To: All voters in Precinct 20
From Brett Manwaring, Republican Precinct Committee Chairman, Precinct 20

In this current election cycle – city elections for mayor and 3 council positions – we should all consider a few things:

• Much has been made by Democrats, self-proclaimed RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only) and the Post Register about the Republican Party endorsing candidates for City elections, saying the races are non-partisan. All people, individuals and parties (private organizations), have the right to publicly support who they will. Some Democrat candidates in general partisan races go to great lengths to not mention they are Democrats – what does that tell you? During the runoff election debate, Ida Hardcastle voted against it because of the cost. The City of Idaho Falls, by consolidating it’s election of only 3 or 4 races with the general elections, could save at least $15,000 to $20,000 per election. Why not?

• The City Council candidates are total opposites in philosophy. Ehardt and Creek come from the private business sector, while the incumbents, Cornwell and Hardcastle, believe and act as total bureaucrats. Any real life business experience they had must have been forgotten, but what the incumbents have learned is to denigrate any opponent personally that disagrees with them, rather than debate their views and positions shared by a minority of the City. Creek and Ehardt will vote for less government, lower taxes and real cooperation with neighboring communities – Hardcastle and Cornwell lead the charge against all these, using the City’s checkbook for their favorite projects. We should ask these questions:

1. If the City can purchase property after property and fund project after project – off budget – how much money is there in all City slush funds? Many feel that with surpluses the City must have, taxes are too high. But year after year there is little or no relief. The incumbents feel they can’t go without every thin dime. Hardcastle claims taxes are lower than 15 years ago – but forgets to tell the swimming pool bond was paid off which lowered it substantially years ago, but she has done her best to get it back up. At the Republican Women’s candidate forum Oct. 22nd, Hardcastle seemed to brag that IF isn’t the highest taxed City. It is 16th highest of 191. IF’s levy (rate the city taxes all property) is .0089. Twin Falls – .0066, Boise – .0050, Post Falls – .0038, Meridian – .0026, Sun Valley – .0010, and Eagle – .0007. Eagle operates on 1/12th and Meridian on 1/4th of IF’s income. Both Meridian and Eagle have comparable assessed valuation to IF. Can someone in City government explain these differences? The two incumbents will tell all willing to listen how all zoos, flowers and entertainment will disappear if anyone other than them is elected – that is just not true! We all love the City of Idaho Falls, it’s beauty, cleanliness and services. To question boldly some policies that could be better is an attempt to make our city better, with or without those who defend the status quo. Many surveys have shown that conservatives give more freely of their own money by 2 or 3 times than liberals to the very causes we are told they would destroy, while liberals are very generous with the public’s money.

2. Why not, prior to serious discussions to eliminate the parking on Memorial Drive, solve the problem of where the patrons and employees of the Court House will park when the 200+ spaces are eliminated? Many have heard Ida Hardcastle say “The City doesn’t need to furnish parking for the County employees”. This is the same Ida that tried to ram through the Rec Center bond and other grandiose schemes that would have cost us millions. After the people voted down the Rec Center overwhelmingly, she was reported as saying “We’ll be back”. I think her 16 years on the council are all we can afford.

Why not have a change of view and ideas instead of the same old tired ones?

VOTE FOR CREEK AND EHARDT

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By former Idaho Falls City Councilman Larry Lyon

With all the attention “Non- Partisan” politics has gotten in Idaho Falls since the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee voted 23 to 3 for the option to endorse candidates in city races, I did some research. What I found was very enlightening.

I did some research on the history of “non-partisan” politics in Idaho. The following information came from searching the term Non-Partisan on the Idaho State web site.

“The Idaho Nonpartisan League was organized in 1917 by Ray McKaig,…”. It’s purpose was to infiltrate existing political party’s by “nominating League candidates on existing major party tickets…”.

“In Idaho the Nonpartisan League took over the Democratic Party in the 1918 primary, nominating a wealthy but sympathetic Republican…for governor. The Democratic state chairman thus was forced to campaign against the Democratic state ticket that year…”,

The history of non-partisan politics in Idaho is the history of a “shadow party” called the Non-Partisan League infiltrating the two major parties and running Republicans as Democrats and visa versa.

