McCain 270 Obama 268

Electoral College Outlook: McCain 270, Obama 268
by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney
Posted: 05/28/2008

Outlook

1. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s comment that Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1968 justified her staying in the presidential race was an event that crystallized the antipathy to her inside party ranks. Even old-time Clintonites were appalled.

2. The most important political impact of Clinton’s conduct is to make Sen. Barack Obama’s task as nominee more difficult. For the first time, we hear serious talk among Democrats that the party may not be fully able to join ranks at the convention in Denver in late August.

3. The hostility on both sides is intense. Clinton’s labor union base (AFCSME, American Federation of Teachers, and the International Association of Machinists) pounds away at Obama (he was booed in a recent rally in Puerto Rico). Obama partisans refer to “feminists” unreasonably prolonging the competition. The longer this continues, the more difficult will be reconciliation.

4. But the steady endorsement of Obama by more super-delegates is incontestable. Such old-time Clinton backers as Roger Altman and Sarah Kovner are saying the battle is over. Nobody has any doubts about who will be nominated, which makes Clinton’s campaign more destructive.

5. The next showdown will come Saturday at the meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to finally settle the Florida and Michigan delegate disputes. To the consternation of Democrats seeking a solution, Clinton supporters are disputing the compromise that would give Obama uncommitted delegates from Michigan. Clintonistas argue that the “uncommitted” delegates are up for grabs.

6. Sen. John McCain, however, still does not appear organized to take advantage of Democratic disarray. His biggest problem may be failure to realize that the Republican coalition is not fully united behind him. The most recent defectors are lobbyists expelled from his campaign who are not happy about their treatment. We continue to hear complaints from evangelicals, economic conservatives, and other critics of McCain. The refrain continues from conservatives that maybe the country and the GOP need four years of Obama.

Presidential

Electoral College: While national polls garner attention, they have no direct bearing on choosing our next President. A state-by-state count of electoral votes is the key to analyzing the presidential race.

For the first time this year, we run through all 50 states plus the District of Columbia in order to handicap the presidential race. Outlook: If the election were held today, we see a McCain victory by the narrowest of margins.

The electoral map looks nearly identical to 2004, with Iowa and Colorado swinging into the Democratic camp. Beneath the surface, however, we see Michigan and Pennsylvania becoming more competitive for Republicans.

The election will hinge on two regions: Lake Erie and the Mountain West. An Obama win in New Mexico or Nevada would be enough to tip the scales, but a McCain win in Pennsylvania could put the race out of reach. In the end, as always, it comes down to Ohio, where Obama’s weakness among rural whites could send McCain to the White House. McCain 270, Obama 268.


Alabama (9): McCain will be safe in this Deep South state. Solid Republican.

Alaska (3): While this state’s GOP is undergoing political upheaval, and Democrats could possibly steal a House and Senate seat thanks to corruption on the part of entrenched Republican incumbents, on a national level, this is a solidly Republican state. McCain doesn’t help himself by opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), but he shouldn’t have to worry about this state. Solid Republican.

Arizona (10): Karl Rove has worried about Arizona in the past, in part because of the immigrant influx. But this is McCain’s home state, and he will carry it easily. Solid Republican.

Arkansas (6): The Democratic stronghold in the South, Arkansas has two safe Democratic senators, and three of four congressmen are Democrats. Still, Obama will struggle in all Southern states, and this one is no more friendly than the others. Solid Republican.

California (55): Every four years Republicans talk about having a chance here, and they give a new reason. In truth, Republicans need to raise funds in wealthy Orange County and other rich parts of the Golden State, and writing off this once-Republican state is not a good way to extract campaign cash from it.

This year a constitutional amendment on gay marriage -- overturning the recent state supreme court decision that the state must approve same-sex marriages -- can a boost McCain. While gay marriage initiatives have helped Republican candidates in the past (especially in 2004), the turnout effect in California won’t be huge, nor is McCain the natural candidate for anti-gay-marriage voters, considering his opposition to a federal marriage amendment in Congress.

Liberal, black, and college populations will turn out in droves for Obama, while immigration resentment in San Diego and the Los Angeles are will hurt McCain, the author of the 2006 amnesty bill. Solid Democratic.

Colorado (9): Bush won here in 2004 by 100,000 votes out of 2.1 million, but Colorado has shown a tack to towards Democrats since then. In 2006, Democrats took over a Senate seat, the governorship, and a U.S. House seat. This year, Democrats are poised to pick up the second Senate seat. With the Democratic National Convention in Denver stirring liberal excitement, Colorado looks like one of Obama’s best chances to win a Bush state. Leaning Democratic.

Connecticut (7): Connecticut is liberal and Democratic, and a hawkish Republican is not going to do well. Wealthy white liberals with advanced degrees are a big chunk of Obama’s base. If McCain picks Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID) as his running mate, Connecticut might be in play. The Lieberman endorsement on its own does almost nothing to help McCain. Solid Democratic.

Delaware (3): Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s wins here in 2000 and 2004 were not dominant, and Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D) barely won reelection in 2004. This state could make its way onto the battleground, but early on it looks like an Obama victory. Leaning Democratic.

District of Columbia (3): If you live in D.C. and you’re not black, you’re probably a rich liberal lawyer or lobbyist. This could be a blowout of unprecedented proportions. Libertarian nominee Bob Barr could challenge McCain for second place with about 4% each. Solid Democratic.

Florida (27): Crucial to a Republican victory, Florida is looking promising for McCain early on. In the primaries, McCain scored a big win here, while Obama boycotted the state and is now working to patch up relations. Even before the general election began, McCain had the edge here.

The senior-citizen vote throughout the state will tilt strongly towards McCain for three reasons: he is one of them; older white voters will be hesitant to elect a black President, and such a young President; the veteran community will be warm towards McCain. Add on Obama’s stance of engagement with Cuba and a possible Jewish problem, and things stack up well for McCain. If McCain picks popular Gov. Charlie Crist (R) as his running mate, he could lock up the state (while possibly hurting himself elsewhere).

