WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTHCARE, AND THE OBSTRUCTION FROM THE LEFT, EFFORT COUNTS FOR A LOT!

 

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America



WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTHCARE, AND THE OBSTRUCTION FROM THE LEFT, EFFORT COUNTS FOR A LOT!

After the House passed the first step to repeal and replace Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi and company have chosen to take a victory lap, and getting that sigh of relief because their nightmare of exiting insurance companies, and the death spiral are over, but the fact of the matter is, while people die because of this partisan legislation, Obamacare is still Democrats law of the land, and it will be until it is replaced, or never replaced because of the new Democrats leadership decision to not be involved, resisting anything that's Trump, and using their ability to obstruct and resist the 'Will' of the American People! Democrats aren't even supporting their very own constituency who will be effected by the collapse of their own partisan legislation known as Obamacare, and because of that, don't deserve to receive any votes from their 'Silent,' but patriotic base, and to that I say good luck, and “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, good bye, to their chance of stopping President Trump from getting the 60 seats in the Senate needed when the 2018 midterms are held. What needs to happen now is to pass legislation 'not' using the ‘Nuclear Option,’ but the 60 vote threshold to pass 'America first' legislation, and that's because of the resistance and obstructionism that won't budge, and now apparently the platform of the alt left's feckless leadership and misguided belief that they have America's future in their best interest, and going in the right direction! For all of you who don't believe that 60 Senate seats in the 2018 midterms will never happen, then just be secure in knowing that the 'Reid' inspired Senate rules using the 'nuclear option' is still there, and can be used should the need arise, again! 

If you want to change the way that the world appears to be; you must change the way that you see everything in it. And if you want to change the world; you must change the way everyone else sees everything in it. And when everyone else sees everything in the world in a new way, the world will be changed, and if we as Americans chose to believe Agenda journalist’s perception of the truth to be accurate, then we need to readjust our own thinking, and investigate the alternatives because you’ve been had!  

The more and more I watch America’s political ‘Swamp’ the more I see the embarrassing secrets of the true ‘Swamp’ that I already expected existed. How many new congressional freshman of modest means leave Washington the same way, or like most, millionaires? How many of our elected officials care more about getting reelected, and walking the fence of indecision and not committing to the true ‘will’ of his constituency that put him into office in the first place? Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why building up the military, demanding term limits for all elected officials, voter ID requirements, giving foreign aid to countries that don’t particular like us, keeping our borders secure, or paying for and supporting unvetted and illegal immigrants and refugees with taxpayer’s dollars is never on the ballot when we go to the polls to vote? Hmmm, food for thought?

It’s the little things that outsider nonpolitician President Trump is doing with his ‘Pen’ that makes him the right man for the job, and no matter how Agenda Journalists and the ‘new’ Socialist Party of America tries to silence the voice of common sense through paid outside interest’s masked crusaders against the first amendment and the freedom of speech it protects, the more the silent majorities numbers swell, and the reason the old traditional Democratic base is jumping ship, and becoming Independent, and becoming common sense based voters that understand that America doesn’t need to be transformed to an ideology that doesn’t run parallel to what made America great in the first place!

It appears that the slowly disappearing left believes chanting the “hey, hey, bye, bye” song on the floor of the House of Representatives after losing just the first step of a long process, believes that being ‘right’ about saving Obama’s legacy is more important than their own constituencies losing healthcare coverage because the insurance companies are pulling out of the Exchanges, and Obamacare all together. Pelosi, Schumer, Perez, and all other Democrats who are falling in line behind their feckless leadership are more than willing to let Americans die under their precious Obamacare still chose to sit on their hands while watching the continuing daily collapse and the long predicted death spiral come to fruition! These Progressive Democrats, no matter what they say or care to believe, still own this law of the land, and if the American people were smart, they would see that the factions that have supposedly separated the Republican Party, have actually united it, and like the two-party system of old is suppose to work, is using inner party give and take and bipartisanship debate to take the first step in caring about the healthcare needs of the American people! For some reason the 'new' Socialist branch of the Democratic Party have decided not to work, but their constituency is still on the hook for their salaries and the transformation of their party to Socialism. I bet nobody was asked if they approved of the change, but I guess when you have two Socialists representing  you, and 500+ Super delegates backing the wicked witch of the 'East,' you just don't matter because your incapable of making a rational decision on your own, and therefore sit down and shut up because we got it covered!  

