From: The National Taxpayer Union The “lame duck” session is on, and Congress is actually considering enactment of an economically disastrous dairy market manipulation program that will drive up the price of your milk and dairy products! The “Dairy Market Stabilization Program,” a federally-directed “supply management” scheme buried in the $1 trillion “Farm Bill” will cost you as a consumer and taxpayer! We must defeat this bad idea right away. Learn more about the damaging economic effects of “DMSP” and find out how to fight back by watching this important video. | |
Hey Folks, The Gun Owners of America is a no compromise group when it comes to the rights of the Individual to own Guns. Well, Sen. Wyden is in cahoots with anti-gun Senator Jon Tester and they are trying to fool the American public with the Sportsman Act of 2012 or SB3525. These Senator’s are trying to convince sportsman that this bill will grant them more access to public lands. However, the Bill increases the ability of the government to acquire more land from the private market. They are exploiting the members of the NRA and other hunting groups, who may not know any better. Please, if you see this bill being promoted by anyone, let them know the real agenda in this legislation. Read this huge monstrosity of a bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s3525pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s3525pcs.pdf Government Track: SB3525 Rob Taylor [email protected] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s201?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email Gun Owners of America Senate to vote on the Federal Land Seizure Act on Thursday Click here to contact your Senators Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) -- who is “F”rated by Gun Owners of America -- is pushing a “hunting” bill that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for“environmental” purposes. Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place on Thursday. ACTION: It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525. Click here to tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners. BACKGROUND (1) When the “wetlands” provisions of the Clean Water Act were originally enacted, no one could have foreseen that a landowner would go to prison for applying clean dirt to a junkyard adjacent to a sewer, which was determined to be “wetlands.” But environmentalists have been brilliant in taking seemingly innocuous programs and massively expanding them through fraudulent interpretations or tiny loopholes. (2) S. 3525 has “sweeteners.” It allows archery bows to be transported through national parks under very limited circumstances, although Obama could do this by administrative fiat. It also allows, but does not mandate, Pittman-Robertson funds to be used for target ranges. But none of these small discretionary provisions offset the potential damage this does to the rights of individual landowners. (3) THE ISSUE OF LOST OPPORTUNITY: If this is the Democrats’ sop to gun owners, it may make it a lot more difficult to secure national concealed carry reciprocity or to stop anti-gun measures and treaties. THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH S. 3525 The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)] Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.” WHO ARE THE DECISION MAKERS? The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda. The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands. Bottom line: This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats -- a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights. WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)? This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources. So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds -- and there is no protection in the bill against that. Click here to contact your Senators Oregon Firearms Federation PO Box 556 Canby, OR 97013 Voice: (503) 263-5830 http://www.oregonfirearms.org OFF ALERT 10.17.12 DOJ PROPOSED RULE ON CHL PRIVACY DRAFTED YOUR INPUT WELCOMED. You can see the entire proposed rule along with minutes of the meeting DOJ had to discuss the rule plus info on how and where you can comment on it at either of the following links: http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/2012%20alerts/10.17.12%20alert.html http://tinyurl.com/ca63yj2 Related Posts: [OFF Alert] "CHL PRIVACY" RULE TO BE ADOPTED [OFF Alert] OFF ON THE RADIO. OFF ALERT 8.29.12---“PERMANENT RULES” TO BE ADOPTED FOR CHL “PRIVACY” [OFF Alert] Earl Blumenauer's embarrassing survey OFF ALERT 07.23.2012---UN SMALL ARMS “TREATY” CLOSE TO REALITY. OFF ALERT 06.29.12 Eric Holder Held In Contempt of Congress. Oregon Firearms Federation OFF ALERT 05.14.12
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged. October 25, 2012 Dear SAOVA Friends, The 20th annual Animal Law Conference was held the weekend of October 19-21 at Lewis & Clark Law School. The event is a joint venture sponsored by The Center for Animal Law Studies, the Lewis & Clark Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The conference began with a Friday night reception and Keynote Address, Persistence and Progress in Animal Law, presented by Nancy Perry, senior vice president of government relations, ASPCA, and former VP of Government Affairs, HSUS. Saturday’s Keynote Address, Animal Welfare in a Livable Community, was presented by Congressman Earl Blumenauer (OR-3). A very full panel of speakers provided attendees with the latest developments in both state and federal legislation; highlights of recent animal law litigation; and the effect of Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) on the civil liberties of animal rights activists. SAMPLE PROGRAM SUMMARIES Ag-gag Laws: Suppressing Speech and Activism. Presented by Lewis Bollard, law student, Yale Law School; and Will Potter, reporter, Green is the New Red. Video footage of factory farms can be a valuable tool for animal advocates but often ag-gag laws criminalize such videos. The panel will give a status report of ag-gag laws and pending bills around the country and discuss legal challenges and grassroots solutions. Animal Rights Isolationism vs Pragmatic Politics. Presented by Pamela Frasch, assistant dean, Animal Law Program Lewis & Clark; and Joyce Tischler, founder and general counsel, Animal Legal Defense Fund. Should animal rights activists compromise deeply held positions to achieve more limited goals in cooperation with the very industries they seek to change? Is the movement being co-opted by forces seeking to neutralize its effectiveness or is compromise the only way to bring about change? Protecting Wildlife: Lessons Learned from the Environmental Law Movement. Presented by Ralph Henry, deputy director, Animal Protection Litigation, HSUS; and Daniel Rohlf, professor of law and of counsel, Earthrise Law Center, Lewis & Clark Law School. The panel will shed light on the current issues surrounding the wildlife law movement, the overlapping concerns of the environmental and animal law movement, and will explain how both movements can learn from one another to advance their respective goals. Learning from Difficult Cases: Tilikum v. SeaWorld. Presented by Kathy Hessler, director and clinical professor of law, Lewis & Clark Law School; and Jeff Kerr, general counsel and vice president of corporate affairs, PETA Foundation. Difficult strategic decisions need to be made when bringing creative lawsuits to benefit animals. This panel will address the legal foundations for the “Tilikum” case and explore the strategic decision-making involved in filing this case that asked for protection against and direct recognition of the harm suffered by the orcas at SeaWorld. This is juxtaposed with cases where courts are asked to address the harm suffered by humans who feel injured by harm to animals. CENTER ANNOUNCES NEW MASTERS DEGREE IN ANIMAL LAW The Center for Animal Law Studies in collaboration with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, describes itself as an animal law think tank and the umbrella organization of the nation’s premier animal law program working to create the next generation of animal law attorneys. According to their brochure, “An animal law education is invaluable. Animal law encompasses all the traditional areas of law in addition to cutting-edge law and policy issues emerging in the field such as factory farming, criminal prosecutions, animal testing or the link between violence against animals and violence against humans. In the course of your legal career, it is no longer a matter of if an animal law case crosses your desk. It is only a matter of when.” Lewis & Clark Law School recently announced their launch of the first-ever Animal Law LL.M. class in the fall of 2012. “The new LL.M. degree program marks another historic milestone in the evolution of animal law,” Pamela Frasch, assistant dean of the Animal Law Program and executive director of the Center for Animal Law Studies, said. ONGOING PROJECTS OF THE CENTER - Working with Farm Sanctuary to address the lack of enforcement of the Poultry Products Inspection Act and asking USDA to consider a rulemaking on methods of slaughter necessitated by the exclusion of poultry from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act - Developing a compilation of letters outlining anti-cruelty laws to