Obama could certainly win Florida, but don’t be surprised if it starts to fade off the radar screen by October and the McCain grip on it tightens. Leaning Republican.

Georgia (15): Obama talks about winning Southern states in November because he won them in January, February, and March. But winning a Democratic primary is much easier for a black liberal than winning a general election is. Georgia might be his best shot in the South, but it’s not a very good shot. Solid Republican.

Hawaii (4): Obama will dominate his native state in November as he dominated it in March. McCain can save on airfare and reduce his carbon footprint by skipping this state. Solid Democratic.

Idaho (4): This state is too pro-gun and pro-life to vote for Obama. Bush won 2-to-1 here twice. This year won’t be much different. Solid Republican.

Illinois (21): Obama’s home hasn’t been a swing state in a while, and this is not the year. Obama will dominate here. Solid Democratic.

Indiana (11): Indiana has been solid Republican turf in recent presidential contests, with Bush wins of 16 and 21 points in his two runs here. But this year McCain will need to work hard to keep this state in the GOP column.

Obama’s first advantage is Lake County, which includes the cities of Gary and East Chicago as well as some liberal suburbs. This is Obama’s home turf and the second-most populous county in the state. Indianapolis has a high black population, while Bloomington’s liberal university population could generate enthusiasm (although only 28,000 people voted in Monroe County in the Democratic primary).

McCain lacks the down-home appeal that made Christian Midwestern voters so drawn to Bush, adding to Obama’s hopes. Democrats, of course, picked up three congressional seats in Indiana in 2006. However, Democrats have gained here with socially conservative candidates. With Obama and governor candidate Jill Long Thompson atop the Democratic column, Indiana Republicans should have a rebound year in 2008. Leaning Republican.

Iowa (7): While Iowa is certainly its own creature politically, Obama’s strong showing in early head-to-head polls ought to give Republicans reason to worry about the Heartland. Democrats picked up two House seats here in 2006, and Republicans have no chance to win them back. Senator Tom Harkin (D), a hardcore liberal, also has no serious challenger this year.

Iowa, of course, was the state that catapulted Obama towards the nomination while McCain (prudently) skipped it for New Hampshire. Obama is from a neighboring state, and McCain doesn’t rally the conservative base. This swing state appears set to swing back to where it was in 2000: the Democratic column. Leaning Democratic.

Kansas (6): The Kansas GOP is not in good shape, and Obama dominated the caucuses here, but a liberal Democrat isn’t going to carry this state in a presidential election, even if Obama picks Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) as his running mate. Solid Republican.

Kentucky (8): This state is trending Democratic in some ways, and Obama claims to have strong inroads into the South, but his inability to win rural white voters in the primary here demonstrates that the commonwealth is not really in play this year. Solid Republican.

Louisiana (9): One of the nation’s most intriguing states politically, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s 2007 landslide looked like the beginning of a GOP avalanche until Democrats captured the Baton Rouge congressional seat in a special election earlier this month. A high black population and a probably safe Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) weigh in on Obama’s behalf. The influential sugar industry here won’t be pleased with McCain, either. Still, this is now a GOP state like the rest of the Deep South, and they are not about to elect a liberal, pro-choice Democrat. Leaning Republican.

Maine (4): Increasingly a Democratic stronghold, the demographics here cut in both directions. Old white people tend to be McCain voters, but leisure-class New Englanders are Obama people. Gore didn’t get a majority here in 2000, but that’s because Ralph Nader posted 6%. Obama is the strong favorite here, but this one could drift in either direction. Maine is one of two states in the country that are not winner-take-all in the Electoral College. The statewide winner gets two electoral votes, and the winner of each congressional district is awarded one elector each. Leaning Democratic.

Maryland (10): Maryland is even less winnable for the GOP with Obama atop the ticket than it was in 2000 and 2004. The mixture of wealthy whites and urban blacks makes this Obama country. Solid Democratic.

Massachusetts (12): The Bay State is beyond the reach of any Republican. Obama might not fare as well in South Boston as a whiter candidate would, but he won’t lose the most Democratic state in the nation. Solid Democratic.

Michigan (17): Michigan may be McCain’s best chance to win a 2004 Blue State. As with Florida, McCain has the advantage out of the starting gate, having posted two strong primary performances here while Obama boycotted the state.

Democrats have won all of the top-tier statewide races this decade (three Senate contests, two governor races, and both Presidential races), and the GOP brand is damaged thanks, in part, to George W. Bush and the poor economy. But still, McCain has a good chance here. A Rasmussen poll in early May of 500 likely voters showed a dead heat between Obama and McCain.

Both candidates are weak in Michigan. McCain doesn’t naturally connect with hunters or union voters, but these are the very Democrats who have been rejecting Obama throughout the primaries. Obama’s base of college towns and black cities will give him a boost over previous Democrats, but his consistent weakness among union workers will drag him down.

Michigan, together with Ohio and Pennsylvania, promises to be the very heart of the 2008 battle. Libertarian Bob Barr could draw on enough gun-rights single-issue voters here to tip the scale. Leaning Democratic.

Minnesota (10): Although Kerry won Minnesota by less than 100,000 votes, Republicans may not be within striking distance here. Minnesota was one of Obama’s strongest states, thanks to a strong liberal core in the Democrat-Farm-Labor Party that will provide enthusiasm and turnout in November.

This state may stay competitive throughout, but it’s likely Obama will pull away here by the fall. Leaning Democratic.

Mississippi (6): While Democrats can point to a special election congressional pickup here, as well as a large black population, this Deep South state is safe in the GOP column with a black liberal atop the ticket. Solid Republican.

