Here I am

How to obtain absolute power over the people.

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Bragging Rights

Need Advice for New TV; Regular or Digital?

News from the Front #62:



Senators Offer Soviet-Style Central Planning for the Klamath Basin



"We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them . . . No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it . . . Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. "



J. Edgar Hoover, Elks Magazine (August 1956)



All I ever knew about J. Edgar Hoover I picked up from the mass media, which made him out to be some sort of sexual pervert who achieved job security by digging up dirt on politicians. So when I first came across this quote, I thought for sure he was some kind of a nut. But after reading the Senate's latest attempt to "help" the Klamath farmers, I am beginning to wonder.



I don't think that Senators Wyden and Smith are communists, but they certainly seem "unable to recognize the means used to advance [the objectives of communism]". Rather than resolve any of the issues facing the Klamath farmers, or give any real guidance to the federal officials preying upon the farmers, the Senators propose a Klamath Basin Interagency Task Force charged to develop a "five-year plan". Students of history will recognize the "five-year plan" as the invention of Leon Trotsky, which when adopted by Stalin through the infamous agency "Gosplan" rendered such blows to the Russian economy that it has yet to recover.



For hundreds of years, the States in the United States were, by the solemn force of the Constitution, in charge of their own water resources (the Supreme Court could hear disputes between the States over water), but no longer. The Task Force is boldly charged with the "development of a coordinated Federal effort for the management of water resources throughout the Klamath Basin". To manage the water resources, of course, is to manage the economy itself, as economic decisions involving the use of water bog down in arcane questions of federal policy.



It is just like the Soviet system, except that the Soviets used to issue five-year plans with production goals. Now we have de-production goals. So in a perverse way, the Smith/Wyden Task Force's Plan would be "better" than the Soviet Gosplan, because it cannot help but succeed. Centralized planning always kills economic growth and development.



The Planners are given a general mandate to promote



"water conservation and improved agricultural practices;



"aquatic ecosystem restoration;



"improvement of water quality and quantity;



"recovery and enhancement of endangered species, including anadromous fish species and resident fish species; and



"restoration of wildlife refuges. "



Don't be misled by the reference to "improvement of water . . . quantity", because the bill goes on to clarify that any improvements are not for farmers, but for Mother Earth. Specifically, the Planners are to "consider" the following ten factors:



"the purchase of water conservation easements;



"purchase of agricultural land from willing sellers, with priority given to land that will enhance water storage capabilities;



benefits to the agricultural economy through incentives for the use of irrigation efficiency, water conservation, or other agricultural practices;



"wetland restoration;



"feasibility studies for alternative water storage, water conservation, demand reduction, and restoration of endangered species;



"improvement of upper Klamath Basin watershed and water quality;



"improvement of habitat on the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, and the Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge;



"fish screening and water metering;



"other activities in the Basin that may significantly affect water resources in the Basin, as determined by the Taks Force; and;



"other matters the Task Force considers appropriate. "



None of these factors have anything to do with getting more water for farmers. Notice that the words "alternative water storage" are used, rather than "additional water storage". Dams to hold water for farmers or produce electric power are presumptively evil; dams to hold water in swamps ("wetland restoration") are presumptively good.



All these factors point in one direction only: a greater and greater role for federal eco-planners. All Constitutional constraints upon the power of the federal government have collapsed, so that it may buy up land and water rights at will and regulate anything that "may significantly affect water resources . . . as determined by the Task Force".



Looking at the Klamath Basin as one of many battlegrounds in the War on the West, one can only conclude that Senators Smith and Wyden have proposed to provide $175 million to empower the enemy. That much money can put armies of federally-funded interlopers throughout the Klamath Basin. Soon the farmers may be literally outnumbered by the folks who say "we're here from the Government, and we're here to help you". The old charge against King George will ring truer that ever: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance".



It is especially disappointing to see that $30 million of the money is earmarked for the Tribes, whose leaders fail to see that the Great White Father speaks with forked tongue when he says that "ecosystem restoration" is going to help Tribal members. All it helps is the Tribal leadership, which profits by fielding an army of white consultants to wage war against the farmers for no purpose.



The farmers in the Klamath Basin ought to join forces with the Tribal members against both the white leadership and the Tribal leadership. At the grassroots, both the farmers and the Tribes want to restore sovereignty over their piece of the Klamath Basin, so to speak, yet the political leaders of both groups fails to see the need to cast off the yoke of the Great White Father as the only means to doing so.



