gandhi’s assassination.

Twelve years to the day after the bombing, and just a year before Dr. King would follow Gandhi into history by being assassinated by a gunman, one of the most violent war offensives in history occurred in Viet Nam.  The “Tet” offensive by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong began on January 30, in 1968.  The Viet Nam war had apparently begun to wind down.  Our leaders knew that they could expect some form of attack from the Viet Cong, but the attack still took them by surprise.  “Tet” refers to the lunar new year.  While at least half of the southern forces were on holiday, the north struck.

 Death and devastation was bad enough, but the Tet invasion also commenced the events which toppled a presidency and gave all Asia the idea that America was not invincible, and was perhaps after all a “paper tiger” as the Communist Chinese had bragged for years.  Lyndon Johnson never recovered his once high level of popularity after the Tet offensive which was used by anti-war forces as an example of how the president had let our country get out of step with reality.  Not only did the invasion affect Johnson, it probably also led to the defeat of Hubert Humphrey by Richard M. Nixon who promised to end the Viet Nam war.  Nixon was elected, and as Paul Harvey says, you know “the rest of that story”.

What the country lacked was one single individual who could bring together those who wanted peace and those who continued to favor the war effort in the far away jungles of Viet Nam.  The nation was so divided, and the President hid behind half truths and stonewalling tactics which never work with a free people served by a free press.  There was no one person who could lead an effort for peace and reconciliation of foes,  as Dr. King was leading the effort for integrating the nation.

Four years later, the year 1972 began with one of the most senseless acts of violence in history of man.  The relationship between Irish people who sought for independence of England just as Gandhi’s people had struggled for independence from England, and the English government had grown tense.  For years there had been skirmishes between the Irish in Northern Ireland and the English.  More than a governmental problem, the tenseness really centered on Protestants of England against Catholics of Ireland.  For most of my life, Irish Catholics had not been allowed to vote or hold office in Northern Ireland.

On January 30, twenty four years after Gandhi was shot down, a group of protesters was demonstrating in Londonderry (also Derry to the Irish).  They were unarmed.  British paratroopers were sent to stop the protest, and after skirmishing with the protesters for a few minutes, began shooting into the crowd.  Unarmed Irishmen were killed and severely wounded in what would become known as “Bloody Sunday” throughout the world.  The event brought down upon the English government the wrath of most nations in the world.  In Parliament’s volatile House of Commons the Government was severely chastised by all but the most ardent supporters of anti-Irish  pressures.

Before 1972 had ended, hundreds of citizens would be dead and hundreds more wounded in Northern Ireland.  It was the beginning of the end of English rule that denied civil liberties to the Irish.  Following “Bloody Sunday”, president Richard Nixon decried the violence and called for orderly solution through open governmental negotiations.  He would be re-elected by a landslide in November of that year, and then would be impeached for one of the most convoluted government cover-ups and avoidance of open governmental actions in history.

The political strife in Northern Ireland would continue, with terrorist acts and government reactions which endangered the peaceful existence of every man, woman and child.  The absence of a commanding personality like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King hindered peaceful progress toward liberty for the Irish Catholics.  The most unlikely of men, William Jefferson Clinton, brought the two peoples closer to peace than they have ever been.

It is also interesting to me to see how the  stars seem to line up for a given date.  Uniquely coincidental that January 30 has been such a violent day in history?  Perhaps, but for those like me who don’t believe in coincidence, we face a real mental challenge when trying to figure out the cycles of violence which erupt on January 30.

The Indian people, freed largely by the humble, but heroic efforts of Mahatma Gandhi, have become a power in the world’s economy.  The Black citizens in the United States still struggle with remnants of discrimination, but they are being freed from the adversity of segregation more and more, and largely because of Gandhi’s humble follower,Martin Luther King.  The 44^th President of the United States serves because of the peaceful efforts of Dr.King.

But, this nation has never recovered from the results of the Viet Nam war which turned so ugly from a military and political standpoint  on the date of the Tet offensive.  To the rest of the world, the United States has never quite been restored to a position of leadership it once held.

The actions which have occurred on January 30,  still further the ripples in the pond s of life.

Following article by Patrick Dorinson also see his bio on who we are!

 

A belief in this nation's special role

Patrick Dorinson

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy was rekindled  by none other than Rev. Wright himself. No one, except for Wright himself, truly knows what his motivations are for resurfacing at this crucial time in his one-time parishioner's campaign for president. But the issue for Sen. Barack Obama is bigger than just one speech denouncing the reverend's inflammatory words and views about America.

Courtesy of his speeches to the Detroit NAACP and the National Press Club, we have now heard for ourselves what Wright thinks about America. In responding to Wright's words, we now know what Obama thinks about Wright's views about America. But what we have not yet heard is, what are Obama's real views about America? And does he really understand the country and the people he is seeking to lead for the next four years?

To borrow a phrase from Rev. Wright, Obama and some of his colleagues in the Democratic Party are reaping what they have sown. For years, they have disdained the symbols of America and derided the belief in American Exceptionalism that many of their fellow citizens believe in. They have systematically changed American education so that American Exceptionalism is no longer taught, and it has been replaced with a version of American history that emphasizes America's faults and failures and not its virtues and triumphs.

American Exceptionalism is the belief that America has a special role to play in the world and is unique in that it was founded on a set of ideals and not by common heritage, ethnicity, or the presence of a hereditary ruler and ruling class. To be an American is to bear allegiance to this set of ideals whether you can trace your roots to the nation's founding or you arrived here a few years ago and just took your citizenship oath last week.

American Exceptionalism also has been interpreted as the ability for anyone to rise from humble beginnings and through hard work and perseverance, attain the "American Dream." For all that Obama and his wife, Michelle, talk about their humble roots, you would think they would celebrate what America has done for them, instead of labeling America as Michelle Obama did as "just downright mean."