Missouri (11): Missouri is another top pickup opportunity for Obama. Bush won here twice, with a 200,000-vote victory in 2004. Things aren’t looking so rosy for Republicans these days, though, having lost a U.S. Senate seat in 2006 and poised to lose the governorship this year. Obama eked out a primary win here on Super Tuesday by winning big in the areas around St. Louis and Kansas City, but he lost badly in the rural regions of the state. His appeal to black voters and suburban voters makes him a real threat, especially if McCain fails to rally Christian conservatives throughout the state. This may be the state where McCain’s lack of stronger conservative credentials could really hurt him. As of now, McCain holds slight leads in most polls. Leaning Republican.

Montana (3): Montana is safe for McCain. Solid Republican.

Nebraska (5): Nebraska apportions one elector per congressional district, plus two electors to the statewide winner. McCain should win all five electors. Solid Republican.

Nevada (5): A prime chance for Obama to pick off some Red State electors, Bush won only 50% in both elections here. A significant libertarian turnout here is very possible. Immigration should play a role -- given the 20% Hispanic population and some resentment of unchecked immigration, the issue could cut both ways. Nevada, and not Ohio, could be McCain’s most precarious state. Leaning Republican.

New Hampshire (4): New Hampshire was one of three states to switch sides from 2000 to 2004, and it could switch back to the GOP column this year. In 2004, Kerry won the state, in part as the local boy, but also due to the Democratic surge in the Granite State. That Democratic surge doesn’t look likely to slow down in 2008.

McCain, however, has a sort of second home here, having won the state in the 2000 and 2008 primaries. His pragmatic moderation is appreciated here, and he will need to peel himself away from Bush and the GOP. This is one of the most swingable states, but early on, it leans towards Obama. Leaning Democratic.

New Jersey (15): Bush surged here in 2004, but not enough to carry the state. That was a one-time blip, and Obama should have no trouble carrying the Garden State. Solid Democratic.

New Mexico (5): Election Day ground zero could be New Mexico, three open congressional seats, an open U.S. Senate seat, and a competitive presidential contest fill the ballot.

Bush carried the state in 2004 by 6,000 votes after having lost it by 365 votes in 2000. These close races clash with the huge registration advantage Democrats hold here.

The state is 42% Hispanic, and here they vote more than in other states. Obama’s poor performance among Hispanic voters and McCain’s coming from neighboring Arizona should help him here. If Bill Richardson does not play a large role, McCain looks to have a slight edge. Leaning Republican.

New York (31): Obama will dominate here. Solid Democratic.

North Carolina (15): Obama’s strong performance in the Southern primaries doesn’t portend a competitive general election. The wine-and-cheese crowd of Charlotte, the black electorate, and the liberal college vote may be vocal, but they’re the minority in North Carolina. Solid Republican.

North Dakota (3): Bush twice won more than 60% here. While McCain may not do as well, he should walk away with this one. Solid Republican.

Ohio (20): In a familiar sight, Ohio looks likely play the role of decider this fall. As in Michigan, both candidates have more weaknesses than strengths here. McCain is no Wal-Mart family-man conservative as Bush was, but Obama has to hope that religious voters and gun owners get over the “bitterness” that caused him to lose Ohio badly in March.

Obama’s perceived elitism, his race, and his liberalism will all hurt him here, but there are pockets of wealthy suburbanites, black voters, and hardcore liberals that will help him. A new Democratic senator and governor, together with likely Democratic pickups in the U.S. House here are all promising signs for the Democratic Party, but Obama himself -- and his comments in the San Francisco fundraiser -- will not be easy sales.

McCain needs to figure out how he will talk about trade and social issues. If he handles this state well, he will win it. Leaning Republican.

Oklahoma (7): This is not the part of the Heartland that’s in play. Solid Republican.

Oregon (7): Oregon is not an overwhelmingly Democratic state, but it has strong liberal populations that will rally around Obama. McCain, however, could certainly make inroads into the rural voters. Leaning Democratic.

Pennsylvania (21): Many pundits falsely touted Pennsylvania as a swing state in 2004, when it wasn’t. It tilted heavily towards the Democrats. In 2008, however, it is back within reach for the GOP, thanks, in large part, to the Democrats’ choice of nominee. Obama’s dismal primary performance here, especially among white voters, makes this a tough state for Democrats to hold onto. Sen. Bob Casey (D) tried to help Obama with the “bitter” voters in the center of the state, but he fell short. The question for November is can Obama hold onto the Arlen Specter-Ed Rendell vote in the Philadelphia suburbs.

McCain is not the ideal candidate to pick off Casey-Santorum Democrats, and Rendell is still popular. The Keystone State favors Obama, but the closeness here gives McCain a second way to win if Ohio or Nevada falls to Obama. Leaning Democratic.

Rhode Island (4): Rhode Island is even more liberal than Massachusetts in many ways. Solid Democratic.

South Carolina (8): The Democratic primary electorate is majority black, but the November electorate is not. Obama can’t win rural whites, and so he can’t win South Carolina. Solid Republican.

South Dakota (3): This is a McCain shoo-in. Solid Republican.

Tennessee (11): More competitive than much of the South, but still a safe McCain win. Solid Republican.

Texas (34): McCain may not dominate as Bush did, but if he’s in trouble in Texas, it’s all over. Solid Republican.

Utah (5): Utah is the most Republican state in the nation. Solid Republican.

Virginia (13): There is much talk about Virginia as a Democratic pickup for 2008. Democrats hold the governorship and after November will probably hold both Senate seats. Popular former Gov. Mark Warner (D) may have an easy enough path to election his Senate race that he can stump for Obama. Democrats have made big advances in Northern Virginia as those suburbs have gained in wealth because of the growth of federal government. Add in a strong black vote near Richmond and Virginia Beach, and you see the reasons for Democratic optimism.

But many of the suburban former Republicans who have turned against Bush, former Sen. George Allen (R), and the GOP broadly will be drawn to McCain’s brand of moderation. Also, Bush won this state by nearly 10 points in 2004. Leaning Republican.

