Marita is saying: Executive power is overreaching, overzealous, dream-dashing

Greetings!

 

This afternoon I’ll be in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where I will be speaking for the New Mexico Cattlegrowers’ annual meeting. You’ll see a connection to today’s speech and this week’s column: Executive power: overreaching, overzealous, dream-dashing (attached and pasted-in-below). While I generally write on energy issues, sometimes I veer into ranching or logging as we have the same enemies, the same problems. Last month’s Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument has ranchers living in fear while those responsible for Obama’s largest national monument designation—so far—are smiling for the cameras.

 

As always, please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy!

 

I am off to Las Cruces!

 

 

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

Marita82313

 

For immediate release: June 9, 2014

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Exectuive power: overreaching, overzealous, dream-dashing

President Obama is in trouble with his usual allies, not to mention his ever-ready opponents, over two recent acts of excessive executive power: the Bergdahl prisoner swap and the new CO2 regulations announced on Monday, June 2.

 

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, has been publicaly critical of the administration’s decision not to adhere to a law requiring 30 days’ notice to Congress before releasing detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. Bloomberg reports: “she’s not convinced there was a ‘credible threat’ against the life of freed Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl that motivated the White House to keep its plans secret.”

 

Regarding the CO2 regulations, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairman, has come out against the president’s approach, saying: “This should not be achieved by EPA regulations. Congress should set the terms, goals and timeframe.” Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), who, like Landrieu is in a tough reelection fight, has come out with even stronger opposition to the president’s plan calling it: “Overreaching, overzealous, beyond the legal limit.” Rahall says the actions of the EPA “have truly run amok.”

 

Both stories have dominated the news cycle for the past week. Yet, just a couple of weeks earlier, another story of executive overreach got little coverage and the affected allies stood by the President’s side as he signed an order creating, what the Washington Post called: “the largest national monument of the Obama presidency so far.”

 

After years of heated local debate and despite polling that shows the people are not behind the president, on May 21, Obama declared the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks region of New Mexico, nearly 500,000 acres, a national monument—his eleventh such designation “so far.” Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, and Representative Ben Ray Lujan, (all D-NM) were present at the signing ceremony. The official Department of the Interior photo shows each of them with big smiles as they look on.

 

They should be happy. Udall and Heinrich had previously proposed similar federal legislation. Praising the president’s effort, Udall said: “The president’s decision finally puts into motion a plan that began with the people of southern New Mexico, who wanted to ensure these special places would continue to be available for local families and visitors to hike, hunt and learn from the hundreds of significant historic sites throughout the area for generations to come.”

 

But not everyone is smiling. The Las Cruces Sun-News (LCSN) reports: “Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, whose congressional district covers the region, issued a statement taking issue with Obama’s use of the 1906 U.S. Antiquities Act, saying monuments created under it are supposed to cover only the ‘smallest area compatible’ with the designation. He contended the approval ‘flies in the face of the democratic process.’” Pearce’s statement says: “This single action has erased six years of work undertaken by Doña Ana County ranchers, business owners, conservationists, sportsmen officials and myself to develop a collaborative plan for the Organ Mountains that would have preserved the natural resource and still provided future economic opportunities.”

 

Ranchers and off-road vehicle users have opposed the large-scale monument. The LCSN states: “In particular, ranchers have been concerned about impacts to their grazing allotments on public lands in the wake of the new monument.”

 

Steve Wilmeth, a vocal ranching advocate, whose family has been ranching in New Mexico since 1880 says his ranch, and many others with whom he’s worked side-by-side, will be impacted by the designation. “The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument designation puts America’s ranchers on a glide path to destruction. The full implications won’t be known until the management plan is complete, but, due to the private lands that are embedded within the designation and based on historic evidence, with a single stroke of his pen, President Obama’s actions has likely put the livelihood of nearly 100 families fully in jeopardy, and, based on all other such designations will likely destroy what many, myself included, have spent a lifetime creating.”