Perhaps Obama's problem is also partly generational. When baby boomers went to school in the '50s and '60s, children sang patriotic songs, pledged allegiance to the flag without controversy, learned to recite portions of the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and were taught an American history without all the moral relevance and far left agitprop of today.

By the time he got to college, academia was filled with those who are far more comfortable criticizing America while preaching that America is responsible for all that is bad in the world and that this country was just one of many countries with no "exceptional" nature.

The speech that Obama needs to give is one he can't, because to accept and celebrate American Exceptionalism, he would have to turn his back on his very liberal base and embrace something they are disdainful of and about which he knows very little. Bowling a few frames and eating a Philly cheese steak sandwich will not bring him any closer to an understanding of his fellow citizens who are "clinging" to their guns and their God.

When he made those comments to a crowd of well-heeled San Francisco Democrats, it was almost as if he was giving them an anthropological lecture on the people of the rest of America. What he said demonstrated a total lack of understanding of his fellow citizens, but the way he said it was worse. It was as if he was saying, "You know I just returned from the hinterlands and I would like to tell you about the strange natives and their quaint customs I encountered in my travels." Not the way to talk if you want to lead these folks.

In many of Ronald Reagan's speeches, he used the phrase about America being a "shining city on a hill." And while Democrats routinely scoffed when he said it, the American people loved it and gained strength from it. Reagan did not mean we were perfect but rather that was the goal we needed to constantly reach for and that our best days lie ahead. Reagan was always optimistic about America, and the people followed him because they knew he believed those words deep in his soul as did many of them.

If Obama wants to be elected president, he needs to give a speech that says he also believes in American Exceptionalism and that he understands and believes in the important symbols and traditions of America and her people.

The problem is he can't.

Patrick Dorinson is a communications and media strategist and principal of PD Communications in Sacramento.

 

Abraham Lincoln - “If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?”

 

JAN 24 2009

Strange that Sharon Tate, born this day in 1943 had nothing on our "WORTH READING" history about being murdered at the way too young age of 26 by the manson cult. Solely because of this horiffic senseless crime and her mother Doris Tate, "victim impact statements" were allowed at sentencing and parole hearings by victims and their families. Doris Tate was the first ever to make such an impact statement, she later said that this afforded Sharon dignity and "helped transform Sharon's legacy from murder victim to a symbol of victims rights".

I thought that deserved mentioning,

Jon

A Whole New World 

 

We need look no further than the front page of every newspaper in America during this inauguration to see how far we have come in terms of racial equality. However, if you scan back a few sections , past the classifieds and comics to the sport section we can see even more evidence of this new movement.

 

In Tampa Bay the Buccaneers front office made a gutsy and some say bizarre move. Jon Gruden- winner of Super Bowl XXXVII, coach of one of the best defensive units year after year, and consistently qualifies for the playoffs without a lot of big name talent, was replaced with 32 year old Raheem Morris.

 

Just to play devils advocate, what do you think would happen if a coach of similar quality as Gruden, say, Tony Dungy was replaced with a 32 year old white coach? Probably not a warm welcome.

I know why Tampa Bay hired Morris, I call it the newest rung on the “Dungy ladder” (diagram of ladder below)

________?_______

___Raheem Morris_

___Jim Caldwell___(Dungy’s replacement)

___Mike Tomlin___ 

___Lovie Smith_____

___Tony Dungy____

 

The difference between Dungy and say, Bill Belichick, is exactly the same difference between Obama and Bush, as a coach and now as president I believe we see two men that teach us to fish so we can continue to learn better and more efficient ways to succeed. For far too long we have had people in positions of power that feed us fish so we are content but unchallenged, then when the challenges arrive we just kept asking for more instead of figuring out a way to change it. The result is my beloved Oakland Raiders, discouraged and disgraced, exactly where the American people have found themselves. 

 

For all our sakes lets hope this equality movement takes all of America, the sports nuts and not, back to where we belong to be hopeful and proud!                     

                                                                                                                                                                          

Jon Grant

                                                    

                                                     

 

 

 

click here to see the entire historic event:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27721638/vp/28738177#28738177

 

Fred should be writing some great experiences cant wait to post them.

 

 

Quote of the day JAN 20 2009

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

Abraham Lincoln

Fred is in Washington D.C to witness the inauguration he will be writing about each days experiences. (later today)

WELCOME TO PATRICK DORINSON ON JMA.

 

 (We are fortunate, and  very pleased  to bring you a new voice on the blog this morning.  Patrick Dorinson, is a principal in PD Communications which specializes in all forms of communications for the private and public sectors.    He has served as Communications Director of the California Republican party where he worked closely with the Schwarzenegger for Governor campaign, and as coordinator for the victory of  the Party in 2006.

Yet, he also served the Clinton administration in communications for NASA, the Department of Energy and the General Services Administration.  So, his fine work in communications, his clear, concise voice has served both democrat and republican administrations.

Dorinson was graduated  from the University of Oregon, receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in History.  A resident of California, his hobbies include reading military history and the history of California and the American West.

The initial work of Dorinson which we feature is his view of the “tax” being considered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, to be applied to each  head of dairy cows, beef cattle and hogs.  The “tax”, which  is  really a penalty imposed  upon  the ranchers and farmers who provide food to the public, has been proposed in order to reduce or mitigate methane gas as a “greenhouse” gas purportedly contributing to “global warming”.

When the EPA first announced it was going to take comments on the “tax”, many did not take it seriously.  But with the appointment of Representative Henry Waxman as chair of the subcommittee in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the House of Representatives which will hear and promote such legislation, the “tax” takes on awful economic reality.

