From my perspective, the government violates our rights every time they impose a new regulation and I think the courts should declare the laws unconstitutional. Guns are a Constitutionally protected right. Per Article II, “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That right has been infringed by more than 22,000 laws and we don't need any more. It is unconstitutional to impose any rules and regulations which limit the possession of a weapon. If a person uses a weapon in the commission of a crime, prosecute him for the crime. If an individual chooses not to possess a weapon, that's their prerogative and they shouldn't buy one. Restrict personal evaluations to your own individual life style.
Per your survey, I support your positions and accept the reality that gun laws are not going to be overturned overnight. I would support your position, but I have several bills I want to sponsor so I may not be able to give your bills the attention they deserve. I do not agree with the grant request on the basis that government uses the funds as a tool to control rather than facilitate. The FWP action in granting permits or permissions is a primary example. Unfortunately, most government agencies have assumed a quasi-legislative, executive and judicial stance, whereby their policies, definitions and enforcement override the law and they are not being held accountable for their actions.
Note: I have not responded to the NRA questionaire. In my estimation, they have compromised on too many gun legislation bills and I have serious reservations about their objectives.
Thank you for your outstanding work on protecting gun rights.
Dick Motta
Monday, May 26, 2008
Legislative Interim Committee Proposed Bills
There are Legislative Interim Committes meetings, Legislative Interim Committee Proposed Bills , being held with the purpose of drafting bills to be presented to the next Legislative session. As of May 26, 2008, there are 122 bills being drafted by the legislative administrative staff. By the time the legislative session commences, there will probably be in excess of 200 bills. Some of the drafts are the result of the previous legislative session requesting studies, Interim Studies_2008, of a particular issue. Most of the bills are requested by government bureaucrats expanding their jurisdiction, authority, rules or the penalties they think are necessary to perform their jobs and to control the people more effectively. The legislative staff coordinates the agenda, schedules the meetings, notifies "interested persons" and assists in the conduct of the meeting.
The problem with this process is that executive and judicial officials are the primary sponsors of numerous bills and they are the ones who determine the subject matter for proposed legislation. Committees are scheduled to hear the proposals and "interested parties" are contacted to provide testimony. Generally the "interested parties" are public officials who proposed the bill and non-government groups who have a special interest in it's passage. At the hearing, the agenda is approximately nine hours in length. During the nine hours, officials monopolize the testimony and the public is accorded fifteen minutes. The public receives fifteen minutes because they are not aware the meeting is being conducted and, therefore, there are few people in attendance. Public officials are paid to testify and attend the interim committee meetings. Individuals may have to travel long distances and pay for gas, meals and lodging.
There is a need for more transparency in the interim committee meeting process. The committees should comply with public notice and participation provisions required by the Constitution and statutes. Representatives need to be reminded that they represent the people and that the people want a limited government. The people are intelligent and responsible enough to lead their own lives. We do not need or want government officials to evaluate, administer and enforce their views concerning how our lives should be conducted. The law is supposed to limit government and the government is supposed be our servant. The entire concept and principals defined in the Constituion are being reversed, corrupted and redefined. The people must demand that our representatives formulate statutes which limits administrative law and respects the rights and sovereignty of the people or we will no longer be a free nation.
The problem with this process is that executive and judicial officials are the primary sponsors of numerous bills and they are the ones who determine the subject matter for proposed legislation. Committees are scheduled to hear the proposals and "interested parties" are contacted to provide testimony. Generally the "interested parties" are public officials who proposed the bill and non-government groups who have a special interest in it's passage. At the hearing, the agenda is approximately nine hours in length. During the nine hours, officials monopolize the testimony and the public is accorded fifteen minutes. The public receives fifteen minutes because they are not aware the meeting is being conducted and, therefore, there are few people in attendance. Public officials are paid to testify and attend the interim committee meetings. Individuals may have to travel long distances and pay for gas, meals and lodging.
There is a need for more transparency in the interim committee meeting process. The committees should comply with public notice and participation provisions required by the Constitution and statutes. Representatives need to be reminded that they represent the people and that the people want a limited government. The people are intelligent and responsible enough to lead their own lives. We do not need or want government officials to evaluate, administer and enforce their views concerning how our lives should be conducted. The law is supposed to limit government and the government is supposed be our servant. The entire concept and principals defined in the Constituion are being reversed, corrupted and redefined. The people must demand that our representatives formulate statutes which limits administrative law and respects the rights and sovereignty of the people or we will no longer be a free nation.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Human Rights, Science and Energy
Article - Scientists promoting energy-self sufficiency and decreased regulations
HUMAN RIGHTS, SCIENCE AND ENERGY
by Arthur RobinsonMay 19, 2008NewsWithViews.com
More than 31,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition rejecting the claims that human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate. This petition states:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Millions of Americans are being battered by an economic crisis caused largely by energy shortages and rapidly increasing prices for energy.
Yet, the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher. These special interests claim that continued use of hydrocarbon fuels will destroy the Earth’s climate and cause many environmental catastrophes. Hydrocarbon fuels account for 85% of current United States energy supplies.