 

Wilmeth’s view is based on experience. Another New Mexico rancher, Randall Major, lost his ranch due to the El Malpais National Monument designation. In a letter detailing his story, Major explained: “On December 31, 1987, our area was designated as the El Malpais NCA [National Conservation Area] and National Monument. This made a third of our allotment wilderness, a third NCA, and a third non-NCA. At this time, the El Malpais NCA was to be managed by the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and required the BLM to develop a general management plan for the management of the NCA.”

 

Major was told the plan didn’t affect his grazing allotment. However, he states: “after getting and reading the plan, I found out they wanted big changes on our allotment; such as the closing of most of our roads that we travel on to conduct our business—putting out salt, supplements, and repairing and maintaining our waters. They had plans to keep our livestock out of our springs for riparian area purposes.  There is a long list of things that I could go on and on.”

 

Major says that the landowners were not included in the planning process. He quotes the BLM as saying: “It is our priority for acquisition of lands containing natural and or cultural resources requiring management or protection, and or lands needed for visitor access and facility development. For those areas where private uses are incompatible with NCA goals and purposes or where important resources are on private land.”

 

Major concludes: “It is my opinion that the radical environmental groups have teamed up with our federal agencies. Their goal is to take control of all the land and put ranchers out of business. It is a sad day in this country when this is allowed to happen. …  My hat is off to ranchers who continue to fight for the property that belongs to them.”

 

On a recent radio interview featuring Congressman Pearce, Wilmeth, and Colin Woodall, Vice President, Government Affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, discussing the new national monument, Woodhall pointed out that DC is not worried about ranchers and Pearce said: “The law allows the agencies to destroy you and there’s nothing you can do.” Agency personnel are appointed and hired by the federal government. They have great authority but little accountability—holding positions of power that can’t be voted out.

 

The law Pearce is referencing is known as the Antiquities Act, signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1906. The Act for the Preservation of Antiquities limited Presidential authority for National Monument designations to Federal Government-owned lands and to, as Pearce referenced, “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects protected.” The Antiquities Act also authorized “relinquishment” of lands owned privately, authorizing the Federal Government to take land. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requires owners be compensated by the rest of us taxpayers. But fair market value can change dramatically when a policy change triggered by laws such as the Antiquities Act modifies the broad multiple use category for large segments of the federal estate to limited and recreational use.”

 

Addressing his Techado Allotment 50 miles south of Grants, New Mexico, originally purchased in 1968, Major says: “In the year 2003, we tried to be willing sellers.  … They would not offer us value of the land based on neighboring comparable sales. They would not compensate us for our improvements on the allotment, such as, fences, waters, corrals, buildings, etc.”

 

While the Federal Government owns much of National Monument land, private, tribal and state lands are often enclosed inside new designations. Essentially, an Antiquities Act presidential proclamation transfers valuable “multiple use” land into a restricted use category as management plans can disallow historical use.

 

History shows that in cases where the Antiquities Act has been used—whether for a National Conservation Area, a National Park, or a National Monument—mining claims were extinguished, homes have been torn down, communities have been obliterated, and working landscapes been destroyed. The National Park Service Association’s website states: “ultimately, the Park Service is expected to own and manage virtually all privately owned lands within park boundaries.  … private inholdings can disrupt or destroy park views, undermine the experience of visitors, and often diminish air and water quality while simultaneously increasing light and noise pollution. Park Service managers have stated … that privately owned land within park boundaries creates gaps that shatter the integrity of individual parks and the system as a whole, and make it more difficult and expensive for the Park Service to protect key resources.”

 

Proof of my claims can be found in the sad tales of federal land grabs, including what happened to the town of McCarthy, Alaska, when President Carter used the Antiquities Act to create the Wrangell-St. Elias National Monument in 1978; Ohio’s Cuyahoga River Valley’s conversion from “a patchwork of lovely scenery and structures: row crops and orchards, pastures and woodlots, barns and farmhouses, and tractors working the fields” as Dan O’Neill called it in A Land Gone Lonesome, to the Cuyahoga River Valley National Recreation Area that razed more than 450 homes; and what happened in Utah when President Clinton declared 1.7 million acres to be the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that locked out a lot of ranchers and potential coal mining.