A few visionary Tribal leaders are beginning to see this. Russell Means, the first National Director of the American Indian Movement, has tried to explain the problem:



"The government has made us impotent. We have no recourse; the Constitution of the United States has never applied to Indians on their reservations -- period. So we have no rights in this country. We have rights as American citizens if we leave the reservation, but while we live on the reservation we have zero rights. So we have no place to go except the government! . . . The Secretary of Interior is our god. Period. We'll never get rid of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The only way it will happen is if the American people rise up and say: 'Hey, having a bureau of any kind of ethnic affairs is repugnant, it's anti-democratic, it is communistic. ' This is the only place where communism is successfully practiced in the world. Communism is alive and well on Indian reservations run by the United States government. "



And if Senators Smith and Wyden have their way, the entire Klamath Basin can eventually enjoy a tribal standard of living, as the federal planners work their inevitable magic upon economic development.



Against this evil stands the present farm leadership of the Klamath Basin, which did send a letter off to the Senators opposing the bill on the rather understated basis that it "does not provide any water supply certainty". In the face of an outrage like this bill, they ought to be conducting demonstrations and sit-ins at the Senator's offices -- thus speaking in power, the only language the Senators understand.



Certainly the Senators seem unable to appreciate the facts, including the fact that there are no endangered species in the Klamath Basin, if endangered means that there is a perceptible chance that the species in question is about to disappear from the face of the earth. Or the fact that stealing water from the farmers to keep the lake full and the water running faster downstream does not produce any measurable increase in the number of fish. No one has even bothered to try to measure any survival improvements from these actions.



The sort of rot represented by the Smith/Wyden bill is killing this country. Armies of planners are systemmatically dismantling this country's ability to meet the needs of its people through farming, manufacturing, mining, energy production, logging, and development. As the Nation's farms and factories gradually fall silent, and we borrow more and more to keep importing everything we need, some day the bill will come due. Perhaps only then will American people finally care enough to try and throw off their worthless leadership -- assuming their creditors will still let them.



Merry Christmas.



© James Buchal, December 26, 2001



You have permission to reprint this article, and are encouraged to do so. The sooner people figure out what's going on, the quicker we'll have more fish in the rivers.
 
This is the letter referred to in the above commentary.



I included it to help clear things up.



<hr>



December 18, 2001



The Honorable Ron Wyden

United States Senate

516 Hart Senate Building

Washington, DC 20510



Re: Proposed Modifications to Sec. 262 of the Daschle Substitute to S. 1731



Dear Senator Wyden:



Thank you for your stated support for a long-term solution to the crisis in the Klamath Basin, where hundreds of working farm and ranch families are still suffering from the devastating losses this year. We are greatly encouraged by the initiative shown in the Senate yesterday when both you and Senator Smith introduced Congressman Walden’s Klamath Canal Operations and Maintenance Bill and you introduced Congressman Walden’s Chiloquin Dam fish passage improvement feasibility study bill. This former measure provides fair and proper partial compensation to farmers for the financial damages they incurred in 2001, while the latter proposal sets the foundation for improved habitat conditions for endangered sucker fish. However, our primary priority is to ensure that these families receive a reliable water supply next year and in the years ahead.



Overview



We have concluded that your amendment to the Farm Bill, unfortunately, will not alleviate the problems that led to the crisis this year - and in fact may worsen our situation. For this reason, our organization opposes your amendment. Our opposition is based on the premise that the amendment was not revised to fully reflect concerns raised in our December 4th correspondence, an alternative amendment developed by our association on December 7th and forwarded to your office, and ongoing discussions with your staff. We appreciate the willingness of your staff to meet with us in Klamath Falls on December 11th where we directly expressed our needs regarding the proposed amendment. While some of the concerns raised at this meeting are addressed in your current proposal, our most pressing needs are not.



Key Concerns



Our greatest concern is that, despite an authorization of $175 million, the amendment does not provide any water supply certainty for the farm and ranch families who have relied upon the Klamath Project for nearly a century. Further, it does not create a clear path to avoid the catastrophe that we endured in 2001. Proposed Klamath Basin legislation must contain strong provisions to sustain and strengthen a healthy agricultural economy in the Klamath Basin. The primary means of accomplishing this objective - as proposed in our December 7th language - is to directly link any spending proposed under the proposed Klamath Basin program to full water deliveries to irrigated lands in the Klamath Project, with the following considerations:



· Restoration and water quality improvements developed via this amendment will also contribute to direct recovery of threatened and endangered fish species ;



· This would not preclude the States of Oregon and California from determining or regulating water rights pursuant to state law; and



· The Klamath Project contribution to meet demand reduction would not exceed 30,000 acres, provided the landowners agree to limit or forego the use of water.