assist in prosecutions that will be sent to prosecutors in every state - Evaluating laws addressing animals used in testing and for food Today there are 142 law schools in the U.S. and Canada that have offered a course in animal law. In 2000 there were only 12 Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) chapters. Ten years later, SALDF chapters have been formed at more than 160 schools (including the top ten law schools in the U.S.). ALDF compares animal law today to the emergent environmental law movement thirty years ago. Cross posting is encouraged. Susan Wolf Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators saova at earthlink.net SAOVA’s 2012 Endorsements are posted http://saova.org/2012endorse.html Help financially support SAOVA's advocacy. Your donations make our work possible. The message above was posted to Oregon, Washington, California, Alaska and Hawaii residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) on one of six regional read only elists. SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details. To unsubscribe from this list, exercise that option at http://mailman.montana.com/mailman/listinfo/saova_west SAOVA PO Box 612, Spencer NC 28159 SAOVA_West mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.montana.com/mailman/listinfo/saova_west Related Posts: [SAOVA_West] HR 835 PUPS Call to action September 24, 2012 [SAOVA_West] News Briefs; APHIS proposed rule updates SAOVA Alert the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) licensing and regulations For Immediate Release Contact: Ryan Kuhlman 503.480.0523 KEIZER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VOICES ENDORSEMENT OF MEASURE 84 TO END THE OREGON DEATH TAX October 24, 2012 Salem – The Keizer Chamber of Commerce, through their Economic Development and Government Affairs Division, has voted unanimously to endorse Measure 84 to End the Oregon Death Tax. The Keizer Chamber joins many other Chambers across the state of Oregon that endorse Measure 84. All of these Chambers have expressed extreme concern for the effects that the Oregon Death Tax will have on their members’ businesses, and are therefore voting YES on Measure 84. The Chamber and its Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee has a history of close to 50 years of speaking as one voice on issues concerning private enterprise, competitive marketing, and the encouragement of innovative expansion and development of all segments of the community. Keizer’s Chamber feels that this can only be accomplished by allowing businesses to flourish and expand without worrying about the Oregon Estate Tax, and how a business can cut costs and pay insurance, to prevent losing the business when the owner passes. Over 50 organizations, and now the Keizer Chamber, form the YES on 84 Coalition that is working to eliminate the Oregon Death Tax. If you would like to assist the Coalition, please call 503.480.0523 or email [email protected]. With less than two weeks before Election Day, the Coalition welcomes assistance from other organizations, businesses, families, and individuals. Join the Coalition and the Keizer Chamber of Commerce with a VOTE of YES on Measure 84, to end the Oregon Death Tax. The Tea Partyer October 22, 2012 The following are my choices for the Ballot in the General Election of November 2012. My vote for a candidate does not signify my endorsement. I will distinguish between a candidate that I am endorsing and one that I am voting for because of the strategic political expediency of the decision. Bandon Voting Issues: On the local ballot in Bandon, the citizens will be making choices for Mayor, three city councilors, a new taxing district, and the members of the board for that new district. Mary Schamehorn will be receiving my vote for Mayor of Bandon. The other person in the race, Councilman Mike Claassen, voted in favor of the Bandon marsh expansion when the subject came before the council as an agenda item. It was a decision of betrayal and it displayed a lack of loyalty to the landowners in Bandon and the surrounding area. Mr. Claassen is an enemy of the taxpayer and he should retire from local politics when his term is up on the city council. Brian Vick, Geri Procetto will be begrudgingly getting my vote for Bandon City Council. Mike Sterling will be getting my vote and has my endorsement for city councilor. The current members of the council lack his sense of practicality. It would also be good to have a fresh perspective. However, I will be voting “NO” on Measure 6-146. This measure is the proposed formation of the Bandon Community Swimming Pool Recreation District. A pool is a luxury and now is not the time to raise local taxes. Lower taxes are an incentive for businesses to move into the area. The Bandon School district just lost $200,000 this year in funding due to fewer students, because there are no jobs to support their families. Please, let us stop creating more debt and vote against the Bandon Pool District. Vote NONE OF THE ABOVE or NOTA for ALL the candidates running for the position of board member of the new Bandon Community Swimming Pool Recreation District. Coos County Commissioners: Commissioner Robert “Bob” Main will be receiving my vote and has my endorsement for County Commissioner Position #1. His opponent, Commissioner Fred Messerle, voted in favor of increasing the maximum indebtedness of the Bandon Urban Renewal Area #1 at a cost to the county of about $30,000 annually until the year 2033. In addition, Messerle has been in favor of the Administrator position from the beginning. Given the opportunity, he would have enacted the administrator ordinance without going to a public vote. He is also deeply involved with the Winter Lake Project and too closely related to the South Coast Development Council. John Sweet will be receiving my vote for County Commissioner Position #2. Don Gurney will be receiving my vote and has my endorsement for County Commissioner Position #3. Mr. Gurney has already saved the county when he convinced the Board of Commissions to set aside funding. His opponent, Mellissa Cribbins, is a very nice woman, but her professional relationship with the Coquille Indian Tribe as their attorney makes her a liability for the county. Any of her decisions on the O&C lands, as a sitting commissioner, would be a conflict of interest going beyond just perception. Her support of the County Administrator position is a risk to our representative form of government. Coos Soil and Water Conservation: Dan Pierce will receive my vote and has my endorsement for Director in Zone #2. Charlie Waterman will receive my vote and has my endorsement for Director in Zone #3. I will write-in my own name for Director in Zone #4, because there is no candidate filed in that position and I want another choice. Please feel free to write-in my name. Write-in your own name or write-in someone with integrity for any position that has no candidate running in the race. It is the American way to make up our own choices. State Representative: Wayne Krieger will receive my vote for State Rep in the Congressional District #1. State Senator: Jeff Kruse will receive my vote for State Senator in District #1 Attorney General: James L Buchal will receive my vote for Attorney General. State Treasurer: Tom Cox will receive my vote and has my endorsement for State Treasurer. He once ran for Governor as a Libertarian candidate and is currently running as a registered Republican. His experience and knowledge of the financial markets will help him in the position of treasurer. Secretary of State: Knute Buehler will receive my vote for Secretary of State. It is time for a change. Representative in Congress: Libertarian candidate, Chuck Huntting, will receive my vote for representative in the 4th District of the US Congress. United States President: My choice for president should not reflect the image of the disgruntled voter. In fact, this is a very happy vote for me. I have the great opportunity to vote for my former Governor, Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President of the United States. I will vote for Governor Gary Johnson for President. I was on the committee to elect Johnson for President in 1999 and consider myself ahead of the times. Former Governor Johnson is the right person for the job of Commander-In-Chief. He has experience as Chief Executive in business and politics and was incredible successful in both positions. Obama is a big government socialist with plans to continue to change and reform the fundamental structure of our government. Romney has the same record of increasing the size of government and his foreign policy is identical to the current president. I cannot bring myself to vote for neither the Republican nor the Democrat. Both parties have devalued what it means to be an American, figuratively and literally. It is not a wasted vote to vote for someone of principle and it will force the Republicans to work towards the goal of a limited government or face the consequences of defeat. County Measures: I will Vote “YES” on measure 6-143 the Home Rule Charter Initiative. The charter is a contract between the people and the representatives on the Board of Commissioners. The charter will restrain the growth of authority and allows the voter to retain a representative form of government. I will Vote “NO” on measure 6-144. This is The