Vermont (3): The heart of liberal hippiedom will vote for Obama. Solid Democratic.

Washington (11): Obama’s strength here will make this very difficult for McCain. Solid Democratic.

West Virginia (5): Once a battleground state, this year West Virginia falls off the charts. Consider how poorly Obama did in the primary here. Solid Republican.

Wisconsin (10): This is a battleground state where Obama looks stronger than most Democrats. He shores up the Nader vote and motivates the liberal base. The black pockets in Milwaukee help out, too. Leaning Democratic.

Wyoming (3): McCain will win here easily. Solid Republican.

An Energy Policy of the 21st Century versus An Energy Policy of the 13th Century

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

GOP conservatives: Democrats' record is one of blocking U.S. energy supply
The following energy policy brief was prepared by the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 110 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives.

In light of rising crude oil prices, the resulting spike in gas prices, and the continued reliance on energy supplies from unfriendly or unstable regions of the world, the RSC has prepared the following policy brief summarizing the Democrat pattern of blocking attempts to increase the supply of American energy and actively promoting policies that would make American energy less available, more expensive, and thus less affordable for poor and middle class Americans.

It's basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, the price goes up. One way to bring the price back down when worldwide demand is soaring-or to at least slow the rate of the increase-is to increase supply. Despite these widely understood realities, Democrats continue to speak ill about gas prices yet do ill about energy supplies. Even more disconcerting is the Democrat unwillingness to increase American energy supplies, as they block proposal after proposal aimed at allowing more energy supplies to be extracted from the American and Canadian ground, yet assert that OPEC should be sued for not increasing its exports. The logic simply does not work.

Like it or not, petroleum is the backbone of America's transportation energy today. If you need an ambulance to get you to the hospital, it won't be fueled by wind-powered batteries. If a school teacher needs to drive to work, her car's engine won't run on solar. And if a businessman needs to fly overseas on short notice, his plane won't get off the ground using biofuels. Alternative energy sources may be more prevalent and economical far in the future, but for now and perhaps decades to come, if America wants to increase or even just maintain its standard of living, if America wants to stay ahead of the rapidly developing economies in Asia and elsewhere, then America needs petroleum-and lots of it.


Most people understand that petroleum does not grow on trees. It's deep in the ground, and it doesn't come up by itself. It's in some parts of the world and not others. To get more petroleum over time, it's necessary to get it from more places.

The good news is that America is teaming with untapped petroleum resources-trillions and trillions of barrels. This point is not debatable. The bad news is that Democrats believe that whether such energy resources should be recovered is debatable. As demonstrated below, Democrats have not just been neutral on increasing American energy exploration, extraction, and refining-they have opposed it. Such Democrat energy intransigence comes at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Party Differences.

Below are some examples in recent years of House Republican actions to increase energy availability, the House Democrat agenda to restrain energy availability, and House Democrat proposals that contradict their own positions on energy.

What Republicans Have Done to Increase Energy Availability

ANWR.

For more than a decade, Republicans have proposed allowing energy exploration and extraction in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), where initial surveys show the presence of massive amounts of petroleum-upwards of a million barrels a day.

* On January 4, 2005, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) introduced a bill (H.R. 39) to repeal the prohibition against the production of oil and gas from ANWR and any leasing or development leading to such production.

* On April 21, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to allow oil and gas leasing in ANWR. 90% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it. The provision was removed before the bill was signed into law.

* On October 6, 2005, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 4004) to repeal the prohibition against the production, leasing, and development of oil and gas from ANWR. Rep. Paul has reintroduced the legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2415).

* On May 23, 2006, Rep, Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) introduced a bill (H.R. 5462) to direct the Bureau of Land Management to establish an oil and gas leasing program in ANWR and conduct two lease sales there before October 1, 2010.

* On May 25, 2006, the House passed a bill (H.R. 5429) by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) to repeal the proscription against the production or leasing of oil and gas resources from the ANWR and to provide extensive environmental safeguards for such production. 87% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 86% of the Democrats voted against it.

* On July 26, 2006, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 5890) to repeal the prohibition against production of oil and gas from ANWR and any leasing or development leading to such production.

* On July 18, 2007, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3089) to repeal the prohibition against producing oil and gas from ANWR.

OCS. Republicans have also consistently proposed expanding energy exploration and extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the lands under the waters surrounding the United States, most of which are statutorily off limits to energy development. Reports indicate that such expansion could yield 86 billion barrels of oil.

* On February 17, 2005, Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) introduced a bill (H.R. 907) to allow easements or rights-of-way for energy and related purposes on the OCS for otherwise prohibited activities when such activities support exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.

* On April 13, 2005, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) introduced a bill (H.R. 1596) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit on the OCS for activities not otherwise authorized under existing law, if those activities support or promote exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.

* On April 21, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant, on either a competitive or noncompetitive basis, a lease, easement, or right-of-way on the OCS for activities not otherwise authorized under current laws, if those activities support exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals. 90% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it. These provisions were retained in the final version of the bill signed into law, and a provision was added to direct the Secretary of the Interior to inventory, analyze, and report to Congress on oil and natural gas resources beneath all of the waters of the OCS.

* On September 15, 2005, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3811) to terminate any prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities anywhere on the OCS and to terminate all withdrawals of federal OCS land from leasing activities.

* On September 27, 2005, Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced a bill (H.R. 3918) to terminate any prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds to conduct natural gas leasing and preleasing activities anywhere on the OCS and to terminate all withdrawals of federal OCS land from leasing for exploration for, and development and production of, natural gas. Rep. Peterson introduced a similar bill (H.R. 4318) on November 15, 2005.

* On October 6, 2005, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 4004) to terminate any prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities anywhere on the OCS and to terminate all withdrawals of federal OCS land from leasing activities. Rep. Paul reintroduced the bill (H.R. 2415) in the 110th Congress.

