The news came out today that the administration imposed its 20 year ban on uranium mining on federal land in Arizona with no scientific basis to support the move. In fact, an email from a National Park Service hydrologist states that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to establish links between impacts on water and uranium mining.  The leaked email states in part:

This is obviously a touchy case where the hard science doesn’t strongly support a policy position. Probably the best way to ‘finesse’ this would be fall back on the ‘precautionary principle’ and take the position that in absence of even more complete certainty that there is no connection between uranium mines and regional ground water, we need to be cautions[sic]??

You can read more here.

One thousand jobs and $29 million in revenue are on the block in this situation.

Utah Congressman Rob Bishop who is the chairman of the House, National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee released this statement.

“I am concerned and troubled by the Department of Interior’s decision to proceed with the ban despite the fact their own experts cautioned that scientific evidence was lacking. It is now increasingly apparent that the decision was motivated by politics rather than science as the Administration would have us believe. We feared this was the case when the DOI announced its intentions in January, and it is unfortunate that it has proven to be true…These emails illustrate that Secretary Salazar blatantly ignored the scientific analysis in order to advance the Administration’s narrow-minded political agenda. The Administration is working hard to protect certain interests, but just not those of the American people.”

Bishop and House Natural Resources Chair Doc Hastings are requesting all of the documents in the matter. Given the forthcoming nature of the administration, I suspect their grandchildren might receive them. Unless they get lucky and someone leaks something else.

It’s one thing to oppose nuclear energy. It is another thing to curtail it without scientific evidence.

Those of you east of the Mighty Mississippi might be surprised at this, but energy advocates in the West are merely shaking their heads and recalling the immortal words of  Captain Renault from Casablanca : I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Huh?

She went on to say: “The economy has to be in the hands of those who are the entrepreneurs and creative innovators.”

And…cue Rod Serling.

I’ll give you a minute to digest that.

I’ll admit that upon reading that, I had to throw a few random objects off of my roof to be certain that gravity still worked. Some have theorized that this represents a drive toward the middle of the road on the Secretary’s part in preparation for a 2012 or 2016 run for the White House.

There is also another notion that the former First Lady thinks that the Obamaphenomenon is raging beyond even her wildest left-wing dreams to the point that she would prefer to distance herself from the most liberal president ever. Some cite her divergence from the Administrations’ policies on Israel as an example of her possible disenchantment with the sitting president.

I find it hard to believe that the person who posited nationalized healthcare before all the cool kids were doing it is for limited government and free enterprise. This is the administration that has taken a personal interest in our fat intake, tracking journalists and on the distribution of birth control and abortions to the point that it has tried to strong arm religious institutions into violating their own beliefs, and most recently has opposed the idea of military chaplains opting out of same-sex marriages if they oppose those unions on religious grounds.

It has also given us an Environmental Protection Agency that suddenly “finds” a wetlands in the midst of an Idaho subdivision in order to prevent property owners from building there and has also set aside money to increase the federal role in healthcare in schools. Not exactly the actions of a laissez-faire system of government.

It all makes sense when one considers that the Secretary was taking part in a meeting entitled “Global Dialogue of Civil Society”.

The word “civil” when used by the Left has come to mean that anyone with a differing point of view politely keeps their big bazoo shut. And as the Administration has shown, small government and entrepreneurship are fine, so long as it defines what those mean as well

But with an election drawing nigh and people taking a more jaded look at the Obama presidency, the administration understands that for the present it will have to swap out some of its support from the environmental community in the hope that it will draw some support from the people concerned about energy.

And it is in that same vein that the administration decided back gay marriage, when the president called for the repeal of DOMA. Well, this time it is about votes and money.

Now the president can turn to the country and say “Look what I did for you by increasing energy production”- whether that promise of energy and jobs comes to fruition or reverses itself by the time November arrives is another discussion entirely.

