The Consensus Agenda
Today’s regulatory enterprise is following the same pattern as Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman during the American Civil War. Sherman’s strategy was to gather livestock and crop production data from the Federal Census of 1860 to effectively lead his troops through areas where his army could do the most damage. Today, the EPA, USFS, USGS, NOAA, BOR, FWS, BLM and IRS are following the same pattern.
They are amassing enormous volumes of data which enables them to push their agenda driven preferences onto the American scene. The problem isn’t the data collection per se. The problem is the agenda driven data interpretation which happens in the secret recesses of their bureaucracies.
The data being stockpiled and the interpretations being propagated are uniquely prejudiced. Isolated results are paired with faulty scientific modeling and rigged with invalid assumptions which has led to the advancement of consensus as truth.
Over-Stepping the Boundary Line
The anti-Federalists recognized the dangers of arbitrary, capricious or whimsical actions by a nation’s ruling class. The anti-Federalists also understood that it didn’t matter if the ruling class was comprised of an individual like our US President, or a monarch like King George III. They knew danger could also arise from oligarchies, or democracies when government oversteps it’s boundaries.
Over-stepping occurs constantly because of Republican traitors and Democratic idealists. The Democrats love big government and they are simply following their natural ideological bent.
The idea of State Rights has long been neglected by our representatives in Congress and this neglect has allowed the federal government to grow like a malignant tumor. In the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus XII, we read, “that this constitution,… will not be a compact entered into by states,… but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic,… The courts therefore will establish it as a rule in explaining… as will best tend to perfect the union or take from the state governments every power of either making or executing laws.”
Brutus’ pamphlet, published on February 07, 1788, was an accurate projection and his fears have become reality in our lifetimes.
Our republican government refers to two things:
Walk into any Republican meeting and you see it – folks 50 years and older (like Diane and myself) who are primarily concerned with the future for their children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, many young people (those same kids and grandkids) are too busy, too apathetic or simply don’t see how politics affects them and so they tend not to participate in such events.
I want to challenge young people – even though you may be skiing in Bend or going to college in Ashland, and even if you feel that the issues you hear on the news don’t affect you, they do and they will. I wager that most young people saw Bundy Ranch on the news but didn’t see how a grandfatherly rancher’s fight in Nevada affects them, and so brushed it off.
A few days ago, however, I recorded a podcast in which we discussed the change to the BLM’s mission statement that’s disturbing and chilling. Right on the heels of that recording, I saw in the Bend Bulletin that the BLM is removing more than 500 geocaches from Bend-area wilderness, and then that the National Park Service is restricting personal recording devices. My kids geocache, and hike and fish and bike and love the wonderful playground that Oregon has to offer. But for how long will they be allowed to enjoy so-called public lands?
We all know that one of the main functions of the Federal government is to insure our security and aid in the naturalization of new immigrants. Neither of these items are being upheld by our current government. The reforms passed by President Ronald Reagan back in 1986 are not being enforced. Why should we pass new laws when the old ones are not being upheld?
We must secure our borders. That must be the first order of business. Instead, Speaker John Boehner (a close political ally of my opponent) told supporters that he is “hell-bent” on getting comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. amnesty) passed this year. My opponent, Congressman Walden, told fellow Republicans that they should concentrate on immigration (amnesty) “after the primaries are over”.
Rep. Walden has been endorsed by the Oregon Farm Bureau and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of which are very vocally pro-amnesty. Republicans in the House have lost their way on this issue. Most Americans want steady jobs for Americans before worrying about illegal aliens. We understand the need for border security and enforced immigration laws.
My opponent recently released a letter to the FDA, declaring that their new rules on brewers and ranchers will hurt Oregonian businesses.
He’s absolutely right – but my question is, why has he been funding the FDA with printed money from Washington, and then writing flimsy letters against it?
Wouldn’t the logical solution be to cut off the funding for unConstitutional entities like the FDA and EPA? Why is our Congressman of 16 years so scared to take these Federal behemoths on?
A lot of people are asking about my stance on the Bundy Ranch issue in Clark County, Nevada, where the BLM and citizens recently had a stand-off over cattle grazing rights. Many people are pointing out that Cliven Bundy has not paid his fees to the Federal government, and that may be true, although there are several arguments to both sides of the issue. (I’ll put some sources at the bottom of this post).
However, what is not contentious is the atrocious treatment of private citizens by the BLM, the bullying of rural Americans by radical environmentalists and the overwhelming injustice that is Federal monopoly of our public lands.
It seems clear that we’ve reached a point in our history when private citizens and small-business owners are increasingly forced to make public scenes just to survive. Because of the labyrinth of laws, the convoluted nature of crony capitalism and the politically-motivated restrictions on our ways of life, the West in particular is gasping for air and some folks feel, as Mr. Bundy does, that resistance is the only option.
I received a note from a supporter that I would like to share.
This was written by someone who has worked tirelessly for public access to the mountains and forests that our tax dollars pay to keep open. The anger and frustration voiced by this man and others is what keeps me motivated to make change for Oregonians. This individual will not be satisfied with empty rhetoric or false promises. For too long we have shrugged aside do-nothing representation and allowed too many excuses about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
It’s time to start dismantling the Federal tyranny over our open places and lifestyles.
As most Oregonians know, Klamath County (indeed, most of the 2nd District) is in a season of severe drought. Add to this politically motivated backroom deals, and a radical environmentalist agenda with lots of out-of-state clout and capital, and this is a scary situation for rural Oregon.
The problem is simple – we have limited fresh water. Animals and people alike need fresh water for survival, and droughts are part of Earth’s natural cycle. Therefore, we should prepare for such eventualities with dams, reservoirs and other water storage facilities, and we should share the water between all interested parties, not use the strong arm of government to pick politically-correct winners and losers.
Last year, before I was in this Congressional race, I gave a presentation on this topic to the Jackson County Americans for Prosperity group:
Last week, The Baker City Herald editorial staff wrote, “Rep. Greg Walden has gotten right to the heart of the debate over managing national forest and he only needed to write a four-page bill to do it.”
However, it’s time for a reality check, because although I applaud his effort, it seems clear that Walden only threw this piece of legislative silliness onto the House floor because I am on his heels, chasing his lackluster votes. I have heard for years from hunters, farmers, ranchers, loggers and outdoorsmen worried about their forest access and concerned with the deafness of Washington bureaucrats. They tell me of their frustration in writing endless letters to Walden’s office and their local papers, along with their attempts at “public comment” debacles.
Do you really believe that Representative Walden was suddenly moved by his love for our freedoms as Oregonians, or does this seem politically-motivated to you? Why have our forests been padlocked for years and why has his office been bragging about his ineffectual votes, until now?