Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel

Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel 

Monday, April 26, 2010

  By Daniel Greenfield

In preparation for his attempt to impose a final solution on Israel, Obama is spreading a variety of lies through the media and his spokesmen about Israel. And by exposing those lies, we can best get at the truth.

1. Netanyahu Must Choose Between Obama and his Right Wing

What Obama’s people would like you to believe here is that all it would take to restore good relations with the Obama Administration is for Netanyahu to reject the “extremists” and do what Obama tells him to do.

But in fact the vast majority of Israelis support Netanyahu’s position that Jews have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem, and oppose Obama’s position that Jews have no right to live or build homes in parts of Jerusalem that were seized by Jordan in 1948 and ethnically cleansed of Jews.

Netanyahu’s real choice is between Obama and the vast majority of his country’s voters. By demanding that he turn his back on them and do what Obama says, the real demand here is for Netanyahu to completely disregard Israel’s democracy, and betray his own electorate, and enact Apartheid in Jerusalem. This will supposedly appease Obama. And all Netanyahu has to do is disregard the Israeli people’s wishes in favor of DC’s wishes.

So Netanyahu must choose between Obama and democracy. And the media is blasting him because he chose democracy over Obama.

2. Obama Wants Netanyahu’s Right Wing Coalition to be More Centrist

More centrist. Really? Netanyahu’s current coalition includes the left wing Labor party, an immigrant’s rights party and the party of Sefardi Jews. It even has an Arab Muslim Deputy Minister.

So what is Obama’s idea of a centrist Israeli government? One that jettisons Shas, the party of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, and Yisrael Beitenu, the party of Jewish refugees from the USSR– in favor of Kadima, an illegitimately created party headed by Tzipi Livni, a former member of Netanyahu’s own Likud party. How is a coalition with Kadima more “centrist” than a coalition with the Labor party and parties that represent Israel’s different minorities? The answer is it isn’t. The only thing “centrist” about Kadima, is that Tzipi Livni airheadedly endorses every Obama proposal, which hasn’t exactly made her popular in the country. But it has made her popular with Obama, who wants to force her into a coalition with Netanyahu.

If you believe the Washington talking heads, Livni will make Netanyahu’s coalition more centrist than former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barack. This despite the fact that Kadima officials have repeatedly stated they will not enter any coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Let me emphasize this again. Obama’s people are trying to force Netanyahu to drop two parties, one of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries and another of Jewish refugees from Communist countries– (it’s not too hard to figure out why Obama would dislike both) in order to form a more “centrist” coalition with a former member of his own party.

3. Tensions Between Obama and Israel Were Caused by Netanyahu’s “Insult” Toward Biden

The truth is that the relationship between Obama and Israel has always been bad. And that’s not surprising. Obama was a longtime member of a church whose pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright portrayed Israel in terms reminiscent of Nazi newspapers. He was friends with Rashid Khalidi who was a spokesman for the PLO terrorist organization. His own background as a child was in the Muslim world, where Israel is viewed as nothing short of the devil.

Once elected, Obama made his first phone call to current PLO head and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas. And it didn’t take long for the administration to begin making demands of Israel, and then refusing to accept any compromises. All this was long before Biden paid a brief visit to Israel, and pretended to be outraged because potential housing on an empty plot of land in Jerusalem went through one part of a multi-stage approvals process.

Was Biden offended by this as a demonstration of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem? Not likely since Biden himself had co-sponsored no less than three Senate resolutions in support of a United Jerusalem under Israeli rule. If we are to believe that Biden was offended, then he was offended by policies he himself supported.

The truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration was looking to pick a fight and waited for an incident that they could claim was an Israeli provocation. Israel didn’t insult America, Biden or Obama by approving possible housing to be built in Jerusalem. Rather Obama who had always disliked Israel, took the chance to pick a fight, while pretending to be the victim.

4. Netanyahu Must Come Back to the Negotiating Table

What negotiating table? Israel has spent almost two decades at the negotiating table. It has given up land and put even its own capital on the table under Prime Minister Barak (currently a member of Netanyahu’s “Right Wing” coalition. The Palestinian Arabs have never put anything on the table. They have taken and taken.

