Saturday, October 30, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
RESTORING AMERICA - Dr. Michael Coffman
Why America is Deeply Divided and How to Heal It Constitutionally - http://agenda21isevil.com/
Dr. Michael Coffman one of the leading experts on United Nations Agenda 21 and how it is being used to undermine our society through the phony environmental agenda, Growth Management/Smart Growth, etc. He has a Ph.D. in Forest Science and has 25 years of experience in ecosystem research in both the public and private sectors. He played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Global Biodiversity Treaty in the United States Senate within hours of the cloture vote. He is currently President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI) and CEO of Sovereignty International. He has recently released the book RestoringAmerica : Why America
For those of you interested in getting to know Dr Michael Coffman, you can listen to these Dr. Stan Radio Liberty http://www.radioliberty.com/ interviews where he is talking about his new book. For those of you who cannot go to see Doctor Coffman personally this will be better than nothing.
http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/090910c.mp3
http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/091010b.mp3
Dr. Michael Coffman one of the leading experts on United Nations Agenda 21 and how it is being used to undermine our society through the phony environmental agenda, Growth Management/Smart Growth, etc. He has a Ph.D. in Forest Science and has 25 years of experience in ecosystem research in both the public and private sectors. He played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Global Biodiversity Treaty in the United States Senate within hours of the cloture vote. He is currently President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI) and CEO of Sovereignty International. He has recently released the book Restoring
For those of you interested in getting to know Dr Michael Coffman, you can listen to these Dr. Stan Radio Liberty http://www.radioliberty.com/ interviews where he is talking about his new book. For those of you who cannot go to see Doctor Coffman personally this will be better than nothing.
http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/090910c.mp3
http://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net:8080/091010b.mp3
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Senators support illegal immigration super highway
By Marita Noon / For the Sun-News
Posted: 09/07/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Twenty-three Senators have recently thrown their support behind an innocent looking bill that will, among other things, create an illegal immigration superhighway, remove access to natural resources, and ultimately strip ranchers of their grazing rights, all under the auspices of preserving wilderness.
When New Mexico s Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall introduced S.B. 1689 in September 2009, immigration was barely a blip on the public s radar. Over the last year, other issues such as stimulus spending, health care, and cap-and-trade have stolen the spotlight. Their harmless sounding bill, which makes land in New Mexico part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Landscape Conversation System, received virtually no attention. However, it has percolated to the top as the markup of the bill has been approved (23-0) and is headed to the Senate floor.
Now that immigration is in the spotlight as non-border states mimic Arizona's controversial immigration law, polls show that the majority of the public wants to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. S.B. 1689 will disappoint that majority.
Unless people speak up, this New Mexico bill will sail through on a professional courtesy to Sens. Bingaman and Udall. Senators give lip service to the demands for closed borders, yet 23 voted to move S.B. 1689 to the floor. Supporters, including, McCain, Alexander, Landrieu, and Lincoln, need to be held accountable.
In southern New Mexico the proposed Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness National Conservation Area sets aside a long north/south strip of land just miles from the border that contains all the elements that make it perfect for the movement of both human and drug trafficking: wilderness/de facto wilderness safe havens; east /west highway access; rugged and complex north/south mountain and drainage orientation; and high, strategic points of observation.
In northern New Mexico the Bingaman/Udall partnership co-sponsored S.B. 874 (El Rio Grande Del Norte National Conservation Establishment Act) again impacts land near the border the border of Colorado and New Mexico. This land is rich in natural resources. If Bingaman and Udall have their way, these resources will never be developed, needed jobs will not be created, and state revenues will be reduced.
In both the north and the south, the parcels proposed for conservation contain both state and federal lands that are leased for farming, ranching, and oil and gas extraction. Specifically stated within S.B.1689 is the withdrawal of Operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials and geothermal leasing laws. The wilderness of 1964 specifically forbids the use of motorized vehicles. The elimination of motorized vehicles devastates land management and the ability to pursue traffickers.
In the immigration superhighway, The Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, Border Patrol will be prevented from chasing traffickers in motorized vehicles. Will illegals be concerned about damaging the wilderness? No. They will have a fleet of vehicles mirroring the situation in Arizona. Meanwhile, the Border Patrol will have their mobility and access destroyed. (Editor s note: Sen. Bingaman s office has told the Sun-News that the bill has language guaranteeing motorized access in wilderness areas for the Border Patrol.)