Conservatism is the closest to the ideology of our Constitutional Republics playbook, and if the debate on Healthcare is being represented by a party that cares enough to get it right, and get it right through debate and a little give and take for the American people, then I think that it is time that the American people in the 2018 midterms give the ‘America First’ Party, which is being led by the outsider non politician President Trump the 60 votes he’ll need to make America great again without the Obstruction and resistance that seems to be the only game in town that the Progressive left know, or can play!

TRUMP’S ANTIQUITIES ACT EXECUTIVE ORDER!

 

An Opportunity to End a Monumental Abuse of Government Power

Over the last 20 years, presidents from both sides of the aisle have used the stroke of a pen to lock up hundreds of millions of acres using the Antiquities Act, but none more egregiously than President Obama. In 2014, then-President Obama said, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And that’s all I need.” This braggadocios one-liner was the basis for devastating monument designations by the Obama administration. President Trump’s recent Executive Order directs Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review national monuments created by the Antiquities Act since 1996 that exceed 100,000 acres and to coordinate with local stakeholders. These communities that were shut up and shut out of the charade of discussions surrounding national monument designations deserve a voice.

Like many laws, the Antiquities Act had good intentions, but in practice, it has morphed into a tyrannical tool for presidents to exercise unfettered land grabs at the expense of state and local interests. Enacted in 1906, the Antiquities Act was originally designed to protect Native American burial grounds and artifacts, as well as landmarks and structures that are of historic or scientific interest. Further, the monuments were to “be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

Over the past century, presidents have utilized the Act a total of 233 times to designate roughly 840 million acres of land and water as national monuments. This staggering figure is in addition to a massive federal estate that now exceeds 635 million acres. President Obama’s unprecedented abuse of the Act locked-up an astonishing 553,599,880 acres, or 66% of all land and water designated as a national monument under this century old law. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that 553 million acres is the “smallest area compatible” for these new monuments.

National monument designations utilizing the 1906 Act have significant implications for energy development, water rights, wildfire prevention, grazing rights, and other crucial land management activities. More often than not, these declarations also result in some of the most restrictive land-use regulations possible, thereby negatively affecting a myriad of recreational activities. Not to mention the fact that unilateral designations that lack congressional, state, local and tribal support typically result in devastating losses and costs for education and infrastructure.

Hitting the mute button on state and local stakeholders while elevating the priorities of environmentalist factions, President Obama designated both the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah and the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine during his waning days in office. Special-interest groups were permitted to overwhelm the voices of those whose daily lives, sacred rituals and outdoor recreational pursuits are impacted most significantly by such designations.

Concerning Bears Ears, Rebecca Benally, a Diné and Navajo woman testified that, “Traditional Utah Navajo people are not magazine environmentalists but are real stewards of the land whose interests will be destroyed by a Bears Ears National Monument. Grassroots Utah Navajo people do not support this effort to convert our sacred lands into a federal designation that will subjugate them to micromanagement by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

Additional local tribal opposition to the Bears Ears National Monument was voiced by Suzette Morris, a Ute Mountain Ute tribe member and Vice President of Stewards of San Juan County. She stated, “We have cemeteries up there and I don’t want our ancestors to be put in museums…We all have a fight and we all are going to continue to fight for this to be rescinded.”

The Bears Ears land grab was also not the first time that Utahns saw tens of thousands of acres ripped away from the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration (SITLA). The Trust lost 176,000 acres in 1996 after President Clinton designated 1.7 million acres in Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. With President Obama’s 2016 Bears Ears designation, another 109,000 acres of SITLA land were locked-up. SITLA generates important revenues for Utah’s K-12 public education system, and as a result of two strokes of a pen, 20 years apart, the Utah public school system fell victim to what can only be described as blatant executive overreach and generational theft.