Netanyahu has already agreed to freeze home building in Judea and Samaria. Checkpoints have been dismantled, despite the fact that this allows terrorists to slip through and murder Israelis. Israel has repeatedly offered to go back to the negotiating table. It is Abbas, the first foreign leader that Obama spoke to, who refuses to negotiate. Not only that Abbas has asked Obama to impose a solution.

If Abbas wants Obama to impose a solution. And Obama wants to impose a solution. Then what is there left to negotiate? The exact place where Obama will impose his solution. This argument is a cynical ploy to blame Israel for not wanting to negotiate, when in fact Israel is the only party in this conflict that wants to negotiate and that has consistently tried to negotiate.

But neither Obama nor Abbas are interested in negotiations. They only want Israel to obey their demands.

5. Israel is Costing the US Blood and Treasure

The US has fought three wars since Vietnam. Each of those wars were fought on behalf of, or against Muslims. In the Gulf War, the US responded to Saddam’s invasion of its Kuwaiti allies with armed force. In Yugoslavia, the US intervened on behalf of Kosovar Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US overthrew Muslim dictatorships and tried to stabilize the two countries.

It is Islam that has cost the US an untold fortune in blood and treasure. It is Muslims that have dragged the US into three wars. In the Gulf War, the US was responding to an invasion of Muslim Kuwait. In Yugoslavia, the US was responding to the supposed ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US was fighting back against an Al Queda attack, motivated by the presence of a US base in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq, against Saddam Hussein’s continuing defiance of sanctions.

Thousands of Americans dead and hundreds of billions of dollars. Now that’s real blood and treasure. And the toll keeps on climbing. But in truth the first “Blood and Treasure” extracted by Muslims from America predated the modern State of Israel. Instead it took place on the “Shores of Tripoli” as President Thomas Jefferson chose to go to war with the Muslim pirates who were raiding American ships and enslaving American sailors, because they viewed them as subhuman infidels.

Of course the Obama Administration which has banned any mention of Islamic terrorism, can’t possibly address any of that. All it can do is direct false smears at Israel.

Daniel Greenfield is a columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City. He is a contributing editor at Family Security Matters and writes a daily blog column on Islamic Terrorism, Israeli and American politics and Europe’s own clash of civilizations which can be found at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

Advertisements

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

 

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: April 26th, 2010

97 Comments Comment on this article

Last week Israel celebrated its 62nd year as a nation, but there was major cause for concern amid the festivities as the Israeli people faced the looming menace of a nuclear-armed Iran, as well as the prospect of a rapidly deteriorating relationship with Washington. The Israel-bashing of the Obama administration has become so bad that even leading Democrats are now speaking out against the White House. New York Senator Chuck Schumer blasted Barack Obama’s stance towards Israel in a radio interview last week, stating his “counter-productive” Israel policy “has to stop”.

At the same time a poll was released by Quinnipiac University which showed that US voters disapproved of the president’s Israel policy by a margin of 44 to 35 percent. According to the poll, “American voters say 57 – 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel and say 66 – 19 percent that the president of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel.”

I recently compiled a list of Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain, America’s closest ally in the world. This is a sequel of sorts, a list of major insults by the Obama administration against America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. As I wrote previously on Obama’s treatment of both Britain and Israel:

In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.

So here’s my top 10 list of Obama administration insults against Israel after just 15 months in power:

1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House

In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands. As I wrote at the time:

This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel

In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence. It has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians

In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:

“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations

In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East

As The Wall Street Journal noted, “the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East”, citing a recent press conference where he stated:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria

While actively appeasing Iran, the Obama administration has also sought to develop closer ties with the other main state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, Syria, establishing diplomatic relations with Damascus in February. Syria remains a major backer of Hamas and Hizbollah, both responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks against Israel.

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu

As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem:

“In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.