 

At an April 2013 Congressional hearing, Commissioner John Jones of Carbon County, Utah, told the Committee: “Please don’t insult rural communities with the notion that the mere designation of National Monuments and the restrictions on the land which follow are in any way a substitute for long-term wise use of the resources and the solid high wage jobs and economic certainty which those resources provide.”

 

Supporters of National Monuments often tout the economic benefits tourism will bring. Former Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar has said: “There’s no doubt that these monuments will serve as economic engines for the local communities through tourism and outdoor recreation—supporting economic growth and creating jobs.” The LCSN reported: “Many supporters of the Organ Mountains Desert-Peaks National Monument have argued it will boost the local economy by attracting tourists to the area.” Yet, Commissioner Jones, in his testimony, asked: “If recreation and tourism, which are supposed to accompany the designation of national monuments, are such an economic benefit to local communities, why is the school system in Escalante, Utah, in the heart of the Grand Staircase, about to close due to a continual decline in local population since the monument was created?”

 

Bill Childress is the Regional BLM director who will oversee the management plan for the new Organ Mountains Desert-Peaks National Monument—expected to take five years (long after Obama is out of office). He says that “at least for now” changes will not be noticed by many people. However, according to the LCNS, “some roads or trails could be closed after that document takes effect.” The LCNS report, What’s next for the Organ Mountains Desert-Peaks National Monument?, continues: “Asked if ranchers should be concerned about curtailment of their grazing rights after the record of decision has been made, Childress said: ‘I can’t prejudge the decision. All I can say is most monument lands that the bureau manages permit grazing. We do have a few examples where that’s not the case in small areas. But, (the proclamation) acknowledges that we need to manage those and make decisions on grazing based on the existing rules, and that’s what we plan on doing.”

 

New Mexico ranchers know the history and they are worried. According to the LCSN: “Jerry Schickendanz, chairman of the Western Heritage Alliance, which opposed the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks designation, said a key concern of the group is that ranching wasn’t listed prominently among the list of resources in Obama’s monument declaration.”

 

The impact goes beyond ranching. The LCNS reporting says: “the proclamation prevents the BLM from selling or getting rid of any of the land, allowing new mining claims or permitting oil and natural gas exploration.”

 

Federal land management policy has shifted from managing working landscapes populated by productive resource-based communities of ranchers, farmers, loggers, and miners, to a recreational landscape intended to delight visitors. This is especially troubling in the West where the vast majority of many states is owned by the federal government.

 

At the signing of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument Declaration, Obama repeated his State of the Union Address pledge: “I’m searching for more opportunities to preserve federal lands.” It is New Mexico today, but your community could be impacted next.

 

In Nevada, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Senator Dean Heller (R) has just warned Obama “against designating a national monument in the Gold Butte region of Clark County.”  Unlike Udall and Heinrich, who happily supported the New Mexico designation, Heller is quoted as saying: “I am extremely concerned about the impact a unilateral designation will have on my state.”

 

The Review-Journal states: “There has been heightened sensitivity among Western conservatives since Obama on May 21 designated 500,000 acres in the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks region of southern New Mexico as a national monument that would allow it to be managed more like a national park. They have bristled at what they regard as federal ‘land grabs’ exercised by the president without approval by Congress, and seek to head off further designations.”

 

While there are some cases where Congress has abolished National Monuments and transferred the lands to other agencies, and Alaska and Wyoming have enacted legislation prohibiting the president’s power to 5,000 acres, New Mexico’s ranchers live in raw fear of the unlimited power the Antiquities Act allows the executive branch.