Additionally, the idea of preserving wilderness is typically about maintaining land in its original, pristine condition. The nearby Gila Wilderness has become a near biological desert with reduced grass and production resulting from the elimination of cattle grazing and the misconceived fire management plan that was implemented as early as the 1920s. Without the water and infrastructure provided for the cattle, the deer concentrations long ago moved out. Science is proving that the restoration of many grasslands must have man s intervention.
Are the senators trying to block access to America s natural resources and kill potential job creation for hard working Americans while creating an illegal immigration super highway, or is this another unintended consequence? Are they simply too deep in the pockets of the environmental industry? Tell the senators who voted to move S.B. 1689 out of committee not to vote for its passage when it makes it to the floor. America doesn t want another immigration super highway and at this point in history, we surely don t need to be focusing on locking up more lands.
Marita Noon is the executive vice president of Energy Makes America Great Inc., the advocacy arm of CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the New Mexico nonprofit organization advocating for citizens right to energy that is abundant, available, and affordable. CARE works on energy issues state, region and nation wide. Find out more at www.EnergyMakesAmericaGreat.org
http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_16005406
Posted: 09/07/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Twenty-three Senators have recently thrown their support behind an innocent looking bill that will, among other things, create an illegal immigration superhighway, remove access to natural resources, and ultimately strip ranchers of their grazing rights, all under the auspices of preserving wilderness.
When New Mexico s Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall introduced S.B. 1689 in September 2009, immigration was barely a blip on the public s radar. Over the last year, other issues such as stimulus spending, health care, and cap-and-trade have stolen the spotlight. Their harmless sounding bill, which makes land in New Mexico part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Landscape Conversation System, received virtually no attention. However, it has percolated to the top as the markup of the bill has been approved (23-0) and is headed to the Senate floor.
Now that immigration is in the spotlight as non-border states mimic Arizona's controversial immigration law, polls show that the majority of the public wants to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. S.B. 1689 will disappoint that majority.
Unless people speak up, this New Mexico bill will sail through on a professional courtesy to Sens. Bingaman and Udall. Senators give lip service to the demands for closed borders, yet 23 voted to move S.B. 1689 to the floor. Supporters, including, McCain, Alexander, Landrieu, and Lincoln, need to be held accountable.
In southern New Mexico the proposed Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness National Conservation Area sets aside a long north/south strip of land just miles from the border that contains all the elements that make it perfect for the movement of both human and drug trafficking: wilderness/de facto wilderness safe havens; east /west highway access; rugged and complex north/south mountain and drainage orientation; and high, strategic points of observation.
In northern New Mexico the Bingaman/Udall partnership co-sponsored S.B. 874 (El Rio Grande Del Norte National Conservation Establishment Act) again impacts land near the border the border of Colorado and New Mexico. This land is rich in natural resources. If Bingaman and Udall have their way, these resources will never be developed, needed jobs will not be created, and state revenues will be reduced.
In both the north and the south, the parcels proposed for conservation contain both state and federal lands that are leased for farming, ranching, and oil and gas extraction. Specifically stated within S.B.1689 is the withdrawal of Operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials and geothermal leasing laws. The wilderness of 1964 specifically forbids the use of motorized vehicles. The elimination of motorized vehicles devastates land management and the ability to pursue traffickers.
In the immigration superhighway, The Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, Border Patrol will be prevented from chasing traffickers in motorized vehicles. Will illegals be concerned about damaging the wilderness? No. They will have a fleet of vehicles mirroring the situation in Arizona. Meanwhile, the Border Patrol will have their mobility and access destroyed. (Editor s note: Sen. Bingaman s office has told the Sun-News that the bill has language guaranteeing motorized access in wilderness areas for the Border Patrol.)
Additionally, the idea of preserving wilderness is typically about maintaining land in its original, pristine condition. The nearby Gila Wilderness has become a near biological desert with reduced grass and production resulting from the elimination of cattle grazing and the misconceived fire management plan that was implemented as early as the 1920s. Without the water and infrastructure provided for the cattle, the deer concentrations long ago moved out. Science is proving that the restoration of many grasslands must have man s intervention.