“To combat the Nonpartisan League the [Idaho] Legislature repealed the Idaho direct primary in 1919.” After that “…the League finally had to become an independent political party after all…” It morphed into the Idaho Progressive Party, which dissolved in 1928.

The label of “non-partisan” was created as nothing more that a political disguise.
Many states and cities throughout the US reject non-partisan elections as bad public policy. One example is New York City.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of then Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. before the City Council Committee on Governmental Operations

Select Committee on Charter Revision, Thursday, October 23, 2003.

“…I am pleased to be with you this morning to address this important issue.
As I have said repeatedly since the formation of the Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission, I am opposed to the elimination of party primaries and the imposition of a non-partisan election system in the City of New York. It is poor public policy, and an idea more likely to weaken our democratic system than to strengthen it.”

“… any contemplated changes to our electoral system must be demonstrably superior to what is currently in place. Nonpartisan elections do not meet that standard. “

“Some of the arguments advanced by … supporters [of non-partisan elections] are based on misleading claims, and others are simply unconvincing.

First, advocates argue that party politics control the outcome of elections in New York City. In reality, New Yorkers are among the most independent-minded voters in the country, and they routinely cross party lines to support candidates. In New York City, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5 to 1, it is striking that a Republican has been chosen to serve as Mayor in each of the last three elections.

Second, despite the claims of its proponents, there is no convincing evidence that eliminating primaries would increase voter turnout in New York City. New York’s experience to date with non-partisan elections – special elections to fill vacancies and Community School Board elections, which both, unfortunately, draw extremely low numbers of voters – does not suggest that it is the right system for New York City.

Indeed, the experience of Jacksonville, Florida, which is often cited by proponents of nonpartisan elections, is decidedly mixed. In the first election following the elimination of party primaries, voter turnout increased somewhat. In the next election, voter turnout dropped substantially below what it had been in the last election to include party primaries.

In the most recent election, voter turnout returned to the levels that it had reached when party primaries were still in effect. In other words, the experience of Jacksonville, Florida, does not exactly serve as a ringing endorsement of nonpartisan elections.

Third, eliminating party primaries would be bad for minority groups. These groups have spent years building up electoral strength in a variety of ways, especially through membership in political parties. By concentrating their political strength through party membership, minorities have elected candidates that reflect their concerns. Dismantling this system at a moment when members of these groups hold more City and Borough-wide offices than at any time in our history would undermine that progress.”

Not only do cities in New York State have party primaries to select candidates for city office but they also have a process that allows more than one party to endorse a candidate.

One piece of campaign literature has a candidate endorsed by the “Republican”, “Conservative”, and “Independent” Party’s. Another had a candidate endorsed by the “Democratic”, “Independent”, and “Working Families” Party.

Now I know that New York has it’s share of problems, but the way they run city elections does not seem to be one of them. People in New York State are more excited, informed, and engaged in the political process at the local level than I have ever seen in Idaho Falls.

Incumbents get free passes to re-election in Idaho Falls and Ammon. The Idaho Falls Mayors race has been described more as a “coronation” than a legitimate political contest. Voter apathy seems to be at an all time high.

Thankfully this may be changing. Not because of the Republicans, but because of the Democrats.

Democrats have shed the phony disguise of non-partisanship. The Democrats are openly engaged in partisan politics in Boise.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpK_xc0bxis “>TJ Thomson, an ardent Democrat who voted to nominate Barak Obama at the Democratic National Convention is running for Boise City Council.

The Idaho Statesman has written about this race, saying that it is non-partisan “in name only”.
The Democrats are engaged in a full court press to get TJ Thomson elected. His endorsement list is a Who’s Who of Idaho Democrats; including former Governor Cecil Andrus, former Democratic Congressman Richard Stallings and two time Democratic candidate for Governor Jerry Brady.

TJ Thomson has also been endorsed by the Democratic” title=”http://www.democracyforamerica.com/current-endorsements\”>Democratic” target=”_blank”>www.democracyforamerica.com/current-endorsements”>Democratic Party Community Organizing group, Democracy for America.

There is nothing wrong with the Democrats being openly involved in City politics. Political Party’s should be involved. That is why they exist.

People who crow about how wonderful non-partisan politics are usually those who support incumbents in city races. In reality “non-partisan” politics are nothing more than an incumbent protection program. By creating a political climate that discourages political Party’s from engaging in the political process, the very thing they were created to do; it virtually eliminates any organized opposition to those already in power.