Last time I checked, Israel was still an independent country, and not a colonial dependency of the Obama White House. Yet that still hasn’t stopped the Secretary of State from acting like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”

It is extremely unusual for a White House official to launch an attack on a close US ally on live television, but this is exactly what the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod did in an interview in March with NBC’s Meet the Press, designed to cause maximum humiliation to Israel, where he stated in reference to new settlement construction in East Jerusalem:

“This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive.”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”

As The Telegraph revealed, the Secretary of State lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to “refrain from unilateral statements” that could “undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks”. In Clinton’s words:

“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel

Not one to shy away from criticizing America’s friends when the opportunity arises, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs entered the fray in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in March where he attacked the Israeli government for weakening “the trust that’s needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East.” In condescending terms he stated that Benjamin Netanyahu should start “coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward.”

Obama and the Anti-Semites

Obama and the Anti-Semites

Ed Lasky

The most politically correct President (I still recall his using the term ‘First Americans” instead of Native Americans) in history has one big blind spot:  insults towards Jews. The latest example is an anti-Semitic joke told by his National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, in a speech. The joke was summarized by Nathan Guttman of The Forward:

A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban, the jokes goes on, begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant; they can sell you water. The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he’s back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: “Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”
You can watch the actual telling of the joke below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmUb_cXI5aI&feature=player_embedded

Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner notes that someone at the White House evidently found the joke dangerous:
However, the White House felt it was inappropriate and left it out of their transcript of the event. And obviously some of the people at the event felt that a joke about greedy Jewish merchants was not okay and told The Forward as much.
Somehow I can’t envision a scenario where the White House would make a similar joke about Islam. This is doubly true since Jones has a reputation has prominent Israel critic.
Of course, this takes place in the context of a concerted effort to sooth pro-Israel Americans regarding the shabby and geopolitically stupid way Barack Obama and his team have treated our only true ally in the Middle East. I have written about Jim Jones and his checkered relationship with Israel. 
Often one’s true feelings towards a group come about as such gaffes (a gaffe in DC-speak is when a politician tells the truth about how he feels). Recall, this is an administration that has banned the term Islam or Muslim when it is paired with violence or extremism. This is an administration that has stonewalled Senators when they have asked to see documents related to the Ft. Hood massacre. If Jones had said such a joke about any other minority group he would have been fired or been forced to step down.
Jones’s joke is part of a disturbing pattern in the Obama Administration:
An administration official accused Dennis Ross of dual loyalty;
Barack Obama linked American lives lost and money spent to  conflicts that involve Israel;
Of course, there is also his railing against Goldman  Sachs and Wall Street-traditional targets of anti-Semitic screeds;
Obama puts the onus of blame on Israel for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and has not held the Palestinians to  any standards regarding their efforts to make peace
Obama is preparing the groundwork for scapegoating Israel as the problem that led to Iran having a nuclear bomb since he kept repeating the fallacy that Israel’s problems with the Palestinians has made it difficult to gather an alliance to deal with Iran (an absurd and illogical position, skewered by foreign policy expert Richard Haas in today’s WSJ)
At the same time, Obama has elevated Al Sharpton (who provoked an anti-Semitic pogram Harlem a few years back; a man who used “diamond merchants” as a code word to slur Jews) to being a partner of his in urban affairs.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Sarah Palin Was Right… Obama Budget Director Orszag Admits Government Panels Will Decide Who Gets Health Care (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, April 26, 2010, 6:56 PM

Sarah Palin was right.
Barack Obama’s nationalized health care bill includes powerful health care rationing “death panels.”

Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag admitted earlier this month that:
A Powerful Rationing Panel (Not Doctors) Will Control Health Care Levels
Via Breitbart TV:
Go here for video

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/sarah-palin-was-right-obama-budget-director-orszag-admits-government-panels-will-decide-who-gets-health-care/

Taxpayer-Funded War Against Ranchers

A Taxpayer-Funded War Against Ranchers (PJM Exclusive)

Posted By Callie Gnatkowski On April 27, 2010 @ 12:03 am In . Feature 01, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

There is a war going on in the West. It has nothing to do with guns and bullets. It’s an environmental war, declared by eco-activists against farmers and ranchers who work the land.

It’s not covered by the mainstream media. But environmental groups boast that their aim is to run ranchers off their land, put them out of business, and bar beef and other food from our tables. And the environmentalists get taxpayers to pay them for their attempts at destruction.

The tools they use are the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other acts, along with a small army of lawyers who find bureaucratic loopholes to bankrupt farmers and ranchers.