Our regular blog planner, Jonathan Grant, sought permission from Mr. Dorinson to reprint an article which he wrote in December, 2008 regarding the animal tax.  His gracious reply gave consent and said “Let me know how else I can help the cause of protecting the West.”

Jonathan intends to take him up on that, and we hope to share with you his opinions and outlook on the various issues which create a stormy future for our farmers and ranchers.

As background information for today’s reprint, the “proposition 2” mentioned by Mr. Dorinson was an animal rights proposition requiring an end to small cages for hens which are the center for the huge egg production portion of the California economy.  It passed with over 60% of the vote in California.)

 

GOVERNMENT’S NEW CASH COW COULD BE A COW TAX

By Patrick Dorinson,   reprint of December 17, 2008 article

 Communications strategist specializing in political communications and government relations.
Wed, December 17th, 2008
Proposition 2 passed by a huge majority. The poultry industry now awaits its fate which could include the shuttering of many farms that have been producing eggs in California for over 100 years. But never mind as long as the chickens are “free to be you and me” as the song from the 1970s used to say.

At the time I warned that the animal activists’ mission was more far reaching than making chickens more comfortable while laying eggs. They don’t want you to eat eggs or meat period. They want us all to eat tofu in its many wonderful forms like tofu hot dogs and burgers and my personal favorite just in time for the holidays, tofurky. Just look at this yummy recipe from the Humane Society’s website and have your family and friends dive into this for Christmas dinner.

These same animal rights activists have formed an unofficial and unholy alliance with the global warming zealots. And they are embarked on a crusade to rid the planet of all products produced from livestock including, poultry, eggs, beef, and pork.

Pigs and cattle cause methane gas, which is considered a greenhouse gas, from their belching and flatulence. So do politicians in Washington and Sacramento but no one is suggesting we shut down Washington or Sacramento.

Just look at this blog entry from Wayne Pacelle the very politically savvy Executive Director of the Humane Society. He himself makes the link from “eating less meat” and “protecting the planet”. But the real mission, I suspect, is not less meat, but rather no meat or meat products period. In it he states the following:

“We must eat less meat and other animal products as a nation and as a global community. And we must begin to examine and adopt policies that do better for the environment and for the extraordinary number of farm animals raised and slaughtered every year. Factory farms need to be regulated like any other industry that pollutes the air, soil, and water, and punished with strict fines and other enforcement measures when they don’t comply. The Bush Administration wants to give them a free pass, and the incoming Obama Administration needs to hold them accountable—to protect the planet.”

The story gets even better. And here is where the two agendas intersect.

The bureaucrats at the United States Environmental Protection agency (EPA) recently filed a proposed rulemaking on having the federal government charge a fee to farmers and ranchers to mitigate the methane gas their animals produce.

Enter the “cow tax”.

For farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs an annual fee of $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef and $20 for each hog would be charged. So if you had a herd of 1000 dairy cows it would cost you $175,000 per year off the top!

Naturally PETA agrees with this proposal. Look at what they have said:

“It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share," he said.

Read the whole article here.

EPA officials are downplaying this report and say it is only for large operations. Yeah right. When the government smells a “cash cow” they will milk it right down to the family farmer who will then go out of business.

Is the federal government now going to tell us what we can eat and in what quantities? This is akin to the radical environmentalist’s dreams of having the federal government tell Detroit what kind of cars they can build for us to drive.

Think the state has budget worries now? Wait until a “cow tax” kicks in and the industry is eviscerated. And where does our very own Senator Barbara Boxer stand on this issue? She is now the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and would have a big say on whether or not we have a “cow tax”. (The ironic thing is that Boxer hails from Marin County which was the birthplace of California’s dairy industry!)

What does Governor Schwarzenegger say about this threat to a key California industry? And what about Mary Nichols, head of CAL EPA, where does she stand?

And what about President-elect Obama? Where does he stand? Will his new “green team” at EPA try to push this through?

And how about the voters of Iowa who launched his winning campaign last January? Are they in favor of a “hog tax”?

What say you voters of Colorado, who went for Obama? Is this what you had in mind for the cattle industry in your state? You know what this will cost you in economic activity?

These questions need to be asked and these politicians need to go on the record about where they stand. Do they stand with the hard working men and women of America’s cattle, dairy and hog farms and ranches that put food on our tables? Or do they stand with the city slickers, vegans, animal rights activists and the elitist coastal environmentalists who want to regulate every facet of our lives and sacrifice the American way of life on the altar of their new religion?

The bottom line is this --The dairy and beef cattle industries are a part of America’s and California’s past and present. But will they be a part of our future?

If some environmentalist and animal rights activists have their way, it is doubtful either will survive. Time to put an end to this environmental/animal rights jihad against juicy hamburgers, well-marbled steaks, sizzling bacon and plump pork chops. If we don’t, pretty soon we will hear the waiters in our favorite restaurants saying…”How would you like your tofu steak prepared?”

JANUARY 16, 2009

 