Ordinance to change the Board of Commissioners and create a County Administrator position or County Czar. Creating a new position will further bloat our local county government and only benefit government developers, to the detriment of the taxpayer. It will increase administrative costs to the county, while eroding representation. I will Vote “NO” on measure 6-145, the Bandon Marsh Advisory Vote. The US Fish & Wildlife Service must hear a resounding NO to the Bandon marsh expansion from the residents of Coos County. It is very important to show our solidarity on this key issue. The entire Coquille Valley is at risk of being lost to future generations of farmers and ranchers. Statewide Measures: I will Vote “NO” on measure 77. This Ballot measure is a constitutional revision relating to state governmental responses to catastrophic disasters. The law is vague and it broadens the scope and power of the Governor. I will Vote “YES” on Measure 78. This measure changes constitutional language describing governmental system of separation of powers and it corrects grammatical and spelling changes. It would be good to have a grammatically correct constitution. I will Vote “YES” on Measure 79. This measure will amend the state constitution and prohibits real estate transfer taxes, fees, other assessments, except those operative on December 31, 2009. This is a double tax on property that discourages businesses from moving to Oregon. I will Vote “YES” on Measure 80. This measure allows personal marijuana, hemp cultivation/use without license and creates a commission to regulate commercial marijuana cultivation/sale. This is a badly written law, but it moves the mark forward towards legalizing marijuana for adults. The cannabis sativa plant is legal for all consenting adults would have been the proper way to write this law. Legislation that simple would be immensely more conducive to our constitutional values than our current situation where there is a War on Drugs. I will Vote “NO” on Measure 81. This measure prohibits commercial non-tribal fishing with gillnets in Oregon “inland waters,” and allows the use of seine nets. This law will destroy more jobs in our state. It does nothing to stop others from performing the same practice of gillnet fishing. I will Vote “NO” on Measure 82. This measure amends the Oregon constitution to permit the establishment of privately owned casinos and mandates a percentage of revenues payable to a dedicated state fund. Sounds good, but it does not allow the construction of private casinos within a 60-mile radius of existing tribal casinos operating on reservation land, which would eliminate 95% of the state. A market that restricted is not free market competition. Moreover, this measure is directed toward one particular casino, which will unfortunately be constructed using government development funding---i.e. ---our tax dollars. I will Vote “NO” on Measure 83. This measure authorizes a privately owned casino, The Wood Village. It would mandate Wood Village to pay a percentage of their revenue to a dedicated state fund. The state is desperately looking for new revenue streams, so they are willing to sell out the competition in the free market just for a few cents on the dollar. A better measure would make the ownership of private casinos in the state of Oregon legal. I will Vote “YES” on Measure 84. This law would phase out existing inheritance taxes on large estates, and all taxes on intra-family property transfers. One of Oregon’s largest exports is its children and young families. This tax forces people who inherit the family business to have to sell those businesses just to pay for the transfer tax. Instead of inheriting a thriving business, the state is bequeathing them more debt. Then those families move out of the state forever, never to return as tax paying residents of the community. This is a disgrace for our state to put such a burden on families. I will Vote “NO” on Measure 85. This measure amends the Oregon constitution to take money that would normally go back to taxpayers in the form of a“kicker” and allocates that money to fund additional public education K through 12. This is a backdoor tax increase, or otherwise it would be returned to the taxpayer. The school districts already receive the largest piece of the property tax pie. Then these districts turn around and give that money away to private developers through the tax increment financing process of Urban Renewal. What a joke and an insult to taxpayers. We need a revolutionary change for these school boards and we have to stop tax increases. Sincerely, Rob Taylor Related Posts: The Voice of the Voters The Administrator Matt Rowe for Mayor Rally “Coos County Today” Silent victory over Urban Renewal in Coos County Keep the Lights ON in Bandon There was an incident at the Fair. The Realm of Business A Meeting About Nothing.... Double Jeopardy The Bandon Lighting Ordinance The Administartor Position Initiatives, Referendums & Referrals, Oh My….. Our Demands Public Participation Fireworks Symbolize Freedom Urban Renewal Petition NO BME The Unsung Hero me·a cul·pa The Six Degrees of Separation Three Campaign Issues for 2012 From: DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Quote of the Day: "Privacy is not something that I'm merely entitled to, it's an absolute prerequisite." - Marlon Brando In eight years there could be 30,000 spy drones in American skies. Homeland Security claims this will make you safer. I don't buy it. That's why I wrote Congress using DownsizeDC.org's "I Am Not Afraid" campaign. Please join me. The hardwired message says... I am not afraid of terrorism. I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. End your politically profitable war on terror. I added these additional comments, which you may borrow from or copy... The terror threat is exaggerated. Virtually all the foiled "terror plots" are FBI stings. I don't need you to spy on me from the sky. Your drone cameras have a see-through imaging capacity to watch my every move, even indoors. I don't want that! Can I trust the Federal State to use these drones responsibly? Why should I? Since 9/11 both parties have waged total war on my privacy... * You gave the FBI power to look at my personal records without a warrant. * You legalized wiretapping without a warrant. * You fund the NSA's recording of my online activities. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1) I conclude... Drones will be the eyes and ears of Big Brother. When my neighbors and I are being watched, especially by the State, our behavior changes - even if we're doing nothing wrong. We don't want to do anything deemed 'suspicious' or open to misinterpretation. That's why 'being watched' violates my liberty. That's why I demand you prohibit federal use of drones unless... * They comply with the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirements. * Any personal data not relevant to a criminal investigation is destroyed. Without these minimal safeguards, your drones do not have my consent! END LETTER You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System. Jim Babka President DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Oregon farm pollution act goes under the spotlight
Published: Saturday, October 13, 2012, 9:00 AM Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2012, 11:31 AM By Scott Learn, The OregonianThe Oregonian MT. ANGEL -- Last year, Marion County's soil and water conservation district decided to upgrade water quality along Zollner Creek. It wasn't a hard call. Zollner, a skimpy stream that putters through prime Willamette Valley farmland, has registered high levels of pesticide and fertilizer since the mid-1990s. The district's plan: Persuade farmers to plant streamside trees and shrubs, buffering against erosion and the pollution that runs with it. Notices went to 75 landowners. Five responded. Two eventually agreed to soil testing, but nothing more. "Because of a lack of access on private land and interest by landowners," the district reported to the state in July, "efforts would be better spent on other projects." Read More..... The Sentinel 10/10/2012 THE TEA PARTYER October 9, 2012 A LOCAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: “The Committee to Keep the lights ON in Bandon”is happy to announce the group was successful with the Referendum Petition on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The group gathered 240 qualifying signatures of the 179 signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot, and now the voters can decide if the people of Bandon are in need of more restrictions on the property owner. The measure will be on the ballot in the March 12, 2013 election. PUBLIC REMINDER: The US Fish & Wildlife Service recently released the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Bandon Marsh Refuge. The Refuge Managers developed the plan as a way to create a new National Wildlife Refuge System. Simultaneously with the release of the CCP, The Service mailed out the National Refuge Planning Update #3 in September 2012, which was what most residents received. In this current issue of the Update the original Bandon marsh expansion of 4500 acres is noticeably missing in Alternative C. That was one of three alternative plans for the marsh and the expansion was in that third choice. On the last page of the update The Service