* On November 7, 2005, Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA) introduced a bill (H.R. 4241) that contained a provision terminating the effect of all existing federal laws prohibiting the spending of appropriated funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities for OCS areas. The provision was omitted from the version of the bill that passed the House.

* On May 18, 2006, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 842) to strike sections of the Interior Appropriations bill that prohibit the expenditure of funds for OCS oil leasing activities in certain areas. A majority of Republicans voted for the amendment, while Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it.

* On June 29, 2006, the House passed a bill (H.R. 4761) by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) to greatly increase energy development on the OCS, including a prohibition on more than 25% of the acreage of any OCS Planning Area being withdrawn from leasing more than 100 miles from any coastline. 86% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 79% of Democrats voted against it.

* On July 18, 2007, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3089) to terminate all existing federal laws prohibiting expenditures to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities on the OCS.

* On August 3, 2007, Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced a bill (H.R. 3435) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to inventory oil and natural gas resources beneath the waters of the OCS, other than those in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Florida. The Secretary would have to make available for oil and natural gas leasing all such inventoried areas.

Oil Shale, Tar Sands, Heavy Oil, and Coal-to-Liquids.

Petroleum is no longer just available from reservoirs. It can be extracted from rocks (shale) and sands, which are abundant throughout North America. Some observers have described the United States as the Saudi Arabia of oil shale, with about 1.8 trillion barrels of oil recoverable from U.S. shale. Tar sands are also plentiful, with 11 billion recoverable barrels in the U.S. and far more in our ally to the north-Canada.

Additionally, there are nearly 100 billion barrels of heavy oil (a thicker crude oil) in the U.S., and America's voluminous coal resources could allow coal-to-liquid production (making diesel and jet fuels from gasified coal) without affecting the coal supply for electricity.

Republicans believe that America as a nation should do all it can to promote the development of all of these newer sources of raw materials with which to make fuels right here in America-to make conventional what is now unconventional.

* On February 9, 2005, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) introduced a bill (H.R. 681) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sands and a lease for oil and gas.

* On July 28, 2005, the House passed a conference report (H.R. 6) led by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to instruct the Secretary of the Interior to make available for leasing public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in order to conduct research and development of technologies for the recovery of liquid fuels from oil shale and tar sands. The legislation also contained various other provisions encouraging the increased development of oil shale and tar sands, including evaluating and mapping U.S. oil shale and tar sands deposits and instructing the Defense Department to procure fuel derived from U.S. coal ("coal-to-liquids"), oil shale, and tar sands 90% of Republicans voted for the conference report, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it.

* On November 18, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 4241) by Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA) that contained a provision facilitating the commencement of oil shale and tar sands leases.

* On June 27, 2007, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 452) to the Interior Appropriations bill to carve out Utah and Wyoming from certain restrictions on oil shale development. 91% of Republicans voted for the amendment, while 89% of Democrats voted against it.

* On March 31, 2008, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal Section 526 of the major energy bill of 2007 that prohibited federal agencies from procuring fuels made from unconventional petroleum sources.

Refining.

Republicans have consistently proposed making it easier for the private sector to expand capacity at existing petroleum refineries-or to build entirely new ones. Gasoline doesn't come from the ground; it comes from the refining process. If America wants more of it and other fuels, America must remove as many impediments to increased refining as possible.

* On April 21, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), which included, among other things, provisions to prescribe guidelines for the designation of refinery revitalization zones and the coordination and expeditious review of permitting process for such zones. 90% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it. Subsequent iterations of the legislation included tax incentives for refinery investment.

* On September 20, 2005, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) introduced a bill (H.R. 3836) containing a variety of provisions to expedite federal permitting procedures for construction or expansion of domestic petroleum refining facilities.

* On September 22, 2005, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced a bill (H.R. 3887) to direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense, to jointly designate three closed military installations as suitable for constructing oil refineries and to prohibit the federal government, for two years, from selling or disposing of any such designated site except for purposes of oil refinery construction.

* On September 27, 2005, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) introduced a bill (H.R. 3924) to revise the tax deduction for certain liquid fuels refinery property to allow expensing of the entire cost of such property if the property allows for a production capacity increase of five percent or more on an average daily basis; and to allow, in lieu of such expensing deduction, a five-year recovery period for the depreciation of such refinery property.

* On October 6, 2005, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 4004) to provide additional tax incentives for investment in oil refineries. Rep. Paul reintroduced the legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2415).

* On October 7, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3893) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that included a variety of provisions aimed at facilitating the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of refineries. 94% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 100% of Democrats voted against the bill.

* On June 20, 2006, Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) introduced a bill (H.R. 5653) to extend the election to expense the construction of oil and unconventional fuel (including oil shale and coal-to-liquids) refineries until 2016. Rep. Lewis reintroduced the bill (H.R. 683) in the 110th Congress.

* On July 18, 2007, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3089) to provide for increased expensing of refinery property and direct the President to designate at least ten sites for oil or natural gas refineries on federal lands and make such sites available to the private sector for refinery construction.

What Democrats Have Done to Restrain Energy Availability

ANWR.

Democrats have consistently blocked all efforts to allow energy exploration and extraction in ANWR, despite the fact that such activity already occurs in wildlife refuges across the country without destroying the affiliated ecosystems.

* On February 2, 2005, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a bill (H.R. 567) to designate oil-rich lands within ANWR as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, thus erecting another barrier to energy extraction there. Rep. Markey has reintroduced the legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 39).

* On April 20, 2005, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 72) to H.R. 6 to strike the provisions of the underlying bill allowing oil and gas exploration in ANWR. 85% of Democrats voted for the amendment, while 87% of the Republicans voted against it.

OCS.

Democrats have also consistently blocked efforts to expand energy exploration and extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), despite the success of current OCS operations and the feasibility of recovering what is now off-limits.