 Attorney urges counties to assert their rights in public land decisions

Fred Kelly Grant tells local audience that counties can influence decisions http://www.bakercityherald.com/News/Local-News/Attorney-urges-counties-to-assert-their-rights-in-public-land-decisions Nampa-based attorney Fred Kelly Grant used to prosecute organized crime in Baltimore before he became president of Stewards of the Range, a group that helps local governments coordinate land-use actions taken by federal agencies. The only difference between the Syndicate and the federal government, Grant quipped, is that “the Syndicate is better organized and more efficient.” Grant, 72, spoke Tuesday in Baker City in front of about 55 people on coordination, a strategy he says is a more effective way for local communities to affect federal land-use decisions on public lands. A community writes a coordination plan, which Grant said the federal agency must be consistent with as it takes its actions. It gives local government a seat at the table while policy, such as the Wallowa-Whitman’s pending Travel Management Plan, is being made. Currently, Baker County enjoys cooperating status in the Travel Management Plan process. A former timber executive, Bob Messinger of Summerville, represents Baker and four other counties as a team of Forest Service employees is writing an environmental impact statement for proposed closure of all or part of about 4,100 miles of roads within Oregon’s largest national forest. “I am not opposed to cooperating with agencies, but not cooperation alone,” Grant said.      Language about coordination is found in many laws important to natural resource producers, he said, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act. “Woodcutting, mining, berry-picking — every multiple use is identified in statutes which the Forest Service is mandated to implement,” he said. But coordination is a tool reserved for local governments, Grant said, producer groups and environmental groups aren’t allowed to use it. Grant contends the water crisis in the Klamath Basin could have been averted if the adjoining counties — some already had coordination plans in place — had used the process. “I spoke to (then Interior secretary) Gale Norton before she left office,” Grant said. “I asked her what she would have done if the counties called on her to coordinate. She said, ‘I would have had to go to the table and make our actions consistent with their policy.’ That is a tragic lack of understanding of the authority those counties had.” Had the coordination strategy been available sooner, “we’d still have timber sales on the national forests and no huge decrease in grazing” on Western lands, he said. Grant peppered his talk with anecdotal information about how communities have used coordination to assert themselves in federal matters. One of the most unusual examples is the Bruno Hot Springs snail, which Grant said was placed on the endangered species list solely because a vacationing university professor saw fewer of the tiny creatures a year after he first observed them. The listing had repercussions for both farmers, who depended on irrigation water, and ranchers, whose cattle were excluded from the snail’s habitat. In the end, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife — with help from the affected county — devised a way to restore the aquifer, “which was the problem in the first place,” Grant said. Ken Anderson, ranger for the Whitman Unit of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, told the group that while he hasn’t worked “with a county that exerted the coordination standards you are talking about, I do have substantial experience working with counties doing what you are talking about.” It’s a system that can work — so long as communities are willing to work at it, Anderson said. “There’s no question that it’s critical that locals know what they want,” he said. “When they don’t know, they can’t help the agency. We have an audience we are dealing with that is much larger than the local audience. “There is an absolute important value to you working in collaboration as to what you want and need with the public lands in your community. “It is also critical as you coordinate with the agency that you go in with a problem-solving approach, because what you visualize may not be possible on public lands” After Grant finished his presentation, commissioners from other Eastern Oregon counties — Mike Hayward from Wallowa County, Mark Davidson of Union County and Boyd Britton of Grant County — together with Colby Marshall, the natural resources adviser for Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., weighed in on what they’d heard. Hayward, for 12 years a county commissioner, said that while Wallowa County has enjoyed “modest success” using coordination and “it’s easy to see how coordination works on an action an agency is proposing, what is hamstringing our area is inaction by federal agencies, like not putting up timber sales. How do we use coordination to move that ball forward?” Grant said the agency must prove it took no action because there’s a law that prevents the agency from taking an action. “If you find a little issue you can require them to take action on,” he said, “it becomes easier for a bigger action.” An example, he said, is juniper control: a 40-acre start-up project could mushroom to something 10 times that size, he said. When Baker County Commissioner Carl Stiff asked, “What if they say they have no money?” “The statute says what’s practicable, not what’s practical,” Grant replied. “It doesn’t matter whether they say they have the money. They have it somewhere. Every agency has money it can call on to facilitate compliance with the law.” In response to a question from Nancy Peyron of Baker County, Grant said Owyhee County in Idaho, his home, will be using its coordinating status to deal with Idaho Power Co.’s proposed 500-kilovolt line, which, if approved, would pass through both Owyhee and Baker counties. “Our concern is that they aren’t following the original corridor as it was originally set out,” Grant replied. “If they had done that, they wouldn’t be disturbing private property. “If the counties along the corridor require coordination, it would present (Idaho Power) with such a problem that eventually Idaho Power, which doesn’t like confrontations, will do it the easy way. “People talk about getting together as a region to coordinate, but no, each county has to coordinate (separately). Don’t wait too long,” he advised, “on the Idaho Power corridor.” Marshall, Walden’s aide, said he liked what he heard during Tuesday’s meeting. “For the communities in the (2nd Congressional) District, where there are community groups established that are working with local government, it gives local government credibility moving forward,” he said. “They can say, ‘It’s not just my idea. This is the product of debate and the ideas that have emerged.’ ”

Due to popular demand again i am leaving up the 2 blogs from Jan 13th and giving you a thought for the day to reflect on, also a big thank you to the senators who voted yes on the public lands bill S22.

 

Thought for the day :JAN 15 2009
" When all is said and done, too many people keep on saying and doing. "

Reflect on the two blogs from yesterday with our thought of the day.

 

Thought for the day :
" Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle which fits them all. "

BEWARE OF CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION---THE WORST NIGHTMARE OF OUR REPUBLIC

 

Apparently, another attempt will be made in this session of the Ohio legislature to secure a legislative call for a constitutional convention, purportedly to seek a balanced budget amendment.  If you live in Ohio, use every means of communication at the disposal of you, your family, your friends, and those you hardly know, to urge members of your legislature to drive a stake through the heart of this menace to the Republic.

 

In December, 2008, an effort was turned away in the Ohio House by well prepared, wise witnesses who pointed out the dangers of such a convention.  If the legislature, by some strange turn of events, should this time pass such “call”, then do as Frazier once warned a fleeing suitor of Rebecca on Cheers, “Run, run, as fast as you can” and seek cover from the fall out.

 

In all the years of our history, including the threat to the Republic posed by the Civil War, has there been such a pernicious weapon to be launched at our Constitutional form of government.