 

Hundreds of millions of acres have been set aside with the stroke of a pen. Each designation provides a photo op featuring a smiling President and his allies (Udall, Heinrich, and Lujan) with stunning pictures of the latest protected place. All while somewhere within the borders of a state or territory someone’s access is taken, someone’s hunting and fishing grounds are gone, someone’s land has been grabbed, someone’s life’s work is wiped out, and opportunities for the American dream of a future rancher, farmer, miner are dashed.

 

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Marita Noon: Obama’s Nonsense SOTU 2014

Marita pulls truth from Obama’s nonsense.

Link to: Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities?

Greetings!

Last night we saw Denver’s disappointing performance. Last week President Obama had much the same experience. Even his fans have been critical. In my column this week, Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities? (attached and pasted-in-below), I dissect the SOTU looking at the energy implications and add in relevant data and observations. As I am fond of doing, I used the SOTU to connect some dots and introduce some information of which most people are unaware. I think it is a good piece—though it’s response on Townhall has been dismal. For those of you who post my work, I hope it does better for you.

Thanks for posting, passing on and/or personally enjoying Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities?

Marita Noon, Executive Director

Energy Makes America Great, Inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

For immediate release: February 3, 2014

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1246

Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities?

The State of The Union Address (SOTU) reminded me of the idiom, “on one hand, on the other hand.”

On one hand, President Obama extoled efforts to increase fuel efficiency to “help America wean itself off foreign oil.” He touted the new reality of “more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years.” On the other hand, he promised to use his “authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations”—which is code for more national monuments and endangered species designations that will lock up federal lands from productive use.   

 

Electricity and extreme poverty

Concern was expressed for Americans who “are working more than ever just to get by.” He wants to help Africans “double access to electricity and help end extreme poverty.” But his policies are limiting access to electricity in America and raising the cost (20% in the past 6 years). Higher-cost energy is the most punitive to those struggling “just to get by.”

The “Energy Cost Impacts on American Families, 2001-2013” report found: “Lower-income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher-income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets, reducing the amount of income that can be spent on food, housing, health care, and other necessities. Nearly one-third of U.S. households had gross annual incomes less than $30,000 in 2011. Energy costs accounted for an average of 27% of their family budgets, before taking into account any energy assistance.” The report shows the 27% is an 11% increase over the 2001 energy cost impact. For households with an after-tax income higher than $50,000, the 2001 percentage was 5 and the 2013: 9—a 4% increase. For low- and middle-income families, energy costs are now consuming a portion of after-tax household income comparable to that traditionally spent on major categories such as housing, food, and health care—with black, Hispanic and senior households being hit especially hard.

 

All of the above

President Obama took credit for his “‘all of the above’ energy strategy” which, he claims has “moved America closer to energy independence than we have been in decades.” And, regarding natural gas, he says that he’ll “cut red tape to help states get those factories built and put folks to work.” POTUS proclaimed: “I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.” The Department of Energy has dozens of permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities languishing on some bureaucrat’s desk. One of the few approved terminals: Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Project in Cameron Parish Louisiana, created more than 2000 jobs in 2013 and looks to create another 2000 jobs in 2014. President Obama, please act on your own here. Cut the red tape and slash the bureaucracy. Let’s get those permits issued.

A January 16, 2013, letter sent to the White House from 18 environmental groups, whose opinions seem to be held in such high regard by the Obama administration, challenged the president’s approach—calling “all of the above” a “compromise that future generations can’t afford.” The letter states: “We believe that continued reliance on an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution and would undermine our nation’s capacity to respond to the threat of climate disruption.” They claim: “an ‘all of the above’ approach that places virtually no limits on whether, when, where or how fossil fuels are extracted ignores the impacts of carbon-intense fuels and is wrong for America’s future.” The groups see it as a threat to “our most sensitive lands.” Despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, they posit: “clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels” save Americans money. The letter concludes: “We believe that a climate impact lens should be applied to all decisions regarding new fossil fuel development, and urge that a ‘carbon-reducing clean energy’ strategy rather than an ‘all of the above’ strategy become the operative paradigm for your administration’s energy decisions.”