Similarly, the president can now turn to the gay community and his hard left base and say “Look what I have said on your behalf, and look at what I want to do for you.” That may win him an election, it certainly has won him money and has energized parts of his base, but at what cost?

The president’s most recent actions show that the man who once wanted to unite us is more than happy to find and emphasize differences in order to win votes. Not only has the president highlighted, italicized and underscored yet another difference between the Right and the Left, he has now set the stage for a fight within churches themselves.

I have seen the issue of gay ordination tear apart a church. One minister I knew found himself in the unenviable position of having one part of his congregation leaving because his church was moving ahead with gay ordination, while yet another part had decided to leave because the minister was philosophically opposed to the move.

So not only will the president’s DOMA declaration have the very real potential to galvanize a portion of the population against American Christendom, it also prepares the way for churches to divide themselves.

The discussion of gay marriage is one that should be had, but not during an election year, and not as part of a campaign stump.

Clearly there is no pot the administration will not stir, and no controversy it will not inflame in the pursuit of votes. The White House has shown it is quite capable of acting decisively when confronted with the matter of self-preservation.

And those emboldened by the administration’s bold drive to the Left should consider a few things.

Higher taxes, lower earnings, an expanding, intrusive government, low employment numbers and the derision of the world community will negatively impact everyone in the United States, no matter a persons’ race, origin or sexual orientation.

Gay or straight, you will still be overtaxed, overregulated and underemployed or in some case unemployed.

Be warned: Obama’s concern for you goes no further than your checkbook and your ballot.

If you had to scratch out a tax check this year or are curious as to where that amount in the mysterious “FICA” box goes, take a blood pressure pill (or get a prescription for some) and allow me to enlighten you as to how your money is being spent.

17 billion of your money went to either fraudulent or incorrect overpayments by Medicare.

Everybody likes trains, right? You’d better because you also subsidized Amtrak to the tune of $1.4 billion. That comes out to around $55 per each ticket sold. When did the government start propping up companies that can’t make a profit as a private enterprise? Oh, wait…never mind. Right then, moving on.

Speaking of that, you also “invested” $328 million in research and production for energy efficient vehicles. Since it was your money that went to the companies, you should be getting your first dividend check any day now. Just keep watching that mail box.

Being the good global citizens that you are, you also spent $1.5 billion on foreign aid to such places as China, Brazil, and Russia. However, Congress borrows trillions from those countries in order to fund the federal budget. So we end up paying for infrastructure, medical care, military costs and economic development in those nations. That’s good news considering the recent developments in Russia. Whatever happened to just sending a nice thank-you card? “Dear Vladimir, Thanks bunches for the loan! Here’s a little something for your troubles. We promise we’ll have that pesky missile issue all cleared up by Christmas! Love ya!”

You are a selfless group. I’m sure last year many of you shoe-horned yourselves into coach seats to save a buck on air travel, and had to hold your bag of almonds between your knees and tear it open with your teeth while not knocking that 10 cc glass of coke off your tray table. So it was very kind of you to spend $70 million to upgrade federal employees flying on your nickel to business or first class.

Apparently, you know how to have fun. Or to pay for other people’s fun. Why else would you donate $232 million to the Institute of Library and Museum Sciences? They used your tax money to finance such things as the Mob Museum in Las Vegas, a quilt museum in Nebraska, and a merry-go-round museum in New York. But then again, these are museums after all. So we’re not just talking about fun, we’re talking about edutainment!

I won’t even tell you about the $147,106 you spent to foster emotional wellbeing in Palau. (Check your Atlas.)

I have queried some elected officials that do business in the District of Columbia. I am told that they cannot lower taxes or balance the budget because there are too many Democrats there. And they have justified objectionable votes by saying that they were necessary to stave off even worse legislation, or advance better legislation. I can understand that conservatives have a fight on their hands when it comes to cutting entitlements, but can any of them really expect me to believe that there was a serious floor fight to ensure funding for the Museum of Magic? Who filibustered that?

