Jul 28, 2011
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Question Americans Should Be Asking
“The Constitution, which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” –George Washington
Barack Hussein Obama’s refusal to send a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the states as condition of House Speaker John Boehner’s support for raising the national debt ceiling has pushed federal funding negotiations to the precipice of the Treasury Department’s 2 August default deadline. Boehner has retreated on the House’s “cut, cap and balance” plan and its BBA provision is no longer a stipulation in negotiations. He has also reduced the “cuts” in the House plan, and may acquiesce to the larger debt ceiling increase the Democrats want in order to avoid another debt ceiling battle prior to the 2012 elections.
Notably, most House conservatives, including the Tea Party freshmen, are standing with Boehner, choosing a pragmatic approach until 2012, when they hope to strengthen their numbers in the House and Senate, and retake the presidency.
The current budget debate was the first serious consideration of a BBA since it was advocated by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and later passed by the House as part of the Republican Contract with America in 1995. (At that time, it received 300 votes, including 72 Democrats.)
Now, as then, Leftist Democrats in the Senate have created a formidable gauntlet to its passage because it would severely undermine their power to redistribute wealth, power that is the only assurance of their perpetual re-election. A BBA would sunset their dynasty.
So, where to from here, and what question should conservatives be asking? First, let me offer a brief review of the current budget/debt crisis
Jul 28, 2011
PNP Comment: Wow, this is so packed with bias and lies from another leftist-liberal media. It is disgusting. We have scientists that have proven and Fish and Game officials have admitted that there will be destruction of the salmon runs. How will the salmon win, if the salmon runs are destroyed? — Editor Liz Bowen
By Anne Minard
Published July 25, 2011
A controversial plan to remove four dams from the Klamath River to save endangered salmon could make its way to Congress in the coming weeks.
Capitol Hill lawmakers will consider taking down California’s Iron Gate, Copco 2, Copco 1, and John C. Boyle dams at a cost of about $1 billion, half of that potentially funded with federal tax dollars.
The removal plan has the backing of several Native American tribes on the Klamath who rely on the river for salmon fishing, as well as farmers who depend on its water for irrigation. The plan also has the support of PacifiCorp, Warren Buffett’s power company, which owns the dams.
Buffett’s company could benefit from dam removal because it might cost more to install the required modifications for fish passage if the dams remain. But if dams come down, salmon would be the biggest winners.
Salmon runs have dwindled in the past century—from millions of fish to less than 100,000 in most years—primarily because of the dams, according to nonprofit environmental groups such as American Rivers and native tribes that depend on the fish. Those same groups say hits to water quality such as farm runoff are also to blame.
Mike Belchik is a fisheries biologist for the Yurok Tribe in California. The tribe maintains that it has relied on the fish since “time immemorial,” Belchick says, adding that archaeologists say humans have lived and fished in the area for at least 9,000 years. He says taking out the dams would allow the fish to return to their historic and more productive cold-water mountain streams, which are currently blocked by the dams, and help resolve disruptions to the main stem Klamath where they’re just barely hanging on today.
READ entire article:
Jul 28, 2011
To the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Info: EPA (206) 553-0050
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Federal Register published Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.
The EPA and Corps of Engineers are moving to seize control of all U.S. waters. Since he who controls the water controls the land, these new slight-of-hand regulations would largely give the EPA and Corps substantial controls over all private and Federal land as well as nearly all waters. They will lead to many arbitrary and capricious decisions.
The Guidance policy will, when final, give EPA broader authority to regulate bodies of water that had been the responsibility of state level water managers.
The EPA’s push for greater reach through the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction amounts to the Agency overturning two U.S. Supreme Court decisions at the same time the Agency is disregarding concerns of Members of Congress.
By publishing a draft Guidance document in the Federal Register the EPA and Corps are giving field staff freedom to choose and determine jurisdictional control. The result will be more arbitrary and capricious decisions.
EPA and the Corps have effectively overturned two U. S. Supreme Court decisions that currently limit their authority and jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to “Navigable Waters.”
The Guidance would give EPA and Corps a large degree of control over all waters of the United States.
By publishing this draft Guidance, EPA and Corps have clearly ignored the Intent of Congress. The current draft Guidance is full of vague definitions allowances for broad interpretations that show little respect for the practical implications of their actions on the American people.
The draft Guidance is intended to give EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers unprecedented control over all U.S. waters and therefore nearly all land. Because of the association of control over all US Waters to control all land, this Guidance is a clear threat to American’s property rights.
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers separate the vital tie between private property owners and their local communities using these new regulations.
This means the private property rights of farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers and the important relationship between local communities and those property owners will be greatly changed. This relationship between private property owners and their local communities is a critical economic system that will be severely damaged by these new regulations and the change in this relationship.
If approved, this policy direction will lead to the bankruptcy of landowners, builders, farmers, ranchers and many others who must use the land and associated waters for American’s food and fiber.
Breaking the relationship between the private property owners and their local communities will create severe economic consequences to the communities themselves.
Over 150 Members of Congress have stated in a letter that they each signed that this published draft Guidance will lead to a super water regulation that includes a vast overreach by the EPA and the Corps.