has an email and a mailing address for public comment on this new alternative, which is DUE BY OCTOBER 22, 2012. However, The Service is asking the public to comment on what is in the new planning update without mentioning their plans in the CCP. This is deceptive on the part of The US Fish & Wildlife The entire expansion of the Bandon marsh is on Page 20-22 of the first chapter of the CCP. The Services has relabeled the planned expansion, but make no mistake, it is the same plan as the original Alternative C. Nothing has changed. The planned expansion is now in a Land Protection Planning (LPP) process. Under this plan, The Service will study options for expanding the approved refuge adjacent to and upstream from the existing boundary. The US Fish & Wildlife is determined to acquire every inch of the original planned expansion until they own most of the Coquille Valley. The only way to respond to The Service is to continue to repeat the same three demands. Tell The Service “NO” to any expansion of the Bandon Marsh, not one inch, not one more acre. Tell them “NO” to any placement of a PROTECTIVE ZONE around the marsh and/or the adjoining area. And, tell The US Fish & Wildlife Service that they must return the current Bandon Marsh Refuge over to the county’s Board of Commissioners and then the Service must leave the county. Time is quickly running out to send in your comments: Send Comments to: Roy W. Lowe, Project Leader Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex 2127 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, Oregon 97365 Phone: (541) 867-4550 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.fws.gov/oregoncoast/ GROUP IN NEED OF DONATIONS: The non-profit group “Coos County Today” is in desperate need of funding, so they can continue the challenging battle of stopping the Bandon Marsh Expansion. They have already tirelessly educated many in the public on the harms of turning productive farms and ranches into wetlands and the need for more agriculture. The organization has been traveling the county presenting the facts of the situation to governmental and nongovernmental functions---all in an effort to end this federal land grab. The members of Coos County Today were responsible for getting the Advisory Question about the Bandon Marsh expansion on the November ballot and we will continue to be active afterwards. There are plans to elevate this fight to the state and federal level and that is where your help will be required. It is getting very expensive to print material, rent rooms for public meetings, purchase government information and the accruing legal fees. This January we plan to have several members of the group lobbing in the state legislature for more laws protecting private property rights. Your contributions will help continue the lifestyle of the Coquille Valley for current and future generations. Not only will it help Coos County, but it will help every county in Oregon that is facing the destruction of the private property market. Donations are tax deductible and can be sent to Coos County Today, PO Box 2108, Bandon, OR 97411. Remember to Vote NO on Measure 6-145 and Vote NO to the Bandon Marsh Expansion “Rob Taylor was the original organizer of the TEA Parties in Coos County and is currently an independent activist working to promote the rights of the individual. Related Posts: The Administrator Matt Rowe for Mayor Rally “Coos County Today” Silent victory over Urban Renewal in Coos County Keep the Lights ON in Bandon There was an incident at the Fair. The Realm of Business A Meeting About Nothing.... Double Jeopardy The Bandon Lighting Ordinance The Administartor Position Initiatives, Referendums & Referrals, Oh My….. Our Demands Public Participation Fireworks Symbolize Freedom Urban Renewal Petition NO BME The Unsung Hero me·a cul·pa The Six Degrees of Separation Three Campaign Issues for 2012 Oregon Firearms Federation PO Box 556 Canby, OR 97013 Voice: (503) 263-5830 http://www.oregonfirearms.org OFF ALERT 10.03.12 CHL PRIVACY RULES UPDATE As we told you, an “administrative rule” is going to be drafted to implement the very flawed “CHL privacy bill” HB 4045. For more information about where and when, please visit either of the following links: http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/2012%20alerts/10.03.12%20alert.html http://tinyurl.com/9tenda3 Related Posts: [OFF Alert] OFF ON THE RADIO. OFF ALERT 8.29.12---“PERMANENT RULES” TO BE ADOPTED FOR CHL “PRIVACY” [OFF Alert] Earl Blumenauer's embarrassing survey OFF ALERT 07.23.2012---UN SMALL ARMS “TREATY” CLOSE TO REALITY. OFF ALERT 06.29.12 Eric Holder Held In Contempt of Congress. Oregon Firearms Federation OFF ALERT 05.14.12 http://giveusourlandback.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wallowa County Endorses Petition to De-Federalize Oregon Lands ENTERPRISE, OR – September 18, 2012 The Wallowa County Commission has endorsed a petition requesting the US Congress to return federal land in Oregon to the counties of Oregon. The Petition To De-Federalize Oregon Lands is championed by Oregon citizens coalition named Give Us Our Land Back. The Petition may be viewed and signed on the Internet at ttp://giveuslourlandback.org The Petition asserts that the federal ownership of 53 percent of Oregon’s landbase is unconstitutional and has been detrimental to the local economy and environment. The Petition further asserts, “… sovereign control, full jurisdiction, and eminent domain by the People of Oregon over the land and resources within its boundaries would be most likely to effect proper stewardship and the safety and happiness of the People of Oregon …” Wallowa County Commissioner Paul Castilleja noted that in 1994 a Wallowa County initiative (# 32-1) passed by the voters affirmed the policy of the County that “federal” land ownership is unconstitutional. Wallowa County Initiative # 32-1 (1994) Question: Shall the People of Wallowa County Recognize the Federal Government’s Lack of Authority to Possess Unconstitutionally Held Land in Wallowa County? Summary: Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution: The Powers not delegated to the United Sates by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.A review of the Constitution and the intent and concerns of the framers indicates that this document does not contain any authorization for the Federal government to own, hold or exert its dominion over any public lands, except for land for the erection of forts, arsenals, dock yards, and needful buildings. Yes votes were 2,483, no votes were 907. Commissioner Castilleja stated, “It is my opinion that the Constitution of United States is still the law of the land and should be held to its highest standards.” Give Us Our Land Back executive director Mike Dubrasich stated, “The justifications for transferring title of federal lands back to the counties are constitutional, pragmatic, and ethical. “The land rightfully belongs to the residents. We can do a far better job of stewardship and resource conservation than any Washington DC bureaucracy. It is the right thing to do.” A meeting to discuss the Petition and its implications is scheduled for Oct. 5th at 10am at the Wallowa Courthouse (Thornton Room), 101 S. River Street, Enterprise.County Commissioner Paul Castilleja and Mr. Dubrasich will be attending. The interested public is invited. Give Us Our Land Back http://giveusourlandback.org Contact: Mike Dubrasich, Exec Dir[Soft Give Us Our Land Back[Soft 33862 Totem Pole Rd.[Soft Lebanon, OR 97355[Soft 541-223-5764[Soft http://giveusourlandback.org [email protected] (406 words) Related Posts: New Bandon Marsh Maps showing the 7 Priority Stages and the Winter Lake Project UPDATE: on the Bandon Marsh expansion and the release of the CCP UPDATE: Advisory Question Meeting to discuss the reasons to Vote NO on the Bandon Marsh Expansion Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe Problem Advisory Vote Meeting on the "NO Bandon Marsh Expansion" 11:00 AM Saturday September 8, 2012 Oregon Water Resource Commission approved the Integrated Water Resource Strategy Advisory Vote Meeting in Coquille "NO Bandon Marsh Expansion" Advisory Vote for The Bandon Marsh Expansion The "NO BANDON MARSH" Signs are now Available The Nature Conservancy--Ecotrust Study on Salmon Economics News of the Depot Bay Firework Ban Goes International Urgent, Urgent, Urgent, House May Cave On LWCF. TIME IS RUNNING OUT to Contact the BLM 2010 Coastal Wetlands Grants USFWS Extends Public Comment Period On Proposed Spotted Owl A Delicate but Important Balance for All Dear SAOVA friends, Members of Congress are returning home to campaign for the upcoming November election. We know that the HSUS and its animal rights allies never stop lobbying for their agenda, but lately they have been working overtime. This past week HSUS secured 8 additional cosponsors for the PUPS bill (HR 835): Rep. Peter Roskam (R, IL6) - 9/14/2012 Rep. Karen Bass (D, CA33) - 9/19/2012 Rep. Frank Guinta (R, NH1) - 9/19/2012 Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX21) - 9/19/2012 Rep. Cedric Richmond (D, LA2) - 9/20/2012 Rep. Brian Bilbray (R, CA50) - 9/20/2012 Rep. Jim Cooper (D, TN5) - 9/20/2012 Rep. John Culberson (R, TX7) - 9/21/2012 The total number of cosponsors now stands at 213. As of this writing, there are still 32 cosponsors on the companion Senate bill, S707, with