 

Climate Change

As if an executive decree could make it so, he announced: “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” True, climate change is a fact—the climate changes, always has, always will. But the debate as to what causes it or what should be done about it is far from “settled.” “We have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods,” he announced. However, droughts and floods have been going on throughout history when CO2 emissions (which he calls “carbon pollution”) were much lower than today. His solution? “The shift to a cleaner economy,” which gobbles up taxpayer dollars in crony corruption (more than 30 such projects have gone bust since the 2009 stimulus bill released nearly $100 billion for “clean energy”).

A story in the January 25, 2013, Economist titled “European climate policy: worse than useless” starts: “Since climate change was identified as a serious threat to the planet, Europe has been in the vanguard of the effort to mitigate it.” Europe has been the global leader in climate change policies that are, according to The Economist: “dysfunctional.” The “worse than useless” piece states: “Had Europe’s policies worked better, other countries might have been more inclined to emulate the leaders in the field.” It points out that Europe’s “largest source of renewable energy” is wood.

A companion article in the same issue of The Economist, “Europe’s energy woes,” states: “Europeans are more concerned with the cost of climate-change policies than with their benefits. European industries pay three to four times more for gas, and over twice as much for electricity, as American ones.” Calling the EU “a lone front-runner without followers,” the article points out: “it is hard to sell the idea of higher energy prices, particularly when the rest of the world is doing too little to cut greenhouse gases.” Rather than learning from Europe, like a lemming, President Obama apparently wants to lead America off the same “useless” cliff.

 

Minimum wage

He believes that the minimum wage needs to be increased to $10.10 an hour. He wants to “Give America a raise.” Yet, in North Dakota’s boom economy, workers at Walmart and McDonalds are paid in the teens—without government meddling. The best wages are paid with a fully employed workforce. The Keystone XL pipeline would provide thousands of good paying (often union) jobs, but, it was never mentioned in the 2014 SOTU. (By the way, the long-awaited report on Keystone was released on Friday. It found that “the project would have a minimal impact on the environment.” Politico calls the report: “a major disappointment to climate activists.”)

President Obama, you are correct when you say, “opportunity is who we are,” but your policies hurt the poor and block job creation. My question for you echoes what you asked early in the SOTU address: “The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress.” Are you going to help Americans or hinder our opportunities? This question should run through every decision you make in 2014.

On one hand, you say you want to help. On the other hand, everything you do hinders.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

 Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Permanent Press To Wrinkle Our Permanent Fund

A “permanent press,” on the legislature to dip or pump from New Mexico’s permanent fund continues from those believing money is the answer to our dismal ranking among the fifty states in education of children.  The following is posted with permission of the New Mexico Business Coalition.  Take it seriously … it contains sage advice.

The Truth About New Mexico’s Permanent Fund:  The NM State Land Grant Permanent Fund currently provides about 15% of the state’s general fund.  According to Doug Brown, a former State Investment Council Vice Chairman and current Dean of UNM’s Anderson School of Management, without money each year from the permanent fund, New Mexicans would be paying at least 15% higher taxes.  Read more HERE.
 

Why Do People Trying to Raid the Permanent Fund Hate our Children?  Billions of dollars have been spent over the past years under the heading of ‘Head Start’ and other early childhood education titles.  Yet our children’s educational success ranks at the bottom of the nation. 

At a recent New Mexico Business Coalition (NMBC) event in Albuquerque, Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self Governance, talked about New Mexico’s Permanent Fund asking “…what happened to all the money that has been wasted and all the lives that have been destroyed….” by those now wanting to raid the permanent fund?  See the video HERE.

 

Mafia Tactics by Partisan Leaders:  Some elected officials and Sam Bregman, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, have declared raiding New Mexico’s Permanent Fund their top priority for the 30-day legislative session.  Many are using tactics like pushing for a constitutional amendment, which the Governor cannot veto, and THREATENING any legislator who gets in the way. 