This is a recipe for political careerism, which can only lead to waste, cronyism, and corruption, regardless of who is in power.

The campaign to elect Democrat TJ Thomson to the Boise City Council is good news for City Politics in Idaho. The Democrats have asserted their freedom of speech and association and gotten fully behind a candidate who shares their values and their priorities.

Now that the Democrats have rejected non-partisan politics in city races hopefully other political parties will follow their lead.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The following is a letter from Andi Elliott to Roger Plothow, publisher of the Post Register. At this date, Sept. 23, no response has been received. See this earlier post.

18 September 2009

Dear Mr. Plothow:

Thank you for printing the story about me on 9/10. I was very surprised and delighted. I was, however, puzzled by a couple of the comments made by Steve Zeman and yourself.

Please find enclosed copies of some of my editorials… political in nature. I have not enclosed my “animal editorials” as I assume the Post Register has had no problem with those.

It would be appreciated if you would highlight any “ugly language” contained in them to illustrate your comment in the 9/10 article.

Also, I am wondering if my “animal” editorials are still acceptable to the PR. As always, I try and spread the word about humane treatment of those who cannot speak for themselves and your newspaper has always been supportive of those efforts.

Thank you for your time.

Andi Elliott

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

We hope you enjoy this post from a new “alternative” source in Idaho Falls.

Guest Post by Silence Dogwood, reporting for the Idaho Falls Alternative News

July 17, 2009

In a landslide vote last night, the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee (BCRCC) voted to begin endorsements of issues as well as non-partisan races. The endorsement policy includes a clause allowing the BCRCC to lend financial support (to the tune of 25% of annual expenditures) to such causes.

Those who were anticipating the vote on the endorsement issue worried early-on as Senator Bart Davis (RINO-Bonneville County) embarked on a stall campaign, picking apart Jonathan Haines’ revisions to the by-laws. This, despite knowledge that numerous other counties in the state of Idaho had expressed interest in duplicating what they anticipated would pass in the BCRCC’s by-laws. One representative from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was even attendance to see the historical changes put into place. At Davis’ 15-minute mark of “clarifications,” he was interrupted by Dr. Don Schanz (PCO) asking that the revisions be put to vote. The motion was seconded, and the votes were tallied. The revisions were passed with exactly the two-thirds vote required.

It was now ten minutes to the proposed closing of the meeting, nine o’clock, and Schanz moved that the committee skip ahead to what most in attendance saw as the most important issue of the evening, a vote on the endorsement issue. The motion carried. The opposition to the endorsement issue immediately began plan of attack number two, a call to adjourn. The motion failed, as those in attendance apparently did not want to leave without finalizing what had been on the BCRCC’s agenda for three months.

BCRCC Chairman Damond Watkins set the stage for how the remainder of the evening would continue. Those in favor and those in opposition to the endorsement issue would each present three people to speak for three minutes each. A coin was tossed, and those in favor spoke first. Larry Lyon (PCO and former Idaho Falls City Council Member) spoke first. He felt so strongly about the importance of the issue that he had flown in from Texas to be able to speak and vote on the issue. Others speaking in favor of the endorsement were Jon Burrup and Schanz.

Davis was the first speaker in opposition. He stated that he felt passing such a measure would strain the brand of the Republican Party. One couldn’t help but wonder how votes such as those of Representative Mike Simpson’s, supporting then President Bush’s bail-out of private institutions strained the brand, since the national Republican Party Platform specifically prohibits the bail-out of private institutions.

State Senator Dean Mortimer was next in line to speak in opposition, followed by the final speaker in opposition . . . oh, wait, nobody else currently elected is in opposition to this measure. Well, then, I guess the opposition only had two speakers . . . no, wait, Kathy Stanger asked if she could step up to the plate with permission of Watkins. Stanger was later found stating, “Would somebody please hit me over the head if I ever go to another political meeting in Bonneville County?”, to which Rebecca Casper (PCO) replied, “I hear you sister!” We are compelled to ask, “If the two of you would rather be beaten over the head than attend a BCRCC meeting, maybe it’s time to consider the other party!”