What should the U.S government do in response to this situation? The answer is provided by science, economics, and the basic principles of human rights.
The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged.
During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30% of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity.
Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
These difficulties are entirely unnecessary. The hydrocarbon resources – coal, oil, natural gas, and other hydrocarbon reserves – and the nuclear energy resources of the United States can provide abundant fuel for low-cost energy in the U.S. for many future centuries. Moreover, the necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy.
Now, new laws are being proposed that will further infringe on our human rights by severely restricting access to hydrocarbon energy. These proposals are being justified by claims that release of carbon dioxide from continued hydrocarbon energy production will destroy the climate of the Earth and cause catastrophic disasters. These claims are based upon the publications of the United Nations, whose power, prestige, and revenues would be greatly increased by world taxation and regulation of hydrocarbon energy.
However, the scientific hypothesis known as “human-caused global warming” – which is the basis of these United Nations claims – has been discredited and invalidated by unequivocal experimental research data and sound scientific interpretations of that data. This is attested to by the more than 31,000 U.S. scientists in relevant scientific fields – over 9,000 of whom hold PhD degrees – who have signed this petition.
It is tragic for industries, workers, and families that this shortage of low cost energy has occurred. In order to correct this problem and to ensure that it does not recur, the current high level of taxation, regulation, and litigation of U.S. energy industries must be reduced, so that free enterprise – working with private capital and without tax funds or subsidies – can build new U.S. hydrocarbon and nuclear power capacity as quickly as possible.
It has been suggested that technologies other than hydrocarbon and nuclear are also abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of energy. This is best determined in the free market. Elimination of all tax subsidies and marked reduction of taxation, regulation, and litigation of all energy-production industries will allow economically healthy competition. This will ease the current energy crisis and provide abundant energy for future prosperity.
In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom.
Arthur B. Robinson541-592-4142 or artr@oism.orgPetition Project - www.petitionproject.org
© 2008 - Art Robinson - All Rights Reserve
HUMAN RIGHTS, SCIENCE AND ENERGY
by Arthur RobinsonMay 19, 2008NewsWithViews.com
More than 31,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition rejecting the claims that human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate. This petition states:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Millions of Americans are being battered by an economic crisis caused largely by energy shortages and rapidly increasing prices for energy.
Yet, the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher. These special interests claim that continued use of hydrocarbon fuels will destroy the Earth’s climate and cause many environmental catastrophes. Hydrocarbon fuels account for 85% of current United States energy supplies.
What should the U.S government do in response to this situation? The answer is provided by science, economics, and the basic principles of human rights.
The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged.
During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30% of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity.
Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
These difficulties are entirely unnecessary. The hydrocarbon resources – coal, oil, natural gas, and other hydrocarbon reserves – and the nuclear energy resources of the United States can provide abundant fuel for low-cost energy in the U.S. for many future centuries. Moreover, the necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy.
Now, new laws are being proposed that will further infringe on our human rights by severely restricting access to hydrocarbon energy. These proposals are being justified by claims that release of carbon dioxide from continued hydrocarbon energy production will destroy the climate of the Earth and cause catastrophic disasters. These claims are based upon the publications of the United Nations, whose power, prestige, and revenues would be greatly increased by world taxation and regulation of hydrocarbon energy.
However, the scientific hypothesis known as “human-caused global warming” – which is the basis of these United Nations claims – has been discredited and invalidated by unequivocal experimental research data and sound scientific interpretations of that data. This is attested to by the more than 31,000 U.S. scientists in relevant scientific fields – over 9,000 of whom hold PhD degrees – who have signed this petition.
It is tragic for industries, workers, and families that this shortage of low cost energy has occurred. In order to correct this problem and to ensure that it does not recur, the current high level of taxation, regulation, and litigation of U.S. energy industries must be reduced, so that free enterprise – working with private capital and without tax funds or subsidies – can build new U.S. hydrocarbon and nuclear power capacity as quickly as possible.
It has been suggested that technologies other than hydrocarbon and nuclear are also abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of energy. This is best determined in the free market. Elimination of all tax subsidies and marked reduction of taxation, regulation, and litigation of all energy-production industries will allow economically healthy competition. This will ease the current energy crisis and provide abundant energy for future prosperity.
In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom.
Arthur B. Robinson541-592-4142 or artr@oism.orgPetition Project - www.petitionproject.org
© 2008 - Art Robinson - All Rights Reserve
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ponder the Maunder
Kristen did an excellent analysis of global warming and concluded that green-house warming is not man-made, but rather a result of solar activity. The analysis is extremely well documented and due to the frequency of people accessing the site, it is sometimes hard to access. The article debunks the false science presented by Al Gore's video, "An Inconvenient Truth" and questions his true motivation of profiting from energy credits .
Ponder the Maunder, now the official site of the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation
Message from Kristen: 4-14-08
Anthony Watts has now written 56 articles on “how not to measure temperature.” Of the 1,221 United States Historic Climate Network stations that are used to measure global warming in the US, over 500 have been surveyed and photographed by Anthony and his volunteers. 85% of the stations thus far surveyed violate the rules for locating stations. Anthony’s series can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/
From the Web Master:
Due to the overwhelming response to the FANTASTIC news piece by NPR, all traffic to this site is being redirected to
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?item.10.1 , which reproduces all of Kristen’s work.