* On April 21, 2005, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) introduced a bill (H.R. 1798) to prohibit leasing for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other mineral in either the Mid-Atlantic or the North Atlantic planning areas of the OCS. Rep. Pallone reintroduced the bill (H.R. 777) in the 110th Congress.

* On February 16, 2006, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 4782) to prohibit oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in areas of the OCS located off the coast of California and to exclude such areas from the OCS inventory required under current law. Rep. Capps reintroduced the bill (H.R. 2918) in the 110th Congress.

* On May 4, 2006, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) introduced a bill (H.R. 5300) to repeal the existing law requirement for a comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources. Rep. Hinchey reintroduced the bill (H.R. 586) in the 110th Congress.

* On April 19, 2007, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced a bill (H.R. 1957) to prohibit the conduct of oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in OCS areas located in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area and to exclude such planning area from a mandated inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources.

* On June 15, 2007, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 2758) to prohibit oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in areas of the OCS located off the coast of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties in the state of California and to exclude such areas from the mandatory inventory of OCS energy reserves.

* On April 24, 2008, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) introduced a bill (H.R. 5861) to prohibit oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in certain areas of the OCS off the coast of Florida.

Oil Shale, Tar Sands, Heavy Oil, and Coal-to-Liquids. Democrats have consistently blocked expanding the development of "unconventional" petroleum resources, despite their promise to deliver more fuels from American sources to m

eet today's energy demands, while decreasing the need to import oil from unstable and unfriendly nations.

* On December 7, 2006, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced a bill (H.R. 6417) to repeal the tax credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source.

* On June 27, 2007, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 448) to the Interior Appropriations bill to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public lands or to conduct an oil shale lease sale. 88% of Democrats voted for the amendment, while 93% of Republicans voted against it.

* On June 27, 2007, the House passed the Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) introduced by Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA), which included a provision to prohibit the use of funds to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands or to conduct an oil shale lease sale pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 98% of Democrats voted for the bill, while 76% of Republicans voted against it.

* On August 4, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3221) that includes a prohibition on surface occupancy for oil or gas exploration or development purposes in each lease for certain federal lands on the Roan Plateau in Colorado. 96% of Democrats voted for the bill, while 86% of Republicans voted against it.

* On December 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6), now current law, that prohibits federal agencies from procuring fuels made from unconventional petroleum sources, aimed at stopping the Defense Department's plan to procure fuels derived from Canadian oil sands.

Refining.

Democrats have consistently blocked all efforts to make it easier to expand petroleum refining. Instead, the Democrats have done all they can to restrain refining, and thus choke the supply (and increase the price) of fuels nationwide.

* On November 18, 2005, Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT, who caucused with the Democrats) introduced a bill (H.R. 4420) to repeal, among other things, the tax incentive from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowing a taxpayer to expense 50% of the cost of certain crude oil refinery property placed in service before January 1, 2008.

* On April 27, 2006, Rep. John Larson (D-CT) introduced a bill (H.R. 5234) to repeal tax incentives from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 relating to expensing of crude oil refinery property and exemptions from limitations on oil depletion deductions for certain small crude oil refiners.

How Democrats Have Contradicted Their Own Positions on Energy

Suing OPEC.

Time and again, Democrats have lambasted the oil companies, criticized the Bush Administration's close relationships with oil-exporting nations in the Middle East, denounced America's reliance on petroleum, argued for and enacted mandates on alternative fuels and bio-additives to petroleum-based fuels, and complained of oil's negative effects on the environment.

Yet-on two occasions this Congress (H.R. 2264 and H.R. 6074)-they moved legislation allowing OPEC to be sued in U.S. courts for not supplying enough oil or providing such oil at a low enough price (which of course would increase consumption).

So which is it? Do Democrats want less oil or more oil? Or perhaps they just want less American energy and more Middle Eastern energy.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Democrats have consistently contested the basic economic reality that increased supply of a product helps push prices downward. As demonstrated throughout this Policy Brief, Democrats have fought efforts to increase the supply of petroleum and its refined products and have dispelled Republican assertions that increased energy development (in ANWR, on the OCS, etc.) would help alleviate high gas prices.

Yet just this month, Democrats moved a bill (H.R.6022) to suspend acquisitions for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, claiming that doing so would help lower gas prices.

So, stopping a 70,000-barrel-a-day contribution to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which of course also has national security implications) will help lower gas prices, but allowing energy development in ANWR, which could yield one million barrels of petroleum a day would not affect gas prices? Again, which is it?

But Wait-There's More!

Adding insult to injury, besides ongoing efforts to prohibit the expansion of domestic supplies of petroleum and coal-based fuels, the Democrats proposed and passed through the House, as one of their signature items in their first few weeks of the majority in 2007, a bill increasing taxes on the domestic manufacturing of petroleum (H.R. 6). Democrats voted in near-unison for it, as if increasing taxes on American companies will somehow increase the production, the pricing, and the global competitiveness of such companies.

Then the Democrats followed that punch at America's energy with a gas-price controls bill (H.R. 1252) that attempted to micromanage the market for gasoline. Democrats again voted in near-unison for it, arguing that nothing solves a problem faster or better than the federal government.

Conclusion.

It is clear that the Republican approach to energy is "more American energy now," while the Democrat approach to energy is to foreclose all new domestic supplies of energy America needs today. Republicans have repeatedly demanded action to prevent inevitable energy shortages, but Democrats continue with their no-new-energy agenda, putting the American people in grave danger of real reductions in their standard of living.

Fort Carson Soldier Frank Gaspar Killed in IED Strike outside of Najaf

I am writing to you to mourn the loss of Sergeant Frank Gaspar whom insurgents had killed in an IED strike near Najaf, Iraq. Frank came to the Headquarters Company of 3rd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) shortly after 9/11.

What kind of a man was Frank Gaspar? Frank was a family man who enjoyed simple pleasures, an easy joke and a good time. He was mild mannered, amiable, reliable, physically fight, intellectually sharp and morally straight.