While ranchers struggle to pay attorneys to represent their interests in these lawsuits, environmental groups are getting paid by taxpayers. Even though the activists don’t win all of these cases, they are reimbursed for their attorneys’ fees through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The abuse of EAJA, where environmental groups collect up to $650 per hour for frivolous lawsuits, was covered recently [1] by Pajamas Media.

“Essentially, these environmental groups are being paid to sue the federal government,” said Wyoming attorney Karen Budd-Falen. “They file hundreds of lawsuits, and rather than fight the suits, the government often settles the case, agreeing to pay attorneys fees in the settlement.”

Here are some of their cases.

Wyoming sheepman Carl Larson and his family continue the operation founded by his grandfather 100 years ago. The operation is made up of private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, which the family pays to use and maintain. Because of the land ownership in their area, the BLM land is critical to the operation. When the activist group the Western Watersheds Projec [2]t (WWP) filed a lawsuit that would have stopped grazing on the grazing allotment, based not on proof of damage to the land but on procedural issues with the permit, the family was forced to intervene.

“Losing this permit would have been devastating to our family and our livelihood,” Larson said. “We intervened because WWP had requested a stay of any grazing on the allotment until all litigation was completed, which would have effectively put our family ranch out of business.”

The WWP could not show any proof that the Larsons’ use of their land was causing any damage, so after several months the request for a stay on grazing was denied. The litigation is ongoing, and some problems were found with the BLM’s permit renewal procedures. “We have absolutely no control over the BLM’s processes, but have to live with the consequences and had to spend $35,000 to keep our ranch,” Larson said. “There is no way to get that money back from the WWP, even though for the short term, we beat them.”

In addition to the cost of the litigation, the Larsons have invested a lot of money over the years in improvements to the allotment including fences, water developments, and bridges. “If the allotment were closed, it would be a major taking of private property rights and my family would lose its business,” Larson said.

Jordan Valley, Oregon, rancher Rand Collins was also forced to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the WWP that would have eliminated the family business that has been in the family for 46 years. In 1997, the group sued the BLM to eliminate grazing on 68 grazing allotments, including Collins’ allotment. “All of these allotments, like mine, have been grazed by livestock for over 100 years. Like the Louse Canyon Community allotment for me, the use of these allotments is necessary for the continued existence of our ranchers and way of life,” Collins said.

The WWP lawsuit claimed that the BLM had not completed the necessary paperwork under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for permit renewal, and requested that livestock be removed until that paperwork was complete. While the court agreed that the BLM had violated NEPA, livestock were not removed, but the case is ongoing.

“WWP’s website boasts that it wants to eliminate my livelihood and family, but because it cannot challenge me directly, WWP and other groups find errors in the bureaucratic process as a backdoor way to harm my legitimate use of the land I have loved for 46 years,” Collins said.

“So many times, these cases are not filed on anything substantive, but on paperwork and missed deadlines,” Budd-Falen explained. “It’s all on paper — nothing in the lawsuit even impacts the environment.”

Ranchers like Tim Lequerica, based in Oregon’s Owyhee River valley, were assured that their historic operations would be protected when Congress gave the river near Lequerica’s home its Wild and Scenic designation in 1984. That was put to the test, however, by litigation filed in 1998 by the WWP and the activist Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA), which joined WWP challenging the BLM’s management plan for the wild and scenic river.

The litigation claimed that cattle should not be able to get water from the river and requested that grazing be stayed or eliminated pending the outcome of the litigation. The river was the ranchers’ only source of water. Ranchers intervened, arguing that they would keep cattle from drinking from the river if they were provided alternative water locations. “Our issue was not whether we had to use the Owyhee River, we just wanted a source of water for our thirsty livestock,” Lequerica said. “Our argument was that if the court would allow us to install water pipelines and tanks on dry BLM lands, we would be happy to keep cattle from drinking in the river as the environmentalists wanted. The environmentalists wanted no water at all, which would mean our cattle would go thirsty.”