Conclusions:
"Solar activity is and has always been what drives the climate system."
"The results were quite surprising, and rather clear. There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left. For some reason, probably not known to greenhouse theorists and their scientists, greenhouse gases did not play a role in late 20th century warming. It was simply a matter of solar variation being clouded by El Ninos and La Ninas."
Ponder the Maunder, now the official site of the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation
Message from Kristen: 4-14-08
Anthony Watts has now written 56 articles on “how not to measure temperature.” Of the 1,221 United States Historic Climate Network stations that are used to measure global warming in the US, over 500 have been surveyed and photographed by Anthony and his volunteers. 85% of the stations thus far surveyed violate the rules for locating stations. Anthony’s series can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/
From the Web Master:
Due to the overwhelming response to the FANTASTIC news piece by NPR, all traffic to this site is being redirected to
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?item.10.1 , which reproduces all of Kristen’s work.
Conclusions:
"Solar activity is and has always been what drives the climate system."
"The results were quite surprising, and rather clear. There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left. For some reason, probably not known to greenhouse theorists and their scientists, greenhouse gases did not play a role in late 20th century warming. It was simply a matter of solar variation being clouded by El Ninos and La Ninas."
Monday, May 19, 2008
Term Limits
The question of enforcing Montana's Constitutional provision for term limits for federal legislative positions has never been resolved. At a recent meeting, Brad Johnson, Secretary of State, stated that “federal law trumps state law” and that he was not in a position to challenge the Supreme Court decision concerning term limits for federal legislative positions. Term limits are enforced for State elected positions, but not federal.
Montana's Constitutional term limits provision has not been repealed and the State Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. The tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution reserves to the states those things which are not specifically delegated to the federal government. The Federal Constitution provides for age, citizenship and residence as the qualification for federal legislators. The Federal Constitution also provides that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof...”. The Montana Constitution complies with the age, residence and citizenship qualifications and, assuming that any additional provisions are not discriminatory, the power to expand on those qualifications is reserved to the people of Montana. The Secretary of State and candidates to federal office take an oath to uphold the Montana Constitution and therefore, they should be governed by its' provisions. At the very least, the candidates should demonstrate that their ethical considerations and allegiance are to the people of Montana and voluntarily comply with term limits. The people of Montana voted for term limits, the candidates should respect that provision and the Secretary of State should enforce Montana's Constitutional mandate.
Montana's Constitutional term limits provision has not been repealed and the State Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. The tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution reserves to the states those things which are not specifically delegated to the federal government. The Federal Constitution provides for age, citizenship and residence as the qualification for federal legislators. The Federal Constitution also provides that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof...”. The Montana Constitution complies with the age, residence and citizenship qualifications and, assuming that any additional provisions are not discriminatory, the power to expand on those qualifications is reserved to the people of Montana. The Secretary of State and candidates to federal office take an oath to uphold the Montana Constitution and therefore, they should be governed by its' provisions. At the very least, the candidates should demonstrate that their ethical considerations and allegiance are to the people of Montana and voluntarily comply with term limits. The people of Montana voted for term limits, the candidates should respect that provision and the Secretary of State should enforce Montana's Constitutional mandate.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Economic Development
At a recent Economic Affairs committee meeting, the University of Montana demonstrated the findings of their research in biomedicine, biofuels and related technologies. The emphasis was on converting the research to viable businesses and corresponding jobs. I also talked to a professor from Montana Tech about the mining that was going on in Butte and the rest of the state. He commented that approximately 200 people were employed at the Butte mine, but they were doing the work formerly done by 10,000. In the logging industry, technological advances have made the equipment more efficient, but that has also had a corresponding negative effect on the need for manual labor. My conclusion was that SW Montana is not going to see a major resurgence in jobs associated with natural resouces. The future for employment will be technology and people have to assure that they are developing their skills to meet those opportunities. Unfortunately, school enrollment is decreasing and younger people and their children are leaving Montana to find more opportunities in other states. SW Montana has great scenic beauty, recreational and natural resources which are an attraction to both tourists and retired people. Those resources should be developed and marketed to provide opportunities for people to stay in Montana.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Energy Self Sufficiency
The price of fuel is skyrocketing and obviously our useless and clueless leaders have no solutions which are either practical or economically feasible. Oil prices are being manipulated by the producer nations, oil cartels and commodity market speculators. Supplies are marginal, 2.2% increase in productivity and 1.6% increase in demand. Even though supplies are barely keeping up with real or perceived demand, the corporation use the price increase for the swing oil as the basis for increasing prices immediately. Most oil companies have their own source of oil production and their price is determined by long term contracts. Last year Exxon had a $40 billion profit. If they had a supply problem, they would be paying the higher commodity price and that would have resulted in a corresponding decrease in profits.
There have been no gas station closures in this country.
There have been no gas station closures in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)