the most recent cosponsor added January 2012. The HSUS byline for PUPS is that the legislation will close a loophole in the AWA that allows thousands of commercial breeders to go unregulated. HSUS also disingenuously tells members of Congress and the public that “the bill will not affect small breeders and hobby breeders … the bill is crafted to cover only large commercial breeding facilities.” PUPS is NOT what bill supporters claim. HSUS/ASPCA promote PUPS as reasonable, but examination of the bill easily shows it is unneeded, overarching in scope and will adversely affect dog sportsmen, responsible breeders, rescue organizations, hunting and field dog trainers, and working dog kennels. Bill supporters justify the bill by pointing to known AWA violators described in the May 2010 Office of the Inspector General’s report. Like the proposed APHIS rule, PUPS would overextend limited USDA/APHIS resources by regulating small, private kennels rather than concentrate on a solution to the cited problem. PUPS is based on ownership of just ONE “breeding female dog” which is defined as an intact female *4 months of age or older* and sales of 50 dogs or puppies per year regardless of age or whether they were bred by the seller. PUPS changes the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and USDA responsibility forever by granting authority for federal regulation to extend beyond commercial dog businesses and into private homes. PUPS sets precedent by mandating specific exercise requirements in private homes exceeding those currently required for laboratory animals. Setting government controlled exercise standards lays the groundwork for regulation of socialization and breeding standards and is an unwarranted federal intrusion into the private husbandry practices of dog breeders. Agricultural organizations raised a loud alarm over the HSUS initiated Egg Products bill which would set cage sizes and standards, calling this a “farm takeover bill” that would open the door to government regulation of farming operations. PUPS exercise mandate represents this same unreasonable level of government over-regulation and should be strongly opposed. TAKE ACTION The upcoming election will decide many national policy issues that are at the forefront of conversation and current campaign speeches. Sportsmen and dog breeders must make government overreach into our homes, hobbies, and businesses part of that conversation. Download the SAOVA Congressional handout for talking points http://www.saova.org/news/PUPS/PUPS.Congressional.Handout.pdf http://tinyurl.com/963noem Call your Congressman or visit him at your local office while he is home before the election. Find contact information: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ EDUCATE your Congressman on the true impacts of HR 835. This is NOT a bill your Congressman should support. Full analysis at the SAOVA website http://www.saova.org/PUPS2011.html Cross posting is encouraged. Susan Wolf Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators [email protected] http://saova.org Help financially support SAOVA's advocacy. Your donations make our work possible. The message above was posted to Oregon, Washington, California, Alaska and Hawaii residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) on one of six regional read only elists. SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details. To unsubscribe from this list, exercise that option at http://mailman.montana.com/mailman/listinfo/saova_west SAOVA PO Box 612, Spencer NC 28159 SAOVA_West mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.montana.com/mailman/listinfo/saova_west Related Links: [SAOVA_West] News Briefs; APHIS proposed rule updates SAOVA Alert the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) licensing and regulations
To All -- The above attachment can give you lots of ideas for Letters to the Editors, not to mention fodder for the blogs. It is a wonderful 6 pages, friendly, put together by dedicated Friends of ARRRG who currently wish to remain anonymous. We need ongoing letters to the papers and the blogs from now until November 6th. The more favorable, knowledgable, understandable "pro" letters people see, the more they will be inclined to vote for the Charter. Letters do not need to be long. One effective type of letter is just a series of questions leading the reader to some inescapable conclusion. Humor is okay. Comparisons are great. Calling them out for the idiots they are is not, generally, a good idea.... We want a LARGE victory, a BIG message to the bureaucrats that the voters here have had enough. And they have! Didn't they say it enough times when we were doing signatures? Let's go for it! Ronnie ![]()
CHARTER NOTES In view of all the misleading articles, editorials & letters to the editor in The World, Why should we vote YES for the Charter? The World says the charter is like a Constitution and would tie the hands of elected officials They’re right, it will put some restrictions on elected officials, and that’s a good thing. With the Charter, there is less likelihood for conflicts of interest like the Winter Lake Project; less likely that stealth candidates, especially unelected ones, will exercise unrestrained power to radically change government without the consent of the people. Did you know that the only limitation on our county commissioners is the Oregon Criminal Code? Our commissioners make & break the rules as they go and the only accountability is at election time, which means if they ram through an unpopular increase in taxes, fees or bonding authority we’ll end up paying even if they are voted out. It means if they endorse some UN proposal affecting building codes or environmental restrictions, we’re stuck with them even if they’re voted out. The World also says we should have an administrator so we can be as efficient as schools, cities, hospital boards, ports, etc. How many of these "efficient" groups are currently bankrupt or close to it? Where is the "proof" of better efficiency. The truth is that in too many instances these administrators are less responsive to the people than elected officials because they can’t be terminated by election and unless they commit a crime, can’t be fired without an expensive severance package (golden parachute). Administrators have no loyalty to the taxpayers, only to the politicians who hire them. Administrators generally provide little continuity because they use their current job as a resume to their next higher paying job, and while an exceptional administrator can be a real asset, they don’t come cheap. Administrators also provide "cover" to politicians who don’t want to take the heat for unpopular decisions, and they are expensive, using staffs or consulting firms to do the real work & provide expertise. The World says we shouldn’t vote for the charter because it has flaws. They’re right, there are flaws. I’m not happy with every single word in the charter, either but I’m still going to vote for it. The United States Constitution had flaws in it, but it passed and we should be grateful it did. By my last count there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution, and there probably will be more as time goes by. Fact is, the first 10 amendments were passed about the same time as the Constitution itself passed. Do any of you think the founding fathers should have waited until every flaw was ironed out to pass the Constitution? A number of people have talked about the cost associated with enacting the Charter. From what I’ve read, they must be prophets, able to see the future. What I haven’t seen from the naysayers is the true cost of hiring an administrator, what his job description is going to be, what qualifications he is going to require to be able to single-handedly do the job that 3 commissioners cannot do, and what his benefits package will be. The World keeps yapping about allowing our elected representatives to do their jobs, and that we should follow their lead on things like an administrator. I would remind The World that 2 of those commissioners were appointed, not elected and since the people they replaced were not talking about turning the county government upside down with an administrator & changing the rules every meeting on citizen input limitations, it would behoove those 2 commissioners to settle down, behave like the caretakers they are, and unless there is a life or death emergency, stick to the business of running the County and limiting their creativeness to tweaking it for efficiency & economy. I’m getting a little sick & tired of hearing about the committees who are the source of some of these radical concepts. First off, the committees were handpicked by the very people they’re advising. I’ve been on enough committees to know that committees are often formed to provide the rational for a decision already made. Odds are most of the committee members are directly or indirectly involved with government jobs. Our representative republic, founded by the people with a constitution designed to restrict the power of our elected officials, has been undermined these past 50-60 years by a bureaucracy which is usurping our freedoms as surely as kings, tyrants & dictators of old. When the welfare state was inaugurated by Pres. Roosevelt in the 1930’s, the first recruits to the bureaucracy were people instilled with the founding