The ranchers spent $42,000 to participate in the litigation, and in the end, the court granted the ranchers’ requests. The ranchers were able to put in new pipelines and tanks to provide water for both livestock and wildlife. “However, because the BLM failed to jump through some procedural hoops with regard to the written wild and scenic river management plan, the federal government voluntarily agreed to pay ONDA and WWP $128,000 in attorney fees and costs. Thus, my money paid for every part of the litigation,” Lequerica said. “I paid my personal attorneys to represent me; my tax dollars paid the federal government and their attorneys who failed to do all the paperwork correctly; and my tax dollars paid the ONDA and WWP to sue the federal government.”

Millions have been spent on the reintroduction of Mexican grey wolves into southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona, which started in 1998 as the result of environmental activist groups suing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). Today, very few wolves have survived in the wild, area wildlife is sparse, and livestock depredation is putting ranchers out of business. Since 2000, Gene and Ginger Whetten, of the Adobe Ranch in far southwestern New Mexico, have been living with dead and missing livestock, lost profits, and litigation caused by the wolves, and there’s no end in sight.

In 2007, the Whettens had nine wolves living right below the house, killing cattle every night. They estimate that they lost $100,000. “This year, we’ve found nine or ten dead calves, and pieces of 14 more. That doesn’t include those that you never see, that you just know are gone because a cow comes in with a tight bag,” Ginger Whetten said. “It’s been a big financial hit for us and an even bigger one for some of our neighbors who only run 50-100 head of cattle. When the wolves get in on them, it just wipes them out. It is heartbreaking to watch as they lose their livelihoods and way of life.”

Working and spending time together as a family brought the Whettens to the remote ranch, but much of that has been lost to the constant stress of the wolves. “The wolves are on our minds and on our property all the time. It’s not what we wanted for our family.”

To protect citizens like the Whettens, and others who feared for the safety of their families, Catron County, New Mexico, adopted an ordinance designed to give its citizens relief from wolves living in their front yards. “The federal government did not take any legal action against the county for the ordinance, and we felt we had a sworn duty to protect the health and safety of our citizens,” said Catron County Commission Chairman Ed Wehrheim. “The ordinance stated that if a wolf was harassing a person, the county would protect that person as allowed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).”

In 2007, the radical activist group WildEarth Guardians (WEG) sued Catron County in federal district court claiming that the county ordinance violated the ESA. In the end, the court ruled in the county’s favor on all counts, and specifically held that the ordinance as written was lawful. Catron County spent over $100,000 in attorneys’ fees defending its ordinance. “Even though the suit was brought under the ESA, we cannot recover that money from the WildEarth Guardians,” Wehrheim said. “In contrast, they and other groups have filed countless suits against the government about the wolves, and are able to get their attorneys’ fees repaid.”

In another suit, the Western Watersheds Project (WWP) sued the FWS in 2001 to list slickspot peppergrass under the ESA. The FWS ultimately decided against listing the species as threatened or endangered, but agreed to pay the WWP $26,663 to reimburse their attorneys’ fees.

After this decision, a number of ranchers in the Mountain Home, Idaho, area, including Charlie Lyons and Ted Hoffman, came together with the state of Idaho to create a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA), which was approved by the FWS under the ESA. The agreement, which was signed by many ranchers, included specific, on-the-ground actions ranchers and landowners agreed to take to protect the species. According to a 2009 report, the slickspot peppergrass had the highest recorded population numbers. “We believe these population counts show the actions in the CCA were working and making a difference,” Lyons and Hoffman said.

In 2004, the WWP sued again to force a listing under the ESA, the court agreed, and the species was listed. In 2007, the FWS withdrew that decision, based on the protection given by the CCA. The WWP sued again, and won. Following that decision, the governor of Idaho filed a suit contesting the latest listing, and that litigation is ongoing.

Due to the litigation, the CCA is useless and the faith and hard work that the landowners and permittees put into management for the plant is down the drain. No one can show that this plant is any better protected by some legal federal paper designation than it was by true on-the-ground management, Lyons and Hoffman said.

Ranchers have spent $30,000 in litigation, plus time and effort developing the CCA, on this issue. The environmental group WWP has received a total of $238,163 in taxpayer money in settlement agreements on this species. “WWP’s objective is to run ranchers off the land in the spring,” Lyons and Hoffman said. “If they are successful in their efforts, it would mean a death sentence to the slickspot peppergrass and ruination of our ranches.”