I can't remember one thing Frank did that was morally questionable or self serving. He was the kind of guy you took for granted until you are put in a situation with people you can't depend on.

We could always depend on Frank around the equipment. He always shared his knowledge when asked and he was afraid to show his mettle or keep his combat skills up. Frank was a true friend and always kept faith with his comrades even when they occasionally did things that he did not agree with.

Those traits about a long time ago weren't that uncommon a long time ago. Nowadays, you would be hard pressed to find those same values emulated in the words and deeds of men especially younger men. But that was the kind of man Frank was.

It is with great sadness that I mourn the loss of such a great and true friend as Frank Gaspar. And I am ashamed that I did not know him more, I just thought he would always be around. Unfortunately, men like that aren't always around and his death is truly our loss. Those of us who still breath the gift of life in our chests owe it to men like Frank be better men, to remember the freedom and livelihood we enjoy had been
bought and paid at such a dear price and this world is a more impoverished place.

Let us not forget that those that took Frank's life have dedicated themselves to our annihilation upon which no peace whoever evil can be bartered. On the passing of this Memorial Day and the passing of this great man, let us fortify our efforts and keep faith with those engaged in the fight and support them and our nation to victory of which there is no substitute.


James A. Bretney
Sergeant, United States Army Reserve
Sierra Vista, Arizona
(520) 255 4137


James A. Bretney
Test Engineer
520 538 4451 (work)
520 255 4137 (cell)
james.a.bretney@us.army.mil

Jimbo at Laffs

Support Bill Cloud

Please help me out! I am still in need of money to reach my goal! Paste the link and help the MDA by donating money!

https://www.mdaevent.org/ParticipantInfo.aspx?j=28f7490e-1ff1-4e5c-92d6-b50dfee47b46

Thanks in advance and I hope to see you at my fundraiser!
Bill Cloud
www.billcloudsheriff2008.com

Do Nothing Congress

megavote@mailmanager.net wrote:

Military.com
presents:
MegaVote
Edit Subscription | Unsubscribe
Congressional Directories


May 19, 2008

In this MegaVote for Arizona's 8th Congressional District:

Recent Congressional Votes -
* Senate: Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
* Senate: Food and Energy Security Act
* House: Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act
* House: Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
* House: Amendment to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act

Upcoming Congressional Bills -
* Senate: FY2008 War Supplemental
* House: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008
* House: Concurrent Budget Resolution for 2009
* House: National Defense Authorization Act, FY2009

Recent Senate Votes

Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act - Vote Passed (92-6, 2 Not Voting)

The Senate voted to reform and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which maps America's floodplains and underwrites flood insurance for communities that adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations.

Sen. John McCain voted Not Voting......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jon Kyl voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Food and Energy Security Act - Vote Agreed to (81-15, 4 Not Voting)

The Senate gave final approval to a $289 billion measure that would set agriculture policy for the next five years.

Sen. John McCain voted Not Voting......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jon Kyl voted NO......send e-mail or see bio


Recent House Votes

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act - Vote Passed (385-25, 23 Not Voting)

The House passed this bill that would suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as long as the price of crude oil remains above $75 per barrel.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act - Vote Passed (318-106, 10 Not Voting)
Rep. Raul Grijalva voted No

The House passed a $289 billion measure that would set agriculture policy for the next five years.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Rep. Raul Grijalva voted Yes

Amendment to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act - Vote Failed (141-149, 132 Present, 12 Not Voting)

The House rejected an amendment to the military construction bill that would fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Rep. Raul Grijalva voted No


Upcoming Votes

FY2008 War Supplemental -

The Senate is scheduled to work on their version of a $193 billion bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the House rejected the portion of the bill funding military operations, it will be up to the Senate to add those funds.


Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 - H.R.6049

This $57 billion House bill would extend a number of expiring or soon-to-expire tax provisions.


Concurrent Budget Resolution for 2009 - S.Con.Res.70

The House is scheduled to begin work on this resolution setting 2009 fiscal year budget levels. The start of floor action is contingent on Senate and House conferees completing a final draft of the resolution.


National Defense Authorization Act, FY2009 - H.R.5658

The House may begin considering this bill that would authorize $600 billion for defense spending for the upcoming fiscal year.



Edit Subscription | Unsubscribe

MegaVote
c/o Capitol Advantage
2751 Prosperity Ave
Suite 600
Fairfax, VA 22031
MegaVote is powered by Capitol Advantage © 2008.

Mega Cartel created in Mexico; Los Zetas becomes a new Cartel

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERS
Visit our website: http://www.nafbpo.org
Sign up for our report at: m3report@yahoo.com
Foreign News Report

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) extracts and condenses the material that follows from Mexican and Central and South American on-line media sources on a daily basis. You are free to disseminate this information, but we request that you credit NAFBPO as being the provider.

El Universal (Mexico City) 5/19/08



Megacartel created

(1) After a meeting that took place Sunday, Los Zetas became a new cartel in Mexico, independent of their previous leaders and with a newly formed alliance of former organizations, will establish a new map for controlling of Mexican territories. The new "megacartel" will reportedly be headed by Heriberto Lazcano and Miguel Treviño Morales. The alliance was formed between Arturo Beltrán Leyva (El Barbas) and his brothers, Alfredo and Alberto and the Gulf Cartel with its army of military-trained executioners, Los Zetas. The new organization will be re-dividing sections of Mexican territories as well as fighting a territorial war with La Federación, a group of narco-organizations headed by Joaquín (El Chapo) Guzmán and Ismaél (El Mayo) Zambada, once allied with the Beltrans. These turf battles between various factions of the Gulf, Sinaloa, Juárez and Tijuana cartels and their affiliates, as well as the federal operations against them, have brought about a lessening of rivalries and a possibility of conciliation. Indications are that Alfredo Beltrán has suggested a peace and possibly further alliances with the warring cartels. Such consolidation would represent a distinct problem of national security for both Mexico and the U.S., it was noted. (The attached photo-map relates)



(2) Two top police officials of the state of Durango were abducted yesterday and their whereabouts are unknown. Their official vehicle was discovered on the outskirts of Ignacio Allende with three bullet holes in it.