 

There are some myths that are posed by those who seek a constitutional convention.  They can, and must be dispelled, by those who can still read and understand.

 

First, if enough legislatures call for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, the nature of the convention will be limited to that amendment.  Balderdash.  That is an absurd conclusion.  History itself shows that the conclusion is delusional.  When the members arrived in Philadelphia in the 1780s, they arrived for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, not for the purpose of drafting a constitution.

 

The delegates were there with instructions to find a cure for the currency problems which plagued commerce among the states, to find a way to fund a standing army, to find a way make uniform rules of interstate commerce, and to find a way to lay a tax on the states---all without creating a stronger central government.  In my early days, I spent hundreds of hours toiling through the journals of the congress which drafted and enacted the Articles of Confederation, in order to write an Honors Program Paper “The Genesis of the Articles of Confederation” as, what I thought would be, the culmination of my constitutional history specialty at the College of Idaho.  But, no, that led only to another Paper detailing the drafting of the Constitution as a substitute for the Articles of Confederation.

 

So, I am not guessing and I am not quoting some other scholar when I say to you that the first Constitutional Convention in this country ran roughshod over the limited purpose for which it had been called.  If anyone tells you that a constitutional convention can be restricted by its “call”, ask him or her to explain to you why the first Convention veered completely and totally away from the reason for which it was called, and from the directions the states gave the delegates.  If he or she attempts to explain it, ask him or her whether they have read the journals.  Ask him or her to explain why the delegates boarded up the hall so that passersby could not hear the deliberations.  Boarded up the hall in the miserable heat of Philadelphia, boarded up a room which is virtually stifling on a summer day even today.

 

The delegates were sworn to secrecy, and no one outside the hall knew what was being conceived inside until the deed was done.  Keep in mind also that once the contents of the Constitution were known, ratification was not an easy task.  There was not a great swell of desire for a strong central government; just as at the time of the Revolution there was not a sweeping desire for independence throughout the colonies.

 

So, our first and only constitutional convention proved that delegates to a constitutional convention are not bound by any directives given to them by a state.  They are free as a bird to amend the basic document in any way they want.  They could, today, do the same to our Constitution as the delegates in the first convention did to the Articles of Confederation.

 

Second, the proponents claim that the Congress has ignored the call for a convention because their convoluted counting of various calls through the years add up to sufficient number to require convening a convention.  Core to this argument is their belief that a state cannot rescind a call once made.  That claim is also without merit in the law. 

 

The question of whether a state can rescind a call is a matter for the state to decide.  In Idaho, for example, the Attorney General in careful and circumspect manner has rendered the opinion that the legislature can rescind what a prior legislature has done, just as it can repeal an act passed by a prior legislature.   If this were not the case, a legislature which rendered a call for a constitutional convention would be binding every successor legislature to that call.  So, the first legislature would be rendering the legislative authority of future legislatures void as to any matter related to a constitutional convention.  Such power is not allowed under Idaho law, just as it is not allowed under federal law.  One Congress cannot bind a successor, rendering it without authority over any particular question of legislative authority.

 

So, every state which has rescinded any call for a constitutional convention made by a prior legislature has negated the impact of that call, and the Congress cannot lawfully consider a state call if the state has rescinded it. No court will decide otherwise, because such decision would allow today’s legislature to forever fix the law on an individual subject.  Fortunately for those of us who fully believe in the Constitutional Republic which we enjoy, the Congress knows that to be the law.

 

Third, the proponents seem to believe that we need a constitutional convention to save our Republican form of government.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When I read the rhetoric in support of a constitutional convention to “save our form of government”, I, like Alice believe that things get “curiouser and curiouser” as I live longer and longer.  In all reality, can there be anyone who really believes that a convention made up of delegates chosen by God knows what method in each state will strengthen our form of government? 

 

What will the California delegation look like, and what will it be presenting other than same sex marriage, homosexual child parenting rights, elimination of national sovereignty designations such as boundaries, and elimination of compensation for taking of property so that water can be secured for Los Angeles and San Francisco and taken from the farmers in southern Monterey County and in the Sacramento delta.  If there is a cross-section of delegate selection, there would never be uniformity of result even within the delegation.

 

Not to pick on California do I make that suggestion.  The same would be true for Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York----every state in which there is a rural portion of the state and a metropolitan portion which controls most of the vote.  Do you believe that residents of Baltimore, Boston, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh would be content to leave the 2^nd Amendment as it is now written, or would they amend it to allow gun control because of their belief that crime can be controlled by hand gun control?  Having lived in two of those cities, and spend considerable time in all of them, I can tell you the answer:  they would come out of the convention with a vitally revised 2^nd Amendment.

 

Keep in mind also that right now in the Arkansas legislature there is a move underway to pass a resolution calling for support of the equal rights amendment for women.  The dangers of such an amendment will be left for another time.  I thought perhaps we had seen the demise of such radical thought, but not so.  But, if there is a constitutional convention, most assuredly the equal rights amendment will be front and center.  The polarization that emanated from the proposal the first time around will surface again---and no one will be a winner.

 

Heaven help us, let there be no constitutional convention.  Our first and only convention featured uncommonly wise men; there would be no way that such a group of scholars and street-smart craftsmen could be put together today in our nation of blended nationalities and interests---those wise men knew the art of compromise and they exercised it with great tactical skill.

 

Hopefully, the Ohio legislature will once again show sense enough to consider issues critical to the problems that state faces, and ignore the calls for a convention.

 

 

 

AMERICAN POLICY CENTER LEAD OPPOSITION TO PRIOR ATTEMPT FOR CALL OF CONVENTION IN OHIO---NOW PRESIDENT OF APC THREATENED BY SUPPORTER OF CONVENTION.