 

Senator John Arthur Smith responded to the threats from Sam Bregman: “…he doesn’t believe there’s any place for an individual that is trying to be financially responsible.”   Read more here.

DON’T TOUCH THE PERMANENT FUND:   The 5.75 percent annually withdrawn from our permanent fund already exceeds a maximum 5 percent cap that prudent states and economists recommend for preservation of the fund.  New Mexico absolutely cannot allow raising the level of distributions, if we want to provide for our children’s future educational needs.

If left alone, the fund will continue to grow and distributions will increase by more than the amounts currently sought by progressives, who obviously do not care about our children’s future.

CALL TO ACTION:  We urge New Mexicans to take a stand against harming our children’s future!  Please call or email all legislators, especially those serving in leadership of both chambers and tell them “DON’T TOUCH THE PERMANENT FUND.”

SENATE LEADERSHIP CONTACT INFO HERE:
Mary Kay Papen, Pro Tempore
Michael S. Sanchez, Majority Floor Leader
Stuart Ingle, Minority Floor Leader
Timothy M. Keller, Majority Whip
William H. Payne, Minority Whip

HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONTACT INFO HERE:
W. Ken Martinez, Speaker of the House
Rick Miera, Majority Floor Leader
Donald E. Bratton, Minority Floor Leader
Antonio “Moe” Maestas, Majority Whip
Nate Gentry, Minority Whip


ALL SENATORS CONTACT INFO HERE


ALL REPRESENTATIVES CONTACT INFO HERE


Join the NMBC NOW
— We Have A Membership Category For Everyone.

P.O. Box 95735, Albuquerque, NM 87199, United States
You may unsubscribe or change your contact details at any time.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hillary ReDo

Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong (Photo credit: ironmanixs)

Which one is not like the other?

Hillary Clinton in Concord, New Hampshire

Hillary Clinton in Concord, New Hampshire (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HillaryRedoNYT2WebCR-1_2_14

Enhanced by Zemanta

Epoxied To Politics — Tea Party Sticking To Its Principles

Is this good news from bad messengers?

The Gadsden flag

The Gadsden flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following article comes from Brietbart’s Big Government.  Taken from the writings of a couple of progressive “misses,” the message seems to be good news for Tea Party sorts and regular conservatives, but perhaps not so much for liberals, progressives and main-stream or establishment Republicans.

Of course being progressives from Harvard, the originators of the supposition of a long-lived Tea Party movement had to insert their obligatory thoughts (opinions?) about radicalism and prejudice against minorities among the Tea Party members. We know by now that that old dog won’t hunt and never has.

Just below is the first part of the Brietbart piece followed by a link to the rest and links to related articles.

HARVARD PROF: TEA PARTY NOT GOING ANYWHERE, MORE LIKELY TO WIN

by TONY LEE 29 Dec 2013

A government and sociology professor at Harvard writes that the Tea Party is more likely than not to “win in the end” in an age when Americans are becoming more removed from Washington and distrusting the federal government and their elected officials.

“Tea Party forces will still win in the end,” Theda Skocpol writes, unless moderate Republicans can defeat them. Skocpol concedes that the Tea Party “will triumph just by hanging on long enough” as Americans are getting fed up by “our blatantly manipulated democracy and our permanently hobbled government.”

The article, “Why The Tea Party Isn’t Going Anywhere,” was first published in the journal Democracy, and later reprinted in The Atlantic.

Despite the fact that Democrats, the mainstream media, and the Republican establishment again were predicting the “demise of the Tea Party” immediately after the government shutdown ended, Skocpol doesn’t believe so.

“But we have heard all this before,” she writes. “The Tea Party’s hold on the GOP persists beyond each burial ceremony.”

Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson published a book in 2011 that “showed how bottom-up and top-down forces intersect to give the Tea Party both leverage over the Republican Party and the clout to push national politics sharply to the right.”