I know people who worked in D.C. and they tell me that on the very day that our Senators and Representatives arrive, they learn quickly if they want nice office furniture, or good playing fields for their softball teams (When in the hell do they get time to play softball?) they have to cut deals and make alliances.

That mentality eventually washes over into the rest of their jobs. In an arena in which piddling away a couple of million dollars is all in an afternoon’s work, the “Let’s Make a Deal” attitude has obviously cost us some money. If the stuff sold at Staples is good enough for the rest of us, it’s good enough for our legislators. If they can’t make do with that, let them get by with a brick phone, a card table and a rolodex. But what’s a couple of million dollars in favors and deals here and there?

If it is the D.C. mindset is the problem then perhaps it is time we change the minds in D.C. and replace them with ones that aren’t going to repeat the lavish mistakes of the past.

By way of a brief review, SB1813, which incidentally allows the IRS to revoke your passport, also mandates that vehicles built after 2015 must have an Event Data Recorder or “Black Box” as factory standard.

Most of the articles opposing the bill have focused on the Orwellian aspects of the bill such as this piece by Eric Peters from The American Spectator. Peters paints a chilling picture of Big Brother now assuming the role of Traffic-Cop-in-Chief.

As unnerving as it all sounds, the question that has been rolling around my brain isn’t whether or not a shadow agency deep below the Washington Monument will be tracking your trips to the local supermarket, casino or speakeasy, but how will this grow government and how will we pay for it?

If the bill passes, and given the current incarnation of Congress, I suspect it shall, and the boxes become mandatory, someone will have to get the government contract to manufacture them. Since government contracts are expensive, and since this administration has a penchant for lending the helping hand of economic development to its capitalist cronies, I have to believe that somewhere, there is a new Solyndra, it’s hour come round at last slouching towards Washington to be born. And the ensuing legislative fight over whose district will get the new company will be at the very least interesting to watch.

Since the new black boxes will be installed at the factory, an entirely new group of auto workers will need to be created whose only job will be to install the boxes. I’ll leave you to connect the dots there.

That cost will in all likelihood be passed on to the consumer, and will show up somewhere near the bottom of the sticker price, much like the “recycling fee” appears on your bill when you buy new tires.

But the amount you pay to buy or lease would only be the start. It wasn’t long after the use of radar to monitor vehicular speed came into its own that someone came up with the idea of radar detectors. And so the advent of the mandatory black box will be followed by a cottage industry that will manufacture the kits to remove, disable or falsify the contents therein.

Which will in turn lead to a whole new layer of government regulations designed to neutralize those who would neutralize the black box, and of course that will fall under yet another to-be-created government agency, with a set of yet-to-be-created power and technology to monitor and seize your black box. Spot checks, or downloads will become necessary to ensure that you aren’t trying to circumvent the system. That of course will be done under the banner of checking accident statistics, fuel efficiency, and auto safety. And all that data will have to be analyzed stored and update periodically.

This all amounts to many people to be paid, and many regulations to be written. None of this will be free, and none of it will be cheap. New departments will have to be created or old ones will have to be enlarged; begging the question: who will be in charge of this electronic rodeo?

There are a number of agencies that could take on the job, but I envision this email arriving in my inbox one day:

Dear Mr. Brown

Our latest records from your Event Data Recorder (EDR) indicate that in August, 2015, you drove 27.3 miles over your monthly average as indicated by the Government Mileage Index (GMI).

Your penalties are as follows:

$27.50 Mileage Overage Tax

$35.45 Highway Use Tax

$150.00 Carbon Footprint Assessment

$50.00 Data Processing Fee

Please remit the sum of  $262.95 to the Internal Revenue Service no later than September 5^th 2015. Please make your check or money order payable to the Department of the Treasury.