 

The American Policy Center, under the leadership of Tom DeWeese, headlined the opposition to the December attempt by the Ohio legislature to call for a convention.  Tom is a student of government and policy with impeccable integrity; he does his background work thoroughly and his presentations are sound in law and fact.  In what he termed a “sledgehammer alert” he called on citizens to oppose the resolution by which the House in Ohio would have voted to call for a convention.

 

Every argument Tom advanced is correct historically and legally.  I would go a little further than he did.  He contended that with the majority that now exists in the democrat party we might see vast amendments to the first, 4^th , 5^th, and 14^th amendments as well as the 2^nd.  I would worry more about what the republicans might do to the first amendment as to free speech, and the 4^th, 5^th and 14^th as to right to privacy and probable cause and due process of law.  What I saw evidenced during the past 8 years would put me in fear of losing some of the very essential protections against an overly aggressive police state.  So, I don’t disagree with his statements, I would just carry them further, and say that no matter which of today’s two parties would represent the majority at a convention, we would be in a world of hurt.

 

Interestingly enough, Tom has been called to task in his arguments by a Mr. Bill Walker who is listed as a founder of “Friends of the Article V Convention” which supports calls for a convention.  In the “sledgehammer” alert, Tom quoted from a letter which Phyllis Schlafly, of Eagle Forum prominence, says she received from former chief justice Warren Burger of the Supreme Court.  The letter bears the date of June 22, 1988, is addressed to “Dear Phyllis”, is on stationary of the Supreme Court bearing the name of Burger “retired”. 

 

The letter states that: “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”  The letter points out that the first convention went far astray from what its delegates had been instructed.

 

The letter, or rather a facsimile of the letter, is posted on the Eagle Forum website for all the world to see.  Tom says he has a copy of the letter in hand, and that he has confirmed its authenticity with Phyllis Schafly.

 

So, on January 11, Mr. Walker, whose biography on the “Friends” website points out that he is a former news writer, challenged Tom DeWeese to “publicly refute the [Burger] letter and declare it to be a fake”.  He warns Tom that if he doesn’t do so, Walker will “state that you [DeWeese] knew the letter was a fake all along.”  He urges Tom to make the repudiation, because he [Walker] doesn’t “like destroying someone’s public creditability [sic]

without giving them [sic] the chance to correct the error themselves [sic].”

 

True to his character, Tom responded strongly.  He said that he had confirmed the validity of the letter and had no reason to doubt Phyllis Schafly’s word.  He also stated that Walker’s threat to state that Tom knew the letter to be a fake was a threat to tell a lie, since he had never heard even a word about there being any dispute as to the authenticity of the letter.  He said that if Walker made that statement, it would be a lie and Tom would sue for slander.

 

Good for Tom.  Stick to your guns.  I have referred to the letter in this article too.  I do so because I have no reason to doubt that Tom DeWeese did speak with Phyllis Schafly about the letter, does have it in hand, has seen it on the website, and never had any idea there was any controversy about the authenticity of the letter.  Believing that Phyllis Schafly did confirm the authenticity as Tom says, I have no reason to doubt her either.

 

The letter certainly and succinctly presents the dangers of calling a constitutional convention.  Every American who is considering the issue of a constitutional convention should go to the Eagle Forum website and read the letter.   

 

It will be interesting to see how Walker goes about detailing his allegations that the letter is a fraud.  He had better be more accurate, and correct, than he is in presuming facts from skeleton court decisions which simply ruled against him without creating factual statements or presumptions of any kind.    On his blog he discusses the two cases he has filed regarding constitutional conventions.  From the fact that members of Congress chose to defend themselves by filing an answer, he concludes that they admitted violating the Constitution.  From decisions which do no more than refuse to consider what the courts term a “political question” he concludes that the members of Congress have committed a crime.   He makes other presumptive conclusions from technical court denials and refusals to act that are not even sound logically, much less legally. 

 

If his conclusions of fraud are as porous as his presumptions of facts, he will not have slandered, but libelled both Phyllis Schafly and Tom DeWeese because he will have done it in a published writing.  The libel of Phyllis Schafly will be per se libel, with no requirement of proof of damage to her reputation, because it will be accusing her of fraud.  

 

The per se nature of the case will be important because Walker cannot harm her well founded and earned reputation.  So, the per se nature will allow her to sue and seek punitive damages.  I encourage her to do so.  No one, especially a news writer, should be allowed to stifle the freedom of speech of such a scholar and leader for freedom by threats. 

United States Senate.

The way has been cleared for the Owyhee Initiative Bill to pass the

On Sunday, January 11, 2009, at about noon Washington D.C. time, a vote was taken to end the filibuster which tied up the bill at the Committee level.

 

Senator Coburn of Oklahoma was filibustering the entire package of land bills, and from the time he  posed the objection to bringing the bill from the Energy Natural Resources Committee to the floor of the Senate, four days had to pass prior to a vote.  That time ended Sunday morning and Senator Reid called the bill up to end the filibuster.

 

60 votes were needed to end the filibuster.  Senator Crapo spoke on the floor in favor of freeing the Initiative Bill from the filibuster, and Senator Risch joined him in support of the Bill.

66 votes were cast to end the filibuster, so the bill will now come to the floor of the Senate.

Within the next few days, the Bill will be brought up for a vote on the merits, and there will no doubt be another filibuster by Senator Coburn.  But, on another vote to end the filibuster, at least 66 votes are now assured.

Once that vote is taken, then the bill will be voted on for passage, and easy passage is now virtually assured.

 

So  eight long years after inception, the Owyhee Initiative is expected to win Senate approval within the next few days.

Preliminary work has shown that the House of Representatives is ready to take up the bill as written, without changes or amendments.  If that turns out to be so, final passage of the Bill is predicted within the next three weeks to a month.