“At the grassroots, volunteer activists formed hundreds of local Tea Parties, meeting regularly to plot public protests against the Obama Administration and place steady pressure on GOP organizations and candidates at all levels,” they found. “At least half of all GOP voters sympathize with this Tea Party upsurge.”

Though Skokpol and Williamson have their typical biases and describe the Tea Party movement as a “radical” one that may not like minorities–without any evidence of that assertion–they acknowledge that “even though there is no one center of Tea Party authority—indeed, in some ways because there is no one organized center—the entire gaggle of grassroots” and outside groups that support the movement “wields money and primary votes to exert powerful pressure on Republican officeholders and candidates.”

You can finish this article by clicking here

Establishment Republicans Shoving Tea Party Away

So, its looks and feels as though the “establishment republicans,” (ER) are pushing the tea party organizations away from all things republican, but they have already dropped most of their previous conservative planks in their platform … if they truly had one.  As a republican and a tea party member, it might serve the greater good if the tea party rid themselves of the bucket of vipers that the establishment republicans have morphed into  in order to get along with their dance partners on the left side of the aisle.

On the day after several elections in this nation, many pundits have written off the tea party with showers of applause from the ER.

In some elections, the ER have cut their nose off to spite their face.  While the tea party suffered some losses when their supported republicans were ran over by ER money, it is nice to see that a money grubber (Terry McCullough) barely eked out a win in Virginia:

Here’s the story:

The National Republican Senate Committee, the GOP campaign arm responsible for Senate elections, has decided to use its political power to block consulting firm Jamestown Associates from receiving political work from GOP candidates or incumbents.

Jamestown’s “sin” is working with the Senate Conservative Fund, an organization that supports conservative candidates for the US Senate.

NRSC communications staffer Brad Dayspring, a former spokesman for House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), told The New York Times on Friday, “We’re not going to do business with people who profit off of attacking Republicans. Purity for profit is a disease that threatens the Republican Party.”

Jamestown Associates has done work with the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a conservative group largely responsible for the elections of Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Ron Johnson (R-WI), among others. Former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who left the U.S. Senate last year to become the president of the Heritage Foundation, founded SCF.

“In a warning shot to outside conservative groups, the National Republican Senatorial Committee this week informed a prominent Republican advertising firm that it would not receive any contracts with the campaign committee because of its work with a group that targets incumbent Senate Republicans,” the Times wrote.

“Even more striking,” the Times continued, “a senior official at the committee called individual Republican Senate campaigns and other party organizations this week and urged them not to hire the firm, Jamestown Associates, in an effort to punish them for working for the Senate Conservatives Fund, a group founded by Jim DeMint, then a South Carolina senator, that is trying to unseat Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and some other incumbents up for re-election next year whom it finds insufficiently conservative.”

The Times notes that a large part of the reason why SCF has drawn the ire of the GOP establishment is its endorsement of McConnell’s primary challenger, businessman Matt Bevin. McConnell’s chief of staff Josh Holmes, who is now working for the NRSC through the election, told the Times that McConnell plans to beat up SCF for being conservative like he would if it were a bar fight. “S.C.F. has been wandering around the country destroying the Republican Party like a drunk who tears up every bar they walk into,” Holmes said. “The difference this cycle is that they strolled into Mitch McConnell’s bar and he doesn’t throw you out, he locks the door.”

Click here to finish the article from Breitbart’s Big Government

Enhanced by Zemanta

Blame Democrats On Shutdown

The letter shown below was recently published in two local area newspapers.  The letter was in response to letters in both newspapers submitted by Ann Ruhnka.

Here is a link to Ann Ruhnka’s letter which appeared in one area newspaper:

Link to Ruhnka’s letter In Mountain View Telegraph

Blame Democrats on Shutdown

 Well Ann Ruhnka finally got one thing right, that the government shutdown was grossly irresponsible.  However, the fault lies solely at the feet of the Democrats and Obama, who refused to negotiate, who are so fiscally irresponsible (outrageously unresponsible) who put their ill conceived policies before the country and the American people (her words), that they refused to even consider a number of proposals that would have kept the government running.  You see, these words blaming the Republicans must clearly be redirected to the Democrats instead.