Schanz moving closing remarks included the point that the Idaho Republican party Chairman Norm Semanko had stated that it was only the BCRCC themselves who were restricting endorsements in non-partisan elections. Schanz stated that the BCRCC had shackled and handcuffed themselves and that a vote in favor of the proposed amendment would take off the shackles and allow the BCRCC to endorse any candidate, if they so chose.

The ballots were cast, the votes were tallied, the measure passed 23-3.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Please join us at the following event:

This is a continuation of the tea party rally and to honor our veterans. Walk the freedom mile and/or attend the program.

WHO: All patriots who want to honor our veterans and become more involved in restoring our liberties.

WHEN: Monday May 25th

TIME: Assemble at the Veteran’s Memorial on Memorial Drive in Idaho Falls at 5:15 PM.

WHERE: Walk from the Veteran’s Memorial in Idaho Falls on Memorial drive at 5:30 PM. Bring posters, banners, signs, flags. A one mile walk from this location; turning west on Broadway; then turning south on Utah till we reach the rotary at Taylor’s Crossing; then turning east to the smaller rotary at Bridgeport and Riverwalk Drive ending at the grassy amphitheater.

PROGRAM: A 1 hr. Program starting at 6:15 pm. at Bridgeport and Riverwalk Drive, at Taylor’s Crossing will include veterans’ stories of inspiration, a presentation on the Christian/Biblical origins of the Constitution, what you can do to help save your freedom. Brings lawnchairs or blankets to sit on. There will be hot dogs, music and much, much more.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Values Alliance

One of the ways unions empower themselves is by using payroll deductions from union members for political purposes.

The teachers’ unions, for example, use teacher union dues to relentlessly promote the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda even though these agendas have nothing to do with education, and even though many union members oppose these agendas and resent the co-option of their hard earned income for such purposes.

In 2003, Idaho lawmakers enacted the Voluntary Contributions Act, which prohibits public-sector payroll deductions for union political activities. This in turn protects the freedom of public employees to make voluntary decisions about whether and where some portion of their income may be used for political purposes, and disentangles the government from involvement in partisan political activity of any kind.

Idaho unions, chief among them the teachers’ union, sued, upset that their customary control of member union dues was being usurped by liberty and freedom of choice. But today the Supreme Court told them they have no legal argument and upheld the constitutionality of Idaho’s law.

The Court correctly observed that, contrary to the unions’ complaints, Idaho’s law does not in any way deprive them of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. But neither does the First Amendment, the Court observed, “impose an obligation on government to subsidize speech.”

The unions are “free to engage in such speech as they see fit. They simply are barred from enlisting the State in support of that endeavor.”

The ban is perfectly fair, and applies to all employees, whether their political sympathies are liberal or conservative. No point of view is either favored or disfavored by the law.

But unions, accustomed to using the payroll deduction process to pad their coffers for political purposes, complained. But the law simply levels the playing field, and today’s ruling should be celebrated by all who love freedom of choice. Today was a good day for Idaho at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And a good day to thank God for Supreme Court jurists such as John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Sam Alito who are strict constructionists and are guided in their deliberations by original intent rather than trendy political agendas.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Andi Elliott, President of the Humane Society of the Upper Valley

Finally, Mom had said “yes”. We could have a puppy! Saturday took forever to arrive and that morning we all climbed into the car and off we went to acquire a puppy.

Her name was Queenie…a tiny 6 week-old Shepherd mix. Queenie spent the weekend in the house with the family and we all had a great time playing with her. Dad spent Saturday building a doghouse. Sunday evening, Mom said we had to take Queenie out to the doghouse. Sadly, we carried the tiny puppy outside and fastened the chain to her collar.

I can’t remember how many weeks or months Queenie whined and cried to rejoin her family. We would go out and play with her but after awhile that lost its attraction. How much fun was it play with a dog when we weren’t allowed to unchain it?

We began leaving for college and on our home visits, I don’t remember any of us ever going out back to say “hi” to Queenie. Sometime after graduation, Dad told me during the course of casual conversation, that Queenie had died. I choked thinking back to that puppy on the chain and realizing that she had spent 14 years on that very same chain without anyone doing any more for her than giving her food and water once a day. I vowed that it would never happen to a pet of mine again. I often think of how Queenie would have much rather had one day of freedom than a lifetime of captivity.