Recently, I spent about fifteen minutes talking with Horace Cooper of Project 21, a branch of the National Center For Public Policy Research. According to Cooper, recent election days in New Hampshire and other parts of the nation resembled a horror movie as voters rose from their graves to cast ballots for the candidate of their choice. Cooper noted that the modus operandi in some states has been to move voters by bus from one precinct to another.

These voters, armed with a name on a 3 X 5 card taken from the obituaries or some other source arrive at the polls, give their assigned name and cast their ballots. Citing undercover video, Cooper notes that when these voters use the name of a legitimate resident of the precinct, they are seen asking the poll workers if someone else comes in and gives the same name, if they will be allowed to vote. They are assured the next person with that name, who one may assume is the legitimate voter will not be permitted to vote.

According to Cooper, this practice has also been seen in Wisconsin, which if true could make life difficult for Scott Walker who may well be in for the fight of his political life.

This has given rise to the call to show present identification to vote. According to Cooper, eight states passed laws requiring identification to vote. It makes sense, after all one has to show an identification card to board an aircraft, cash a check or even use a credit card. Identification is easy to get, and given the increased demand for it, some states have been providing state identification cards at low, or no cost.  Proving one is who one claims to be when choosing a local, state or national leader would be a natural next step. Conservatives, notably the Fellows at Project 21.

One would think that given the Bush-Gore dustup in Florida over pregnant and hanging chads, truth-in-balloting would be of as much a concern of the Left as it is the Right.

One would think that, but one would be wrong. Not only has  Left compared the idea to the poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow era but, asserts Cooper, the U.S. Attorney General opposes the idea as well.

Which begs the question, why is the Left so opposed to the notion of fairness and truth at ballot box? What is it about insuring that only registered voters who live (literally) in their precinct avail themselves of one of  the most important American rights?

I’ll leave it to you, the reader to divine the answers to that. And in the meantime, get used to registering to vote with a Ouija Board.

On the other hand it appears that if the Left has its way, certain voters will not have to register

As someone who kicked the tobacco habit I can tell you it is unhealthy, and I feel better having walked away from it. The health and social benefits are wonderful, not to mention I am saving a pile of cash. I would recommend it to anyone. Recommend it, but not demand it. It’s not my business to tell you whether or not to smoke, to drink or for that matter to eat a box of donuts.

However, according to an article at thenewamerican.com one of the researchers, Dr. Ron Lustig states “We are in the midst of the biggest public health crisis in the history of the world,…And nobody even gets it. Nobody understands how important this is because they don’t consider it ‘public health.‘ They consider it ’personal responsibility.’ ” The researchers go on to suggest that the public does not curb its appetite for sugar, then the federal government should step in.

The article is worth a read for no other reason that it gives startling insight into the mindset of those of the Intellectual Class who, by virtue of their degrees presume to make our choices for us.

The group suggests tax increases, tighter regulations on vending machines and snack bars, and has even floated the notion of barring sales of sugar to those under 17. Really? So the day will come when someone will get carded for buying a candy bar? As with any encroachment on self determination, the approach is a soft-peddle. A Dr Laura Schmidt calls the move “a gentle way to make sugar consumption less convenient”

Kinda makes you wonder what other things the Left will want to gently make less convenient.

The White House has adopted a similar position on the food we eat, and the FDA is moving to how the food industry advertises its products on television.

The typical response to all of this would be to decry further government intrusion on our lives. But after giving it some thought, I have come to the conclusion that these kinds of intrusions are necessitated by a much larger one: Obamacare.

Obamacare is going to be extraordinarily expensive, will likely lead to fewer doctors, and more people visiting emergency rooms for even the most minor complaints. And unless the Supreme Court places it out at the Constitutional Curb, it increasingly looks like more Americans than know it now will find themselves customers of government medicine.