 

Fiscally irresponsible defines the party who supports the Affordable (ha!) Health Care Act that was conceived at a lower amount, and then increased to a mere trillion dollars.  The true cost is now $3 trillion (with a T) according to the OMB. The House of Representatives is responsible for appropriation of funding for government programs.  The House Republicans simply did their job, as they did not believe that such an irresponsible program should be funded.  The Heritage Foundation states it is beyond dispute that Congress can use its power of the purse to defund Obamacare—both its mandatory and discretionary spending—in appropriations legislation this fall.  

 

The truth is Obama plans to raise everybody’s taxes in order to pay for Obamacare.  He needs to tell the truth and start accounting for what he is paying out this money for…where is it going, who is getting it (e.g. Michelle’s classmate was awarded the no-bid CGI contract that developed the failed website for Obamacare). The stories of major increases in premiums and deductibles, reductions of full to part time jobs, the lost coverage with terminations of plans in the millions, and at least 18 new taxes, are just the tip of the iceberg for this repulsive plan.  Not only will it represent a take over of one-sixth of the economy by an incompetent, wasteful government who can’t even get the start-up right, it will be enforced by a corrupt internal revenue service.  Who in their right mind would support such a program?  Thank God the few Republicans in the House stood their ground…for now. 

 

How many of us were really harmed, or even noticed the shutdown? (There could be a few legitimate cases of harm in New Mexico which has more government workers than most.)  The furloughed workers are promised to receive all of their back pay.  The real harm in the shut down was caused by barricading the WW II memorial, “revealing the mentality of a tin-pot dictator” according to columnist George Will. He further states, “The same punish-the-people attitude led to shutdowns of other parks and historic sites that get no federal funding.  “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can.  It’s disgusting,” a Park Service ranger told The Washington Times.  I’ve been saying for a while that there is no bottom to Obama. He’s not just ruthless. He’s without scruples and honor.”

 

With regard to the new Obamacare act being considered law, it is disgraceful that it was passed in the dark of night, having not even been read, by law-makers who were coerced into submission.  The scandal continued with the Supreme Court re-writing the law and making it a tax, instead of performing their job of interpreting the law and applying Constitutional principles.  According to the Heritage Foundation, while the Supreme Court has ruled on the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, dozens of lawsuits remain pending on various other aspects of the law.  How can we accept it as law when it keeps changing without Congressional approval, with Obama’s exemptions to favored cronies and labor unions, the revisions in certain implementation provisions, and the audacity to say this law of the land does not apply to Congress and their employees?  These changes were not part of the original law.  Obama does not have the authority to just change the law at his whim.

 

Lastly, closing of the government and refusing to increase the debt limit will not cause default any more than not increasing your credit limit means you can’t pay your monthly credit card bill.  (Increasing the debt limit will, however, foolishly allow the increase in debt.)  The money coming into the government at any time will be enough to cover our debts.  This is another dishonest sham being propagated by Obama and the Democrats, another lie to create another crisis with the next budget and debt-limit deadline. Just to be clear, next November voters must remember that Obama’s shutdown and reckless-spending partners in Congress were all Democrats. 

Susan Hill

Edgewood

Susan Hill is an Edgewood resident and a member of the Sandia Tea Party

Enhanced by Zemanta

MainScreamers Blame Republicans For Shutdown … No Blame On Demorats

Networks blamed shutdown on GOP in 41 stories — 0 for Dems

By PAUL BEDARD | OCTOBER 17, 2013 AT 12:02 PM

Republicans never expected to get a fair shake in the Big Three networks’ coverage of the 16-day government shutdown, but the final tally of stories blaming the GOP is stunning: 41 stories blamed Republicans and zero blamed Democrats.

Read More

Enhanced by Zemanta