So, just how cruel is it to condemn a dog to a life on a chain or in a pen? According to Idaho law, only food, shelter, water, and needed veterinary care are required and many of our county dogs don’t even receive this basic care.

Dogs are pack animals and to deprive them of this basic need is inhumane…it’s akin to solitary confinement for a human. Chained dogs are responsible for the deaths and mauling of hundreds of children as they become isolated and protective of their tiny space. There have been a couple of very sad cases in the news lately where children have been killed by tethered dogs.

And how many chained dogs don’t have adequate shelter and receive minimal food? Water in our climate freezes in a matter of hours during the winter. How many of us go out and offer them water 4 to 5 times day? How many hours would you want to go between drinks? That rug or blanket you put in the house froze solid way back in November and the poor animal must spent the remaining winter lying either outside exposed to the cold or huddled in a shivering ball trying to maintain body heat. Poor quality of food decreases their ability to even keep themselves warm and adds to their misery. Isn’t this just another form of torture?

And how about summer time? The heat is blistering and a doghouse in the sun is akin to an oven. Yet, how many chained dogs have no access to shade and fresh water? This is simply another form of torture…it’s animal cruelty.

Those of us in rescue are well aware that all across our nation is a movement to limit and prohibit the chaining of dogs. Our neighbor next door, Idaho Falls, is also stepping up to the plate and such a measure will be introduced to the City Council this month. I urge everyone who knows of a “Queenie” to attend and support this measure. Perhaps we can begin to institute measures in Jefferson County to prevent more “Queenies” . With enough concerned citizens, we can prevent this form of cruelty and improve the life of a lot of dogs. And, in doing so, prevent more children from being injured or even killed by a chained dog…a dog that is powerless to prevent this cruelty perpetuated upon him by his owner.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Thanks to Andi Elliott, president of the Humane Society of the Upper Valley, charitable pet lovers in the area can help sponsor pets belonging to senior citizens, as well as special needs pets.

Many seniors are on fixed incomes and especially in difficult financial times may struggle to feed and care for their pets. In many cases, they have rescued these pets.

And some pets currently in foster homes have special health needs or circumstances that prevent them from being adopted. This stresses the resources of their foster “parents”.

Both situations can be addressed with tax-deductible donations to For the Love of Pets, a non-profit organization affiliated with the Humane Society of the Upper Valley.

Donations can be directed to the vet or distributed using vouchers for pet food, depending upon the need. Both one-time donations and monthly contributions are greatly appreciated. Visit the website for contact information.

Please consider financial support of this worthy cause!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

I’ve been resisting the urge to point out the nonsensical, though laughable, material printed in the Idaho Falls newspaper. However, this week the headlines and other articles have overwhelmed my self-restraint.

Take a headline in today’s edition, which I have cut and pasted directly from the online version:

Idaho county approves feedlot near interment camp

Following a cursory read, one might conclude that a cattle feeding operation had been given the green light near a – what IS an interment camp? Is it possible that we have a new Idaho colloquialism for cemetery? Idahoans are pretty informal, and they do love the great outdoors. They have girls’ camps, Scout camps, National Forest camps, fire camps, and state camps. But calling a cemetery an interment camp is a little much even for the locals.

I should read the article, you say?

Jerome County Commissioners in south-central Idaho have approved a massive animal feedlot a mile west of a national historic site where Japanese-Americans were confined during World War II.

Ah – now I understand. The newspaper really meant internment camp. Pity. “Interment camp” held far more interesting possibilities.

And Monday’s edition provided us with this insight to the craft of the chronicler:

Historian draws from life

I suppose this is news because most historians just make things up. I have long suspected as much, but thanks are due the Idaho Falls newspaper for clarifying that point. Now we know there’s at least one historian in the world who records events that actually happened – in “life”. And, he’s from Twin Falls, Idaho. At last!

Perhaps the most humorous Idaho Falls newspaper piece I’ve read lately came from the opinion page, and was authored by none other than Roger Plothow, editor and publisher, entitled,

If it’s not journalism, it’s not news

Mr. Plothow first illuminates what journalism is not. Apparently it’s not blogging which “makes no pretense of fairness, balance, accuracy or integrity”. It’s not television pundits such as Bill O’Reilly. It’s not news fresh from the police scanner. And it certainly isn’t anything called or texted in by the average citizen.