(3) Five victims of execution-style murders were found Sunday in two separate locations near Rosarito Beach, a favorite tourist area in Baja California south of Tijuana. Four of the victims appeared to be non-Mexican, but their nationalities have not yet been confirmed. The first of the murders was discovered Sunday afternoon when a body was found in an abandoned car. Later that evening, the bodies of four people, three "afro-americanos" and a "white woman" were found in an SUV underneath a bridge on the highway leading to Tijuana. All had been shot in the head. A short distance away, two other bodies were found. Both appeared "foreign." Their manner of death was not reported, but apparently not "execution-style." (This article was accompanied by a reader's comment, which was decidedly racist.)



(4) Night of terror: The usually quiet town of Villa Ahumada, Chihuahua endured a siege of terror from 11 p.m. Saturday to 3:30 a.m. Sunday when an army of 40 armed narco-killers took over the town of 30,000 inhabitants. Frantic calls to the police went unanswered, they later realized, because two of them had been murdered and the rest held captive inside the police station. The thugs had gained entry and taken them prisoners on the threat of murdering innocent people. During the spree, the narcos shot up the town, robbed citizens and took every advantage of their uncontested control. In the wake of the ordeal, 200 military were airlifted to the town where they shot one of the gang's leaders and captured 10 others. The local police had been receiving threats and the local force had dwindled from 15 at the beginning of the year to 3 officers. At the time of this incident, the force consisted of state police replacements.

--------------------



El Porvenir (Monterrey, Nuevo León) 5/19/08



Red Sunday: 21 executions. This past Sunday, 21 assassinations, presumably by organized crime, were reported in six different states. In Chihuahua 13 occurred; Aguascalientes, 3; Guerrero, 2; Sinaloa, 1; Michoacán, 1; and in Tijuana, Baja California, 1.

--------------------



Frontera (Tijuana, Baja California) 5/19/08



The Mérida Initiative has gained the attention of the Mexican press as they note the conditions imposed by the U.S. for assisting in the fight against narcotraffic, in effect: legal and judicial reform and a police and military force free of corruption and human rights violations. (The op/column, "Thank you, Gringos," our report of 5/17/08 relates.)

--------------------



Milenio (Mexico City) 5/19/08



According to the chairman of a major committee of the Mexican House of Representatives, Diodoro Carrasco Altamirano (PAN), the Army is irreplaceable in combating organized crime as long as the Federal Police agency is no better organized and police agencies are not coordinated or have the capacity of response. He was speaking to the House in favor of strengthening public policies of the departments for recruiting, selection and incentives of their personnel. He called for better training, salaries, equipment and benefits.

--------------------

-end of report-

Traitors Among Us

"...the construction of 4,000 crosses is considered by most people a political protest against the war and the policies of the current administration. .... The majority of veterans and families find this protest political, and in turn, offensive and disrespectful.

The city has no obligation under the law to provide public lands for political purposes...."

So wrote Harry Berzes (City of Sierra Vista, Parks and Leisure Services Business Administrator) to Parks Director John Startt and City Attorney Stu Fauver in apparent response to a request early this year by area resident Joy Banks to install a temporary display similar to the Veterans for Peace project known as Arlington West. (see attached photo)

At my request City Clerk Jill Adams provided some copies of internal e-mails and documents related to this proposed 3-day use in March of a section of Veterans Memorial Park. The documents supplied do not include any responses by Parks Director Startt or City Attorney Fauver or comments by the City Manager or council members.

When contacted last week Ms Banks was unaware of Mr Berzes' negative comments about her plans. Banks, who proposed to organize the effort in the Sierra Vista park, says she never received a written denial or explanation but was told by City Attorney Fauver that per City Ordinance 94 "political and religious events are not allowed in the park."

Ms Banks provided news clippings from the SV Herald indicating that the city park has been used on numerous occasions by various political and religious groups. She says Fauver told her that such events "must have slipped through the cracks".

How Mr Berzes knows what the majority thinks is not clear but even if correct about the feelings of the majority of persons in Sierra Vista he displays ignorance or disregard for a fundamental tenet of the American way, and the law.

With very few exceptions, the use of public property for any speech or non-violent demonstration must be permitted - even if it offends or inconveniences the government and/or the majority of citizens.

In an April 16 letter to the editor of the SV Herald, which (as of May 7) was not published, Ms Banks cites the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization which includes:

"The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views ... may be regulated ... in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."

But the city staff has long engaged in illegal practices, concocted a number of unconstitutional ordinances which the city council approved, and effectively stifles free speech, protest, innovation and change in Sierra Vista. They have systematically deprived residents in this area of a most basic civil right - the right to publicly criticize and challenge those in power.

Every City Councilmember took an oath to protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona. Perhaps they should review those documents again, and share them with City Manager Potucek, City Attorney Fauver, and the city staff - noting that failure to uphold this oath of office is a definition of treason.
---------

PS. I invite you again to consider the value of an "alternative press".

This e-mail news alerts list has 4,000+ active recipients from the Sierra Vista and/or Cochise County area (or with business/political interest in the area), plus about 400 active journalists and editors in Arizona, the U.S. and Mexico.

If you do not wish to receive it, just let me know. And if you know others who might be interested, please let them - and me - know.


--
For the Record,

David M Morgan
Investigator, Writer, Publisher
COCHISE COUNTY RECORD
112 N 7th ST
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 (USA)
(520) 236-4051

News and information about your government and community that you won't find anywhere else

(alternative e-mails DavidMarshallMorgan2002@yahoo.com and davidmmorgan@hotmail.com)