Unfortunately, there are countless other examples throughout our nation’s history of these types of land grabs. After an unsuccessful campaign to accrue congressional, state or local support for a national park in Maine, Roxanne Quimby, founder of Burt’s Bees and Elliotsville Plantation Inc., donated nearly 88,000 acres and $40 million to circumvent Congress. One day after the donation, President Obama designated the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. This glaring example of pay-to-play politics is particularly shameful in light of the vehement opposition by those who have worked on and enjoyed the land for generations. Maine’s economy, heavily driven by forest products and industry jobs, will be severely impacted by this monument.

Reform to cure this abuse is necessary. Wyoming has the right idea. After President Roosevelt tested the very limits of the Act in 1943, Congress passed a law requiring any new monument designation in Wyoming to have congressional consent. After Jimmy Carter used the Act as carte blanche to designate 17 national monuments in Alaska, Congress limited future designations in the state to 5,000 acres or less.

Communities whose backyards are the subject of this debate deserve to have a seat at the table when important land management decisions are made that affect their livelihoods. President Trump’s Executive Order provides an opportunity for that coordination and ensures that out-of-state and out-of-touch groups do not drown out the voices of the communities most deeply impacted by these monuments.

Congressman Gosar represents Arizona’s 4th Congressional District. He currently serves as Chairman of both the Congressional Western Caucus and the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals.  ~~~~and a Friend of America!

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP?

The “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the territory of the eight Rocky Mountain states, the west coast states, and Alaska. The share of ownership in each of those states ranges from about 30% to about 88%. (Exact figures vary according to the mode of calculation.) Westerners who work with the land tend to hold very critical views of how the federal government manages its holdings.

Over a decade ago I became interested in what the Constitution, as the Founders understood it, had to say about federal land ownership. I researched prior writings on the subject. As often happens, I found most of the relevant legal “scholarship” to be of poor quality. Liberal writers baldly claimed that the federal government could own any land it wants to, however it wants to, for any purpose–and that anyone who disagreed was an “extremist.” Conservative writers usually contended that, except for land held by permission of a host state as an “enclave,” the Constitution required the federal government to grant all in-state acreage to the respective state governments. The evidence marshaled for both conclusions was both scanty and weak. The modern Supreme Court has sided with the liberal view. But the Court’s decisions are few and summarily written. They offer almost no useful explanation.

As has happened so often, therefore, I had to begin anew. I studied the Constitution’s text, the records surrounding the Constitution’s adoption, and other materials. From them, I was able to define with a reasonable degree of certainty the scope of the federal government’s power to acquire, retain, manage, and dispose of land. My conclusions were published in Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005). In a nutshell, my findings were:

* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”

* If the host state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction to the federal government, but the federal government has to acquire title separately. Washington, D.C. (the most important enclave), for example, is under federal jurisdiction, but much of the land is held by other parties, including individuals.

* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.

* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best.

* As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.

* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unremunerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.

* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people. For example, natural wonders and environmentally sensitive areas (such as those now encompassed by the national parks) might be conveyed under strict conditions to state park authorities or (as in Britain) to perpetual environmental trusts. Land useful only for grazing, mining, or agriculture should be sold or homesteaded, with or without restrictions. The restrictions might include environmental protections, public easements, and protection for hunters and anglers.

Most states were admitted to the union pursuant to treaties, agreements of cession, and/or laws passed by Congress. These are called organic laws. They include, but are not limited to, enabling acts and acts of admission. These laws cannot change the Constitution, but they have some interesting ramifications for federal land ownership. That is a topic for another posting.

My article has been cited widely. But it will not surprise you to learn that many reject the conclusions. Liberals are unhappy, because they want to keep much of our territory socialized. Conservative land activists are disappointed because they want the federal government to convey land to the state governments, not dispose of it in other ways. It is significant, however, that no one has even tried to rebut my conclusions or the evidence for them.

The evidence and the details of how I reached my findings are in the article. Since its publication I’ve uncovered additional evidence, and it has generally corroborated my findings.  ~~By Constitutional Studies, Friends of America!

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. 
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!