The thanks of all who will benefit from this Bill should go, in spades, to Senator Crapo for his tireless work in the Senate to bring together the super majority needed to end the filibuster and get the bill to a vote on the merits.

And, thanks should also go to Senator Risch for casting his supporting vote on his first vote as a Senator from Idaho.

In the House, both Representative Simpson and newly elected Walt Minnick support the Initiative.

January 9----A Day of Political Scoundrels?

On January 9, 1913, Richard Milhouse Nixon was born.  He would, of course embarrass himself in Congress by accusing perfectly loyal Americans of being communist.  Later, he would embarrass himself in a campaign against an incumbent California senator that perhaps was one of the sleaziest political attacks ever launched in this Republic.  Later, he would embarrass himself and Dwight Eisenhower after being named the vice presidential candidate, when unlawful campaign gifts were proven.  Then, when nominated by his party to run as president, retiring president Eisenhower, when asked to name those things that Nixon did as vice president that would qualify him to be a good president, said “well, if you give me a week or so, I will think of one or two.”

Nixon lost the race to John Fitzgerald Kennedy, after literally sweating through the first televised presidential debate.  He then went on to run for Governor of California against incumbent democrat Pat Brown, and after being roundly defeated, embarrassed himself in a ranting, rambling, fumbling television interview in which he glared at the cameras and said “well, the press won’t have dick Nixon to kick around any more.”

Then, out of the front line, he tucked in and behaved himself while earning party credits by campaigning for any republican who asked, anyone, anywhere for any cause.  He was rewarded with the presidential nomination and defeated Hubert Humphrey who was saddled with defending the Johnson war record, as McCain was saddled with Bush in this past year.

But, of course, once in the trenches again, he could not stay out of trouble, and embarrassed himself and the nation through a series of taped discussions which proved that he obstructed justice by directing the FBI and CIA to break the law.

He was impeached by the House of Representatives and, after being convinced by his advisors that he would be convicted in the Senate, he resigned in disgrace.

Scoundrel?  Yes, from the beginning of his career.

Governor Blagojevich, governor of Illinois considers Nixon to be a hero.  On January 9, the birth date of Nixon, Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois House of Representatives by a vote of 114-1.

Blagojevich was arrested on December 9, 2008 on corruption charges brought by the federal attorney experienced in government corruption cases.  He was charged with several offenses, including the attempt to sell the appointment of a United States Senator to replace Barack Obama who has vacated his seat to become President of the United States.  Obviously, the federal case was announced earlier than the prosecutor would have liked, because the prosecutor feared that the governor was about to make a tainted appointment.  This premature arrest is obvious from the fact that no indictment has been returned even though more than a month now has passed since the arrest.  Portions of the tape recorded telephone conversations of the governor show talks of needing money and of intending to sell the appointment, laced with profanities.

What the court documents filed for the base of the arrest do not show is the presence of a witness who can testify as to what the governor intended during the conversations.

Ironically, the governor responded to the impeachment news from the James R. Thompson building in Chicago, a building named for the former prosecutor who secured a conviction of former governor Otto Kerner and several members of former mayor Richard Daley’s staff for corruption in office.

Meanwhile, on January 9, 2009, in Baltimore, Maryland, half a continent away, the mayor of the City Sheila Dixon was indicted on several charges of misconduct in office including misappropriation  of funds, theft, and perjury.

So, one could easily conclude that it is a date that will be remembered as a date connected with political scoundrels, from birth, through impeachment, to indictment.

 

And, in fact, the truth will support that the first two are political scoundrels: Nixon embarrassed himself and the nation many times over.  Perhaps the greatest embarrassment came when the taped conversations were released which showed his profanity laced discussions with staff-----demonstrating the interior vile nature of a man who always claimed to be a family valued man from a solid Quaker background.

Those conversations evidenced his intent to use the law enforcement and intelligence enforcement agencies of the federal government to suppress the truth and obstruct justice.  That intent was corroborative of eye witness, participant testimony presented to the House of Representatives by Nixon’s White House Counsel James Dean.  Testifying in detail from his notes and his schedule records, Dean laid forth the entire administration as having shunted national and international issues to the background as the obstruction of justice was covered up.

Every charge for impeachment was based upon events coming from the tapes evidencing the efforts by the president to violate the law.

But, how about Blagojevich and Dixon?  Is it as clear that they are scoundrels?  Well, the term means a “dishonorable or unprincipled person,” By the Encarta Dictionary.

Under that definition, Blagojevich fits the bill, even though his impeachment is shoddy in itself, and the potential of his conviction is less than good.

But, the telephone tapes, at least as far as they have been made public in court documents, do demonstrate an attitude toward the authority of the governor of an important state that is dishonorable, unprincipled at least.  The profane statements about potential appointees who wanted the job as Senator, and about the governor’s need to get money from them for the appointment certainly demonstrate both attributes.  No matter what his intent, statements such as those he made certainly demean the office of governor and the people of the state who voted for him.  His insistence that a medical facility should owe him money for putting into place a health program demeans the office, whether or not it proves that he took or sought a bribe for the health program.

As to mayor Dixon, the charges are certainly not very startling, given the fact that the state prosecutor has been searching her records, city records, private records and God knows what else for over three years.  However, her personal use of gift cards given to the city certainly was unwise, if not downright stupid.  If she used those cards to buy personal items for herself, friends, or family, then she is obviously dishonorable and unprincipled.  The people of the city who voted for her deserved better.  If she had a personal sexual affair with a highly visible person who does business with the city, that affair demonstrates conduct far worse than merely stupid----oh yes, it was stupid, but it too meets the dishonorable and unprincipled test of being a scoundrel.  No person elected to office by the voters should ever create even the perception of a conflict of interest by having sex with a person who does business with the government.