· Program implementation and decision-making must be developed in a partnership setting that includes, at a minimum, representatives from federal, state and local government, local environmental and business interests, Project districts, and the agricultural community.



We cannot support any legislation unless it alleviates the uncertainty that has been thrust upon the Project and incorporates strong provisions to sustain and strengthen a healthy economy in the Klamath Basin.



Another Alternative to Strengthen and Sustain the Klamath Basin Agricultural Economy



One alternative to our original proposal is to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, to provide $175 million over a five-year period to meet the objectives of the Administration’s long-term plan for the Klamath Project - scheduled to be released soon. Such an amendment would advance implementation of specific restoration projects identified as promoting both listed species and continued operation of the Klamath Project. It would also enable the Administration to incorporate elements of Congressman Walden’s water supply augmentation legislation introduced by you and Senator Smith and developed in cooperation with Congressman Walden last year (P. L. 106-498). By deleting the proposed task force and other sections of the initial amendment, this new amendment would focus on the 2002 operations plan, and beyond, which will by necessity include specific environmental restoration projects - proposed by the three agencies and approved annually by Congress.



Need for Certainty and Identifiable Benefits



Tens of millions of dollars have already been spent for restoration projects in this basin that have in the end failed to provide clear and acknowledged benefits to fish and wildlife species, and to our community. Federal agencies or non-profit conservation groups have acquired over 25,000 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin for habitat purposes. But what are the benefits from these acquisitions? Can the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service demonstrate improved water quality in Upper Klamath Lake? Have endangered sucker populations increased? This year, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provided compensation to the owners of 16,000 acres of land to reduce irrigation. There were no benefits to other farmers and ranchers in the Project due to either the previous farmland conversions or to Reclamation’s 2001 program.



The proposed amendment opens the door for additional such spending in the Upper Klamath Basin, and exposes other farmers in downstream areas - such as the Shasta and Scott River valleys (see Sub-section 262 (e)(A)) - to more of the same, with little or no opportunity to engage in the process. Our organization supports restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife. In fact, the Klamath Water Users Association in 1992 proposed the first comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan for the Klamath Basin. We have learned to only support projects that provide real, measurable benefits in the basin.



We have no doubt that $175 million will make a difference in the Klamath Basin. However, we believe the best stewards of the local environment are the farmers and ranchers who manage their lands to provide food for waterfowl and shorebirds (and in turn, bald eagles) and water for wildlife refuges. These environmental benefits will be lost if the local agricultural economy is crippled because local farmers and ranchers are unable to secure reliable water supplies.



We respectfully urge you to revise your proposed amendment so that it will truly benefit the families who have lost so much this year. Please call me personally if we can offer additional thoughts or suggestions on the development of this amendment or on other actions related to the Klamath Project.



Sincerely,

Dan Keppen



Executive Director
 
All of the afforementioned is the reason I will satirize any praise directed at our current fearless leader Bush.

If he was everything good that people think about him he would reverse all this expansion of federal gov't.

It doesn't occur to most people that everytime enough people start to protest unfair Gov't practices, some "crisis" comes along.

How much crap went down when the networks would only give us O. J. ?

The feds knew the WTC catastrophe was going to happen years before it happened. But why prevent it? Look at how the power of Gov't was increased. The people are ready and willing to trade their freedom for security. They cry out " Give us the Mark".

I myself await Jesus Christ to return for me, and for all of us that want to go with Him. Only then will all this tyranny be put to an end.



Jay
 
Free enterprise

Maybe instead of fighting city hall,you all should look for a different way to make a living. Maybe raising game birds for the new state park or making the area a giant fish hatchery. This is the country of free enterprise,is it not?Or maybe all the farmers in the area should start a (should I say it?) UNION... .....
 
Re: Free enterprise

Originally posted by Champane Flight

Maybe instead of fighting city hall,you all should look for a different way to make a living. Maybe raising game birds for the new state park or making the area a giant fish hatchery. This is the country of free enterprise,is it not?Or maybe all the farmers in the area should start a (should I say it?) UNION... .....



You don't get it. Between the government and the greens, there will be no private land in not very long, or if there is, it will be so totally controlled as to be, for all practical purposes, out of your own control.



The greens have decided that there must be no farming, logging, ranching, mining, or any other activity which uses "natural" resources. And since the means by which they choose to enforce this is federal control over everything, the federal government is jumping up and down with glee to make it happen.
 
Re: Re: Free enterprise

Originally posted by Power Wagon





You don't get it. Between the government and the greens, there will be no private land in not very long, or if there is, it will be so totally controlled as to be, for all practical purposes, out of your own control.




If the govt wants your land, they'll just take it.
 
Back
Top