Are the senators trying to block access to America s natural resources and kill potential job creation for hard working Americans while creating an illegal immigration super highway, or is this another unintended consequence? Are they simply too deep in the pockets of the environmental industry? Tell the senators who voted to move S.B. 1689 out of committee not to vote for its passage when it makes it to the floor. America doesn t want another immigration super highway and at this point in history, we surely don t need to be focusing on locking up more lands.
Marita Noon is the executive vice president of Energy Makes America Great Inc., the advocacy arm of CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the New Mexico nonprofit organization advocating for citizens right to energy that is abundant, available, and affordable. CARE works on energy issues state, region and nation wide. Find out more at www.EnergyMakesAmericaGreat.org
http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_16005406
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Original Constitution by Professor Robert Natelson
"Some people—including the former law instructor who now serves as President of the United States—believe that it is impossible to reconstruct the Constitution’s original meaning.
As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect."
The Original Constitution, What It Actually Said and Meant
"Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution’s provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law.
We will never be absolutely certain of the complete meaning of every constitutional clause. But we can reconstruct most of the original Constitution’s meaning with clarity and confidence."
As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect."
The Original Constitution, What It Actually Said and Meant
 |
"Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution’s provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law.
We will never be absolutely certain of the complete meaning of every constitutional clause. But we can reconstruct most of the original Constitution’s meaning with clarity and confidence."
From the Introduction, by Robert G. Natelson
SCOTUS term to serve...
I have to respectfully correct a misconception that exists to this day about "life time" judgeships". The US Constitution says they serve "during good behavior", nothing more nothing less. Thus, those who have sat on Federal courts, over the past century-plus been undermining our nation and states (and ALL of them are under the same stricture of demeanor), including most especially SCOTUS, should have been, or now should be, impeached and thrown in jail for treason. "Good behavior" is the term, not life -- tho' that sounds good to me, as long as those traitors serve it in prison.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Primary Elections are private
Having had many conversations recently regarding primary election process with my husband and others, I have come to the position that political parties are private, not public, clubs. As such those clubs should not be wasting public time or public monies to do anything that is solely an internal matter; deciding candidates to run in elections for public office. Following is an excerpt from a letter to the editor on this topic written by Dick Wells.
"Since political parties are private clubs; and as such, they are necessarily like any other "special interest" group; therefore, it is perfectly permissible for them to exclude valid candidates from their "forums." Is it not possible for someone else, other than the power parties, to conduct a forum to offer a balanced opportunity to all the candidates?
It does however, beg question of why the public bears the cost of selecting the party's candidates in a primary election, if we cannot hear from all the candidates who can receive our vote in November. Moreover, is there not doubt concerning whether or not a voter is really a party member when he casts his vote in the primary, in that party? Nothing beyond personal integrity will keep a voter from voting in the opposition party's election to enhance his party's candidate's chances by ruining a stronger, opposition-candidate's chances. That being the case, what makes anyone think the people made "their" choice in picking a party's candidate in a primary election?
I believe that there is a strong argument for abolishing the primary election entirely, unless it is in each party's central committee meeting, and leave the public's money completely out of the picture until the general election. Let each political party decide amongst themselves, who their candidates will be. Think about it: no endless campaigning, until the month or two before the general election, unless you are attending party meetings."
Dick Wells - Thompson Falls
"Since political parties are private clubs; and as such, they are necessarily like any other "special interest" group; therefore, it is perfectly permissible for them to exclude valid candidates from their "forums." Is it not possible for someone else, other than the power parties, to conduct a forum to offer a balanced opportunity to all the candidates?
It does however, beg question of why the public bears the cost of selecting the party's candidates in a primary election, if we cannot hear from all the candidates who can receive our vote in November. Moreover, is there not doubt concerning whether or not a voter is really a party member when he casts his vote in the primary, in that party? Nothing beyond personal integrity will keep a voter from voting in the opposition party's election to enhance his party's candidate's chances by ruining a stronger, opposition-candidate's chances. That being the case, what makes anyone think the people made "their" choice in picking a party's candidate in a primary election?
I believe that there is a strong argument for abolishing the primary election entirely, unless it is in each party's central committee meeting, and leave the public's money completely out of the picture until the general election. Let each political party decide amongst themselves, who their candidates will be. Think about it: no endless campaigning, until the month or two before the general election, unless you are attending party meetings."
Dick Wells - Thompson Falls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)