|
|
Go Fish: Obama Administration Eyes Recreational Fishing Prohibition
March 10, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
The Obama administration is now considering adopting legislation which might severely restrict and, even ban, recreational fishing in regions around the United States. ESPN reports:
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.
This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.
That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.
This type of envirofascism has been seen before – in Canada:
"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.
"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."
Furthermore, the Obama administration’s task force consists of several members with strong ties to environmental groups that have actively sought to ban recreational fishing:
Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.
Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.
While I am not an avid fisherman, I have several friends who are. Some of my fondest memories as a child are of fishing alongside my dad and family in the Everglades. Besides being a pastime acquired by America’s earliest colonists, recreational fishing plays an important part in the economy. Several poor people use fishing as an important supplement to feeding their families. I am beginning to wonder if the Obama administration considers any freedom off-limits to the ever-growing tentacles of big government. If Obama, who has consistently stated his desire to transform America, considers any distinctly American way of life worth preserving.
I am especially interested to hear our friend, the Lizard Master, on this subject, being a liberal and avid fishing enthusiast. If he responds, I'll update this post with a link.
| |
|
|
Census Protest: The American Race
March 9, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
“In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American.”
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
All American citizens will soon be receiving their questionnaires from the Census Bureau. One quarter of this year’s form consists of questions about race and ethnicity, something the government has no right or business to ask. Given the illegitimacy of these questions, National Review’s Mark Krikorian has an interesting proposal:
So until we succeed in building the needed wall of separation between race and state, I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks "What is Person 1's race?" (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really — don't do it.
Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — "Some other race" — and writing in "American." It's a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, "American" was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.
Krikorian explains this form of political protest is better than simply providing a humorous or witty response:
The most common response from readers was that you should put "human" as your race, or even "100 yard dash." The problem is that those responses will be written off as cutesy, like answering "frequent" when asked about your sex, and won't be reported by the Census Bureau. "American," on the other hand, is clearly a political protest against government race laws, and is included when the Bureau reports the results, or was in 2000. In fact, the number of people answering "American" grew from 12.4 million in the 1990 census to 20.2 million in 2000, "the largest numerical growth of any ancestry group," according to Wikipedia.
Similarly, several readers suggested “native American” logically pointing out that they are, after all, native-born Americans. But that (like "Mixed") will simply be entered as an ethnic category rather than a political statement.
Krikorian concludes, “So remember: Question 9 — "Some other race" — "American". Pass it on.”
The message has been passed.
| |
|
|
ACORN: Registration Workers Charged w/ Felony
March 8, 2010 Todd Jaspers
| |
Like a failing Hollywood actor that does whatever he/she can to get back into the spotlight, ACORN has once again made the news. According to the local Fox Channel-6 News in Wisconsin, two Acorn employees have been charged with felony voter fraud for allegedly submitting multiple voter registrations for the same individuals in the 2008 presidential election. Two other individuals, Herbert and Suzanne Gunka are also charged with voter fraud for submitting absentee ballots, and then voting in person at the polls on election day. A fifth person, Machael Henderson, was charged with submitting false information to election officials.
Charges were announced Monday morning by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.
| |
|
|
Obama Brings Chicago Politics to D.C.: Massa Accuses Democrats of Railroading Him for His Stance on Health Care
March 8, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
Last week, President Obama promised, “I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.” Everything, huh? Well, he certainly wasn’t whistling Dixie…
First there was Joe Sestak’s accusation, namely that Obama offered him a high-ranking federal job (probably Secretary of the Navy) if he declined to run against vulnerable Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania in the Democratic primary later this year. Then, yesterday, we reported that Obama nominated Scott Matheson to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Scott, is the brother Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who is currently listed as an undecided vote on the crucial upcoming healthcare vote.
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve — and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
Accusations of political power plays are nothing new in Washington. What’s so surprising is that all these accusations stem from members of the President’s own political party.
It’s hard to know what to make of this story. By all accounts, Massa might be a lying sleazebag. Massa maintains he only made one inappropriate remark at a New Year’s Eve party. Another aide stated Massa had been acting inappropriately (whatever that means) for eight months.
What remains clear is that President Obama is attempting to turn Washington D.C. into Chicago. Since taking office, bribes, partisanship and shady backroom deals have been the order of business. Massa’s accusation seems to fit that narrative, which is what makes it so believable. Politico blogger Ben Smith writes:
Second, Ax's -- and to a degree Obama's -- problem is that they aren't used to governance that requires multi-party and intra-party skills, where the chief executive isn't in absolute control of all levers of government. The "Chicago Way" is profoundly misunderstood. It isn't, first and foremost, about bullying politics; it's about absolute control and the means to achieve it. The "Chicago Way" would never work in DC, and I believe their frame of reference doesn't allow them to see DC otherwise.
| |
|
|
Distraction or Corruption? President Obama Doing "Everything" He Can to Pass Obamacare
March 7, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
Last week, President Obama promised, “I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.” Everything, huh?
In a seemingly unrelated event, also taking place last week, President Obama nominated Scott Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
As it so happens, Scott Matheson is the brother of Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT). Jim is also one of the few Democrats who is undecided on how to vote (he voted “no” last year) for the health care reform legislation currently before the House. The very night he nominated Scott Matheson, Obama had Jim Matheson over at the White House to try to convince him to vote “yes” on health care. Hmm…
To be clear, the issue is not Scott Matheson’s qualifications. By all accounts, Scott is a highly-qualified judge, ready for this position. The issue is the highly irregular timing of the event and Scott Matheson’s connection with his brother. This is especially suspicious in light of Joe Sestak’s accusation that he was offered a Federal job (probably the Secretary of Navy position) by Obama if he agreed to not run against Arlen Specter this fall.
Rep. Michelle Bachman wants an independent investigation into the highly irregular and suspicious incident:
Her debating opponent, Alan Grayson, accuses her of playing the game of distractions, effectively playing the role of incompetent Chief Wiggum. “There’s nothing to see here, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along, please. Move along.”
| |
|
|
|
|