Southwestern New Mexico rancher, farmer, and Catron County Commissioner Hugh B. McKeen has been battling environmental activist groups and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for years, just to keep the family operation, established by his grandfather in 1904, in business. Today, the family’s farmland is at risk of being washed away because of a lack of forest health work, and the family is ten years into a lawsuit against the USFS regarding punitive cuts to his grazing allotment.

Because the endangered loach minnow has been found in the San Francisco River, the McKeens are no longer allowed to use equipment to maintain the river and its channel. The river is now aimed directly at the McKeens’ private land irrigated field, and the USFS is requiring a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and Corps of Engineers permit before work can be done in the river. “They just don’t care,” McKeen said. “Part of my land has been destroyed — the floodplain is gone, so now the river is aimed right at my field.”

The problems with their grazing permit also involve the loach minnow. The activist groups the Center for Biological Diversity and the Forest Guardians (now known as WildEarth Guardians) filed a suit claiming that the USFS had not considered the impacts of grazing on two fish and a bird species and requesting that all livestock be removed from 42 allotments until the consultation process was completed. Ranchers intervened, spending about $100,000.

In the end, the court ruled that extra work would only be required on allotments where the fish are actually found. “Even though our attorneys stopped the groups from eliminating all grazing and then won most of the case on the merits, the federal agreement voluntarily agreed to pay the two groups $300,000 in tax dollars,” McKeen said.

The fish species were found on the McKeen’s allotment and private land, so the USFS built a fence to keep his cattle out of the river. Maintaining a fence along the river is difficult, and when the fence is down the cattle get in the river. In punishment, the USFS has cut the family’s grazing permit for 25 percent.

The McKeens suit against the agency has been ongoing for ten years. “Even if we win the suit, all I get are my cattle numbers back, no restitution, no compensation for lost income, nothing,” McKeen said. “They cut my numbers by 25 percent, reducing our income by 25 percent. No business can sustain that.”

Sarah Palin: The Businessman vs. the Bureaucrat

Sarah Palin: The Businessman vs. the Bureaucrat

The Businessman vs. the Bureaucrat
 Yesterday at 11:37am
In a year when Americans are desperate for job growth and frustrated with the reckless spending in Washington, the candidates running in the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District epitomize the problem and the solution. It’s a race between a career Washington bureaucrat and a small business entrepreneur.

Born and raised in Pennsylvania’s beautiful 12th district, Tim Burns’ story is like that of millions of successful small business owners across the country. He started a pharmaceutical technology company out of the basement of his house and grew it to over 400 employees. He worked hard and gave back generously to his community, in part by starting a charity to help children with special needs. In his spare time, he’s a “hockey dad” coaching his sons’ team. Last year, he attended a local tea party and spoke passionately about the danger that the policies coming out of Washington pose for small business owners like him. Reflecting on that day, Tim said, “I had not considered running until after the tea parties, but I decided that I owed it to my two children, who are 14 and 12, to do something. We’re in a fight for the very life of our country.”

Tim spent his professional life building a business from scratch that employed Pennsylvanians, and now he would like to bring his common sense pro-free market message to Washington. I’m proud to offer my support to Tim Burns in his campaign to bring real job creation to Pennsylvania’s 12th district. Please join me in supporting his campaign. Visit Tim’s website here, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

It’s been said many times this year that America is at a crossroads, and the decision we make in November will decide the course of our children’s future. The choice in Pennsylvania’s 12th district couldn’t be more obvious. Let’s send the job-creator to Washington to get this economy moving again.

– Sarah Palin

Smart Girl Politics Border Clean-Up Photos Posted

Smart Girl Politics Border Clean-Up PhotosPosted by DSW under Environmentalism , Illegal Aliens , National Security
[3] Comments 

To those who still don’t believe we have a border security AND environmental problem, here are the photos to prove it. These were taken by Cactus Bill on Saturday at the border near Bisbee.

Smart Girl Politics hosted a special border clean-up in honor and memory of Rancher Rob Krentz.

As you can see the illegal aliens who cross our border leave quite a mess behind.

See the rest of Cactus Bill’s photos here.