After denigrating (look that one up, Mr. Newspaper Guy) any and every one not on his own crack staff, Mr. Plothow tells us what real journalists do. He cites the “code” of the Society of Professional Journalists”:

A true journalist is “… seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

The argument can persuasively be made that the Idaho Falls newspaper frequently stumbles when seeking truth. However, the average reader is usually unaware of the extent of that failing, since even the mistakes and missteps that are corrected are found in small paragraphs hidden among massive ads on inner pages.

And the “fair” part? “Fair” is one adjective that is rarely used to describe the Idaho Falls newspaper. Take, for example, the hit job performed on the Boy Scouts with the never-ending parade of articles blaming the BSA for one man’s actions over a decade ago. Yes, that man should be brought to justice. Does it rate nearly daily reporting on the situation for 3-4 years? Probably not.

And yet Roger Plothow and his fellow newspaper people were thrilled to excess with the “journalistic” prizes they won with the original series. These “honors” were further illustration of just how far Plothow’s sense of excellence and fairness diverges from his readers’.

In fact, the circulation of the Idaho Falls newspaper appears to continue in decline, due, at least in part, to the aforementioned series. Many locals who threatened for years to cancel their subscriptions were finally pushed to follow through. Despite claims that online and print versions have never been more widely read, I believe the newspaper is in trouble. Be sure to read a previous post on this subject. And for your information, the Idaho Falls newspaper continues to fail to report their circulation to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, unlike the Boise Statesman and the Twin Falls Times-News. This begs the question: How DOES the Idaho Falls paper document circulation to their advertisers?

Now there is talk of eliminating completely the Monday print edition of the paper, while making it available online. That is not a proposal that comes from a thriving newspaper, especially one which has just invested substantially in new printing equipment. It is also rather strange for a newspaper which, as shown by a recent survey, is read mostly by those over 55 years of age, those least likely to have access to the internet. And, in my humble opinion, their website is in every way inferior to those of the 3 local television stations with whom they appear to be in direct competition.

But let us return to Mr. Plothow’s arrogant and “self-important” musings. Says he:

Good journalism needn’t be humorless or colorless…

By all indications, humor is still found on the pages of the Idaho Falls newspaper. And I don’t mean the comics.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Republican Members of the House Natural Resources Committee walked out during a hearing today to protest the Majority party’s efforts to lock-up and further restrict energy resources in America at a critical time while also undermining the form of government instituted by the Founding Fathers.

Congressman Sali, a Member of the Committee, released the following statement:

“Americans are paying, on average, $4.06 a gallon at the pump. Energy costs across the board continue to rise, whether fuel to drive, gas to heat homes or electricity. And yet today Democrats undermined our Constitutional form of government in an effort to lock up more American energy sources.

“By using an antiquated and unconstitutional statute, the Democrats tried to seize extraordinary power elevating a single committee above the rest of Congress including the full House, the Senate and the President. Our form of government contemplates checks and balances essential to the American system. I will not stand by the Chairman’s attempt to make law by a majority vote of a single committee in the House of Representatives.

“The Resolution today brought up by Chairman Rahall (D-WV) directs the Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, to immediately withdraw, for three years, more than one million acres of federal land in Arizona. That land contains the highest-grade known uranium deposits in America, potentially holding upwards of 10 to 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves. The Democrat Majority seeks to legislatively withdraw these lands, by a vote, not of the House, Senate and signing by the president, but by the vote of 20 members of the House of Representatives,” said Sali.

This type of ‘legislative veto’ is clearly unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha.

Sali continued, “Nuclear energy is already a source of clean power and holds great promise in meeting America’s energy needs for the future. Uranium can be mined safely, and can be turned into a clean and abundant source of energy. We need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can access, including nuclear power. We should not be locking up American energy resources especially using a process based solely on legislative fiat.”

This was not the only bill opposing American energy development moved by the Democrats today. The committee also moved Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) H.R. 415, which designates Wild and Scenic Rivers status for a section of the Taunton River that flows through the middle of a highly developed area with a road, stop lights, street signs and all, literally on its banks. The measure would block a desperately needed gas pipeline in the New England area, which has some of the nation’s highest energy costs.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.