principles of freedom and limited government power who acted with restraint to a large degree. During WWII, the great expansion of government bureaucracy brought in, of necessity, men & women of the business world, people who were doers, still instilled with founding principles of freedom & limited government power but who recognized some freedom had to be given up to counter the foreign threat. By the time of Johnson’s War on Poverty, these founding principles were beginning to be forgotten and bureaucrats began to think they had all the answers despite the lessons of history. They began to think those others, those kings, tyrants, and dictators failed because they were unenlightened, but they can make it work if only we can get these uneducated, stupid, troublesome taxpayers to shut up and let us do our jobs. Administrators are bureaucrats! We don’t need one if our elected officials are doing their jobs & letting their employees do their job. If the County Commissioners stopped micro managing, they’d have time to do their job. If the Department heads were given clear goals & authority, and held accountable, I’m confident they could do their jobs without micromanagement. If not, why are they Department heads? Are they just gofers, commissioner’s personal servants? I’ve run a large department. I knew well in advance when I had major expenditures coming for projects, equipment, repairs, maintenance, contracts, manpower changes, etc. and planned for it. There’s no need for "hundreds" of special elections, these things can be rolled into the current election cycle at no additional cost. In a genuine life & death emergency, I doubt the charter will prevent taking emergency action. Finally, here are 5 reasons to vote YES on the Charter 1. Limits the power of county government to spend us into oblivion. 2. Forces County government to be open, accountable, and impartial. 3. Allows a County Administrator if a case can be made, publicly and completely in the open, that it’s in our best interests. 4. Ensures all qualified suppliers have an equal chance at bidding on contracts. 5. Prevents the erosion of freedom that occurs when employees (administrators) exercise the power that belongs to elected officials. Related Posts: Important Dates: Letter to Editor About the Home Rule Charter Home Rule Charter is officially on the ballot Americans for Prosperity Presents the Panal on the Home Rule Charter "Voice of the Voters" Home Rule Charter 8-7-12 BOC Meeting discussing Governance Advisory Committee BOC Watch...Aug 14 & 15, 2012 The BOC will decide on the county Administrator and the Urban Renewal Amendment SOS OR Counties 2012 Financial Condidtion Review 2012-17 COOS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Board of Commissioners Meeting Board of Commissioners Meeting the Sturcture Committee Does Portland employ one manager for every six non-managers? Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 3:31 PM Subject: Preserve the Waters of the US Act ( excerpt from information below ) -----The Preserve The Waters of the US Act (S-2245) would stop Washington overreach and block any further attempt to issue “guidance” to agency bureaucrats that says it is OK to regulate non-navigable water in people’s backyards and farms. *Preserve the waters of the u.s. Act (S-2245)* ---------------------------------------- Land Rights Network American Land Rights Association PO Box 400 – Battle Ground, WA 98604 Phone: 360-687-3087 – Fax: 360-687-2973 E-mail: [email protected] Web Address: http://www.landrights.org Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE – Washington, DC 20003 Block EPA & Corps Wetlands Jurisdiction Over Your Water & Land *Do You Want The EPA &Corps In Your Backyard?* Do you want the EPA & Corps jurisdiction over all forest roads? If Not, Here’s Why You Need The *“Preserve The Waters Of The US Act” (S-2245)* Below are action items to protect your water and your land as well as roads on Federal land. But first, read this: -----The EPA wants to lift the ban that prevents Washington, DC bureaucrats from regulating non-navigable waters. -----Lifting the navigable ban, passed by Congress to protect families, small businesses and farmers from federal bureaucrats seizing their water or their land, would devastate economic and recreational activity as well as small communities across the U.S. ------You need to insist that Congress not remove the requirement set by Congress in the original Clean Water Act that said the EPA and Corps *can only regulate “navigable waters”*. The EPA and Corps want to eliminate the word “navigable” and give the EPA and Corps jurisdiction over “all waters of the United States and all activities affecting all waters of the United States.” -----If the ban is lifted, when it rains, your backyard or farm becomes a minefield of Washington red tape and taxes. -----If you’re a farmer, when it rains, your backyard becomes a bonanza for Washington, DC bureaucrats to go on your property to force you from doing activities like building a swimming pool, installing a bird bath, running rainwater away from your home, irrigating your fields, installing stock watering ponds and many more. -----If you’re a suburban homeowner, when it rains, the water in your backyard allows Washington, DC bureaucrats on your property to block you from doing basic things without a permit that can cost thousands of dollars and long delays causing great damage. -----Congress blocked attempts by former Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN) and former Senator Russ Feingold (R-MN) from passing the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would have lifted the “navigable” ban. As with the EPA and Corp, Oberstar and Feingold tried to remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act. -----Despite Congress not changing the law, the Obama EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are attempting to remove this key protection for families, small business and farmers by issuing an internal guidance document to agency bureaucrats telling them it is now OK to regulate non-navigable waters on people’s property throughout the United States. The Obama folks seem to care less about how they are ignoring two Supreme Court decisions. -----The Preserve The Waters of the US Act (S-2245) would stop Washington overreach and block any further attempt to issue “guidance” to agency bureaucrats that says it is OK to regulate non-navigable water in people’s backyards and farms. *Preserve the waters of the u.s. Act (S-2245)* *Purpose:* To preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters of the U.S. * **Background:* In May 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued draft guidance on “Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.” This guidance document, which was sent in final form to OMB on February 21, 2012, significantly changes and expands what features are considered protected under the Clean Water Act and makes substantial additions, such as a first time inclusion of ditches and other water features that may flow, if at all, only after a heavy rainfall. EPA and the Corps received over 230,000 comments from the public on their guidance, discussing the potential consequences of the draft guidance to governments, businesses, and landowners. They have not responded to the comments. EPA and the Corps estimate that between 2 – 17% percent of non-jurisdictional determinations under current practice would be jurisdictional using the expanded tests of the new guidance. This guidance has clear regulatory consequences and goes far beyond being simply advisory guidelines. *The legislation (S-2245) prevents EPA and the Corps from using this /guidance/ to change legal responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.* *-----Regulation through Guidance:* By issuing a guidance document as opposed to going through the rulemaking process, EPA and the Corps are bypassing the necessary public outreach required under the Administrative Procedures Act and failing to fully consider the legal, economic, and unforeseen consequences of their actions. * * *-----Applies to all Clean Water Act (CWA) Programs:* In addition to the Corps §404 dredge and fill permits, the guidance applies to all CWA programs including §303 water quality standards, §401 state water quality certifications, §311 Oil Pollution Act (including SPCC), and §402 program (including NPDES permits, pesticide general permit, and storm water). *-----Increasing Permits: *EPA and the Corps affirm that this guidance will result in an increase in jurisdictional determinations that will result in an increased need for permits. In addition to more Corps §404 permits, State-permitting authorities will be faced with more NPDES permits and more entities will be subject to CWA requirements. *-----Economic and Job Impacts:* Additional regulatory costs associated with changes in jurisdiction and increases in permits will erect bureaucratic barriers to economic growth, negatively impacting farms, small businesses, commercial development, road construction and energy production, to name a few. *-----Impact on State on Local Governments:* Changes to the “waters of the U.S.” definition may have far-reaching effects and unintended consequences on a number of state and local programs. The guidance creates significant unfunded mandates and preempts state and local authority. *-----Conflicts with Supreme Court Rulings:* The guidance uses an overly broad interpretation of the /Rapanos /decision. The effect is virtually all wet areas that connect in any way to navigable waters are jurisdictional. Both the plurality opinion and Kennedy rejected this assertion in /Rapanos/. *-----Private Property Rights:* Expanding federal control over intrastate waters will substantially interfere with the ability of individual landowners to use their property. *-----Action Items:* *-----1. It’s critical to get some of the Senators below as co-sponsors of the Preserve The Waters Of The US Act (S 2245). *You need to call, fax and e-mail your Senator (s) listed below to urge them to cosponsor the Preserve The Waters Of The US Act. -----2. For more information about S 2245 type in to Google the following search term: Preserve The Waters Of The US Act. -----3. Please forward this message to at least 10 other people. Your whole list if possible. The best thing to do is write a letter with your letterhead and either fax it or e-mail it to your Senator (s). They don’t like attachments so call ahead to ask for the staff person who handles the Clean Water Act and Wetlands issues. Ask for his personal e-mail and send him your letter. ................................... Thank you for your help. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights [email protected] Look Chuck Cushman and American Land Rights up on Google by typing in the following search terms: Chuck Cushman, Charles Cushman, Charles S. ushman, American Land Rights Association, National Inholders Association and League of Private Property Voters. *Social Networking Update: * The American Land Rights Association has a Page on Facebook. Please be sure to hit the Like button. Also Executive Director Chuck Cushman is on Facebook.com. You can also find American Land Rights Association and Chuck Cushman on LinkedIn.com. We are especially active on LinkedIn.com so send an nvitation to connect and sign up. American Land Rights is on Twitter as AmLandrights. Chuck Cushman is also on Twitter under ccushman98604 To unsubscribe please send an email with “Unsubscribe” in the Subject Line to [email protected]. Please forward this urgent message widely. “Potential Indirect Economic Impacts and Benefits Associated with Guidance Clarifying the Scope of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction.” April 27, 2011 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/cwa_guidance_impacts_benefits.pdf Related Posts: Subject: CWA meeting recap and information House Committee: EPA Overstepped Its Authority Oregon Water Resource Commission approved the Integrated Water Resource Strategy Advisory Vote Meeting in Coquille "NO Bandon Marsh Expansion" The "NO BANDON MARSH" Signs are now Available The Nature Conservancy--Ecotrust Study on Salmon Economics 2010 Coastal Wetlands Grants OWEB Listening Session Information & Agenda This Land is... the Government's Why is Bandon Marsh Refuge Considering an Expanded Boundary? White House Conference Sets Stage for New Era of Conservation Judge says Oregon's river temperature standards need more scrutiny UPDATE: Advisory Question Meeting to discuss the reasons to Vote NO on the Bandon Marsh Expansion9/5/2012 UPDATE: The non-profit group “Coos County Today” will be having meetings to educate the public on the importance of farms and ranches in the Coquille Valle. We are encouraging everyone to Vote NO on The Bandon Marsh Expansion Advisory Question, which will be on the ballot this November. Here are the dates of the meetings: September 15, 2012 Saturday at 11:00 am in the Coos Bay Library---Advisory Question Meeting to discuss the reasons to Vote NO on the Bandon Marsh Expansion. Contact: Don Chance at 541-329-2020 September 22, 2012 Saturday at 11:00 am at The Bandon Library 1202 11th Street SW in Bandon ---Advisory Question Meeting to discuss the reasons to Vote NO on the Bandon Marsh Expansion. Contact: Don Chance at 541-329-2020 September 29th, 2012 Saturday at 11:00 am in the North Bend Library 1800 Sherman Avenue ---Advisory Question Meeting to discuss the reasons to Vote NO on the Bandon Marsh Expansion. Contact: Don Chance at 541-329-2020 November 6, 2012 Tuesday---Election Day Important Dates Related Posts: Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe Problem Advisory Vote Meeting on the "NO Bandon Marsh Expansion" 11:00 AM Saturday September 8, 2012 Oregon Water Resource Commission approved the Integrated Water Resource Strategy Advisory Vote Meeting in Coquille "NO Bandon Marsh Expansion" Advisory Vote for The Bandon Marsh Expansion The "NO BANDON MARSH" Signs are now Available The Nature Conservancy--Ecotrust Study on Salmon Economics News of the Depot Bay Firework Ban Goes International Urgent, Urgent, Urgent, House May Cave On LWCF. TIME IS RUNNING OUT to Contact the BLM 2010 Coastal Wetlands Grants USFWS Extends Public Comment Period On Proposed Spotted Owl A Delicate but Important Balance for All Oregon Firearms Federation PO Box 556 Canby, OR 97013 Voice: (503) 263-5830 http://www.oregonfirearms.org OFF ALERT 8.29.12 “PERMANENT RULES” TO BE ADOPTED FOR CHL “PRIVACY” The “temporary” ones are being ignored. In spite of the passage of HB 4045, CHL information is still being disclosed to the press. The Department of Justice will be adopting “permanent” rules to implement HB 4045. We want your input. More info at either of the following links: http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/2012%20alerts/08.29.12%20alert.html http://tinyurl.com/8tbjfpe Related Posts: [OFF Alert] Earl Blumenauer's embarrassing survey OFF ALERT 07.23.2012---UN SMALL ARMS “TREATY” CLOSE TO REALITY. OFF ALERT 06.29.12 Eric Holder Held In Contempt of Congress. Oregon Firearms Federation OFF ALERT 05.14.12 The Sentinel 08/29/2012 The Tea Partyer August 22, 2012 Hello, We had a silent victory here today in Coos County. The Board of Commissioners unanimously passed the 2nd reading of the Urban Renewal amendment, which gives the people the chance to vote on any substantial changes to the county’s UR agency. It is officially a law, taking effect 90 days from today’s date. The voters have taken back control over a rouge agency and we did it through the Representative process, the way it is suppose to work. I want to Thank Dave Hunnicutt from Oregonians in Action, for his legal expertise and Randall O’Toole for his well thought out arguments against Tax Increment Financing. Without them it would have been impossible to accomplish this task. It has taken a considerable amount of effort to get this enacted and it is going to take even more to introduce and pass this type of legislation in Salem. We are hoping to find several State Representatives and Senators to sponsor the bill. Here is a link to the Coos County’s BOC’s agenda with the wording of the amendment on the very last page. http://www.co.coos.or.us/Portals/0/revised%208-21-12%20agenda%20&%20packet.pdf Oregon’s Urban Renewal Agency’s are going to bankrupt our cities and counties while draining the state coffers with the cost of backfill replacement for the schools. It would be smart to work in unison. Sincerely, Rob Taylor 541-347-9942 [email protected] www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com Related Posts: INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL BOC Watch...Aug 14 & 15, 2012 Jon Barton of the South Coast Development Council Face Rock Creamery----Groundbreaking Ceremony Date Changed The BOC will decide on the county Administrator and the Urban Renewal Amendment Bandon: The City of Ordinances SOS OR Counties 2012 Financial Condidtion Review 2012-17 BOC votes to create a New Aministrator Position and put it on the Nov. Ballot BOC Meeting discussing Governance Advisory Committee Collapsing Local Government COOS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Officials limit public reply The BOC will be voting on the Coquille Valley Enterprise Zone Expansion Urban Renewal Initiative Board of Commissioners Meeting Board of Commissioners Meeting the Sturcture Committee Does Portland employ one manager for every six non-managers? H.R. 6342: Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act of 2012 http://by150w.bay150.mail.live.com/default.aspx?rru=inbox#n=473250270&rru=inbox&fid=1&fav=1&mid=1c4b3ecb-e800-11e1-a667-00237de335f4&fv=1 112th Congress, 2011–2012. Text as of Aug 02, 2012 (Introduced). Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO HR 6342 IH 112th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6342 To allow the importation, distribution, and sale of investigational drugs and devices intended for use by terminally ill patients who execute an informed consent document. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES August 2, 2012 Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, and Mr. HANNA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce A BILL To allow the importation, distribution, and sale of investigational drugs and devices intended for use by terminally ill patients who execute an informed consent document. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2012’. SEC. 2. DRUGS AND DEVICES FOR USE BY TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS.
section 561 (21 U.S.C. 360bbb) the following: ‘SEC. 561A. DRUGS AND DEVICES FOR USE BY TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS.