So, yes, January 9 can and will be forever linked to scoundrels---Nixon, Blagojevich and  Dixon.

But, will Blagojevich be convicted by the Senate, or should he be?  Will he be indicted and convicted of criminal acts, or should he be?

Will Dixon be tried and convicted of criminal acts, and then denied office, or should she be?

Should Nixon be remembered for anything other than his savagely embarrassing impeachment and resignation?

And, shouldn’t judgment be reserved on Blagojevich and Dixon by the public until the evidence is publicly in, admitted into evidence and put to the test by juries?

And, shouldn’t judgment on Nixon be tempered somewhat by anything good that he might have accomplished in office?

Discussion will continue tomorrow, on January 11.  But, January 9 was relevant to political shenanigans.

WATCH FOR LATER TODAYS ROUNDUP OF IMPORTANT EVENTS LINKED TO JANUARY 9-----

 

            On today’s date, in 1913, Richard M. Nixon was born;

 

Today Governor Blagojevich of Illinois, who calls Nixon his Hero was        impeached;

 

           Today, Mayor Dixon of Baltimore, Maryland was indicted.

 

Tomorrow:    “A Day for Scoundrels---January 9.”

JAN 09 2009

 

On October 12, 2007 in a Bay County Florida Courthouse a blatant example of Justice My Ass occurred at the expense of a 14 year old boy and his family.

Seven guards and one nurse at a Florida boot camp charged with aggravated manslaughter of 14 year old Martin Lee Anderson were acquitted despite this shocking video. http://nospank.net/7163793.200k.wmv (WARNING CONTAINS VIOLENT AND DISTURBING CONTENT) Guy Tunnell, the Florida department of Law Enforcement commissioner and former Bay County sheriff who originally opened the boot camp came under fire for alleged conflicts of interest. No kidding??!! Tunnell also was discovered sending emails to the current sheriff detailing his attempt to withhold the video. After being removed from the investigation there were reported comments made by him comparing Barack Obama to terrorist Osama Bin Laden and Rev. Jesse Jackson to Jesse James. Tunnell finally resigned.

Without said video the guards were able to have their own version of what happened and resulted in an autopsy that stated Anderson died of complications from sickle cell trait, a blood disorder in which the body produces abnormal type of the oxygen. Sickle cell trait is generally regarded as a benign condition and rarely causes death. Only after the video of the confrontation was released two months later did the governor order the body exhumed and a second autopsy performed. To no surprise if you watched it, the new autopsy stated that his death was caused by suffocation due to actions of the guards. A lack of oxygen was caused by holding his mouth closed while forcing him to inhale several ammonia capsules one time for close to five minutes.

For arguments sake yes Anderson was in this situation because he stole his grandmother’s car and violated his parole but look past his troubled history and his braided hair and especially past the contention that this beating was just business as usual. If it was then god help us if our loved ones make a mistake and end up under the supervision of people like these.

 Which is more astounding the fact that these eight people were acquitted even after a jury saw the video  and knowing that Governor Bush signed the Martin Lee Anderson Act that prohibits this kind of treatment or the admittance from the second in command Charles Helms Jr. that if the video had not existed no one would have been charged. Should we believe that the injustice here is that we know the truth about what happened or that the twelve people that could do something about it didn’t?

 

JAN 08 2009

 

‘ONE WORLD’ GOVERNMENT TAKES MANY FORMS  ALL OF WHICH ENDANGER PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

 

            (This NEW YEAR we have commenced an analysis of the effort by many organizations to undermine the national sovereignty of the United States in order to further the agenda of “one world” government.

 

             The effort is pernicious and invades our traditional rights from all corners and through multi-faceted tactics.  One element runs commonly through the tactics:  the move to take public control of private property.

 

             Some years ago, an intellectual article discussed the fact that the tenacity with which individuals in the United States held on to and protected their rights in private property hindered the progress of international cooperation and sovereignty.  One point made in the article was that it would be too costly for government to eliminate the private property ownership through eminent domain, so an alternative method must be found.  The tactic suggested was creation of “conservation easements”.  As spelled out, through the purchase of conservation easements one could permanently control the use of private property, then as the value of the property decreased and the owner of the land itself was forced to sell, the land could be bought at a greatly reduced price.

 

            In spite of this blatant warning, many landowners still sell conservation easements in order to assure that the use of their property always stays in agricultural status.  They see the easements as a method of assuring that their property is not developed into more multi residence subdivisions which blight the landscape in many parts of what were once rural agricultural settings.

 

           Conservation easements are created and sold, even though there are many alternatives which could protect against land development.  They are created and sold even in the face of horror stories of how land owners eventually lose their land values altogether.

 

         Make no mistake, conservation easements constitute a tactic of gaining public control of private property, making it far easier to enlarge the agenda of the global enthusiasts.

 

        We started our analysis with an intense, well documented, scholarly article by Vickie Davis exploring the background of the attack on national sovereignty from many fronts.  Each of the attacks can gain strength only at the expense of the sovereignty of the United States and at the expense of owners of private property.

 

        Today, we introduce conservation easements into the mix.  The following article has just appeared in one of the largest agricultural newspapers in the state of Wisconsin, a state where “smart growth” zoning and the spread of conservation easements endanger the rights of rural land owners.

 

       As the year progresses, we will explore “smart growth” in greater detail, conservation easements, habitat management programs, and wetland restoration plans in greater detail.  We will explore the NAFTA superhighway which is designed to link Mexico to Canada, with “open” trucking without restriction by U.S. Customs.  We will explore the many United Nations and world market programs and projects which share a common element:  undermining U.S. sovereignty.  And, we will find that each of the tactics we discuss will share the common element of threatening the right to own private property.

 

      Join in the discussion.)