Service Act prevents or restricts, and the Food and Drug Administration shall not implement or enforce any provision of law preventing or restricting, the importation, distribution, or sale of an investigational drug or device intended for use by a terminally ill patient in accordance with subsection (b). ‘(b) Patient Requirements- In order for an investigational drug or device to be intended for use in accordance with this subsection, such drug or device must be intended for use by a patient who has-- ‘(1) been diagnosed with a terminal illness by a licensed physician; ‘(2) been informed by a licensed physician that no drug or device that is lawfully marketed in the United States is likely to cure the illness; and ‘(3) executed a written informed consent document that states-- ‘(A) the known and potential risks and benefits of such drug or device; and ‘(B) any indications of the illness for which a drug or device is lawfully marketed, or for which treatment is otherwise available, in the United States. ‘(c) Prohibition on Requiring the Disclosure, Collection, and Reporting of Certain Information by Food and Drug Administration- ‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner of Food and Drugs may not require the disclosure, collection, or reporting of-- ‘(A) any information related to the delivery, administration, or use of an investigational drug or device pursuant to this section; or ‘(B) any information related to the clinical outcomes experienced by a terminally ill patient supplied an investigational drug or device pursuant to this section. ‘(2) EXCEPTION- Nothing in this subsection prevents the sponsor of a clinical trial from voluntarily disclosing, collecting, or reporting information to the Food and Drug Administration. ‘(d) Definition of Investigational Drug or Device- In this section, the term ‘investigational drug or device’ means a drug or device that-- ‘(1) has not yet been approved, licensed, or cleared for commercial distribution under section 505, 510(k), or 515 of this Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and cannot otherwise be lawfully marketed in the United States; and ‘(2) is or has been the subject of one or more clinical trials.’.
Related Posts: Sign the Petition to Keep the Lights ON in Bandon---Vote NO on the Bandon Outdoor Lighting Ordinance 1594 STOP THE BANDON OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE--1594 Bandon: The City of Ordinances Oregon Firearms Federation PO Box 556 Canby, OR 97013 Voice: (503) 263-5830 http://www.oregonfirearms.org OFF ALERT 08.13.12 An Oregon land owner is facing a costly battle to be able to continue to shoot on his own rural property. Land use laws in Oregon rarely favor the land owner, but the outcome of this battle could very well affect (in a very bad way) the rights of gun owners to safely discharge firearms on their own land. You can read the details and how you can help at either of the following links: http://oregonfirearms.org/2012/conrady.html http://tinyurl.com/9y9ga7l Related Posts: [OFF Alert] Earl Blumenauer's embarrassing survey OFF ALERT 07.23.2012---UN SMALL ARMS “TREATY” CLOSE TO REALITY. OFF ALERT 06.29.12 Eric Holder Held In Contempt of Congress. Oregon Firearms Federation OFF ALERT 05.14.12 Hello The Bandon city council passed a very restrictive lighting ordinance on Monday August 6, 2012 and several of us residents have filed a Referendum Petition on this measure. The group, “The Committee to Keep the Lights ON in Bandon” will be gathering signatures until the 5th of September and we need your help. We need you to sign the petition. We need people to gather more signatures. We need businesses to sponsor a petition site. We need help from our fellow citizens. Only Bandon voters can sign the petition, but anybody can gather signatures. For a copy of the Ordinance and a petition please contact: Rob Taylor PO Box 973 Bandon OR 97411 [email protected] 541-347-9942 IMPORTANT: Time is of the essence, so we have to get started NOW! Please join us in the fight against the local intrusion onto our private property. This is a matter of safety and comfort and your right to choose what’s best for your home. Technology will improve existing lighting fixtures and these products will become more efficient on their own and with better quality, without the force of more government regulation. The Bandon outdoor lighting ordinance, Ordinance 1594, gives the authority for city officials to determine what type of lighting fixtures can be used on your property. This law will give the city the right to fine people arbitrarily, or because neighbors have a grudge. You could pay a fine if your property has lighting that faces the forest or the beach or if it can be seen. These new local regulations will add 5 new pages to the City Code and the cities analisys of the fiscal impact is officially“Undetermined.” The recommendation by the City Manager to the city council was to adopt Ordinance No. 1594. Do we need more bureaucracy and government control? The law should be suspect since it is promoted by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, which is the same agency involved with the Bandon marsh expansion. No federal agency should be influencing local law and the public should worry when they do. The other non-governmental agency involved is the International Dark –Sky Association www.darksky.org, which has an environmental extremist agenda. I like wildlife, but this law goes too far in the name of protectionism over the free choices of the individual. The environment will be saved through education and advancement, not administrative intervention. Here a link to Ordinance 1594 http://www.ci.bandon.or.us/council/council-08-06-2012/5-b-2.pdf Here is what the Dark Sky’s group wants to do internationally: Outreach to the Environmental Protection Agency International Dark‐Sky Association Policy Statement: Recommended Protected Areas All of these regulations were designed and constructed for a specific agenda from the United Nations group International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or ICLEI. Sample Ordinances and Warranting An ICLEI Community Meeting on Dark Skies Suitable Lighting Lighting, Safety & Crime According to ICLEI Related Posts: STOP THE BANDON OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE--1594 Bandon: The City of Ordinances
Oregon Firearms Federation PO Box 556 Canby, OR 97013 Voice: (503) 263-5830 http://www.oregonfirearms.org OFF ALERT 08.02.12 THE VULTURES HAVE LANDED In the wake of the Colorado shooting, we all expected the media and the victimhood promoters to do all they could to use a crime to attack YOUR rights as gun owners. But the anti-rights vultures never seem to fail to find a new low to sink to. We all know that Oregon is cursed with one of the worst congressional delegations in the country, given that 6 out of 7 of our members of Congress are foaming-at-the-mouth gun haters. But every time we think we have reached a new low, the bottom feeders who “represent” us pull out their shovels and dig a little deeper. Let’s take a look at a “survey” that Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer emailed out today. You can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/cjaboen Question 3 of his survey asks; "Should the gun show loophole be closed, so that the people who buy weapons in the open-air gun bazaars, like what occurs in Portland at the Expo Center, be required to submit to the same background checks and record-keeping as people who buy from licensed gun-dealers.” Let’s put aside that no Portland Expo show we have ever been to has ever been “open-air.” Does a rabidly anti-gun Oregon Congressman NOT know that private sales at Oregon gun shows have been banned for 12 years? Blumenauer was one of the main forces pushing for a ballot measure that banned private transfers in 2000. And now he is unaware that this is current law? Should this guy really have a job of this importance if he doesn’t know a law he pushed actually passed? Question 4 says: "Should people with a history of domestic violence be able to purchase guns and carry concealed weapons?” Is this member of the Oregon Congressional delegation REALLY unaware that people with even the most minor “domestic violence” convictions are banned from owning guns or even a single round of ammo FOR LIFE and have for 16 YEARS!? Earl is a shameless liar who is counting on the ignorance of the people in his district to promote his anti-rights agenda. You may want to take a moment to answer his bogus survey. You may also want to check out the following links to see more on the never-ending debate between those of us who take responsibility for ourselves and those who rely on the forces who “responded" to Hurricane Katrina. Kevin Starrett vs Oregon University System: http://1859oregonmagazine.com/guns Ceasefire Oregon on new gun restrictions: http://tinyurl.com/d6kq2we Kevin Starrett on new gun restrictions: http://tinyurl.com/d4opwye Related Posts: OFF ALERT 07.23.2012---UN SMALL ARMS “TREATY” CLOSE TO REALITY. OFF ALERT 06.29.12 Eric Holder Held In Contempt of Congress. Oregon Firearms Federation OFF ALERT 05.14.12 |
Categories
All
Send Letters to:
|