Somewhere in the back of their minds, or perhaps even in the front of their minds, the architects of the Affordable Care Act know that the demand and the costs will go up while the availability of care will go down. What better way to finance such a boondoggle through increased taxes and fees? And what better way to cut down on customers than by eliminating things that may, or, in some cases, may not be, unhealthy

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case  Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists. The ADF has a story on the matter. At issue: whether or not memorial crosses can remain along Utah’s roadways. The crosses mark the places where Utah Highway Patrol Troopers sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. One such cross stands about 90 minutes from where I am writing this. Another is about 15 minutes away from my house, and was erected by the family of a sheriff’s detective who died in a helicopter crash while searching for a missing woman. I knew him. He was a good man, a good cop, and had a wickedly dry sense of humor.

What had the American Atheists so indignant was the notion that the crosses amount to a government endorsement of Christianity as they are located on small plots of public land. The atheists have no objection to say, obelisks, but the crosses have got to go. 

The irony here is that in Utah the predominant religion is that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, which does not hold the cross in any particular esteem. In fact I have yet to visit any LDS church (and I’ve been to more than a few) that have a cross, picture of a cross, or even cruciform architecture. In fact as members of the Utah Highway Patrol Association have said, the crosses were not erected as expressions of Christianity, but because crosses are frequently associated with memorials.

So the atheists are fighting to remove religious symbols that were not erected as religions symbols. Or as one listener rather laconically put it to me off-air: “What’s next? Are they going to cut down all the telephone poles?”  The guy had a point. Telephone and power poles with their cross beams do in fact have a rather Christian look about them. No telling how many people may be thrown into theological conniption fits from having such a symbol thrust upon them by the municipality!

I have a friend who is a Vietnam vet who to this day hates to see a peace sign. Mainly because to him the peace sign is a not a symbol of back of those beautiful 60’s when “It was so groovy now that people are finally getting; together” but rather a symbol of those peaceful, love-filled people who called servicemen and returning veterans names and spit on them. But he doesn’t run around pitching a fit over every peace sign he sees. He’s got better things to do with his time, and he respects the First Amendment. Besides, he’s a cop too, and has his hands full protecting people who want to gripe about crosses erected to peace officers.

Those in support of the atheists will undoubtedly cite the First Amendment cited at the beginning of this column and will say that the atheist struck a blow on its behalf. These are the same people who in this discussion will with wild-eyed abandon, hair standing on end, teeth set in grim defiance shout about “separation” and that Jefferson was a Deist. And he was, but these same people either do not know, or will not acknowledge that Jefferson, very much a proponent of freedom of religion.

These are the same people who cannot read past the word “establishment” and somehow seem to gloss right over the “free exercise” clause.  The argument can be made that the framers of the Constitution were averse to the British tradition of the king or queen being the head of the church, but they were not  fans of a monarch being the head of anything in the new nation. But they were by and large men of faith and never intended to remove faith from the public square. 

These atheists were not oppressed by the crosses. But they decided to use memorials erected by grieving families to grind their axes, and force a change that the majority of the people of Utah don’t want. And that begs the question: who is oppressing whom?

That being said, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these NBAcompoops. Any of ‘em. Not the players, and not the owners.

As I write this, the NBA lockout is in its 117^th day. And it appears the NBA has cancelled another two weeks of the season. With the chance that the Christmas Day games can be salvaged.

In April of this year, Fox Sports reported that the average basketball star gets 4.79 million dollars per year, which if you’re following along in your program (there is another expense) comes out to just over 92 thousand dollars a week. An article by Steve Aschburner on NBA.com had the at 5.15 million per year. (Source: NBA.com Steve Aschburner: NBA’s ‘Average’ Salary — $5.15M — A Trendy, Touchy Subject )

According to the Hoops.com websites, Plunkett Research figures that in 2010-2011, 4.1 billion dollars in revenue was generated by the NBA, with an operating income of 183 million, and an average NBA team value 369 million.

Compare that to the cost for a family of four to attend an NBA game during the same season. According to Business Insider, that ran the average Joe or Jane about $290 for one night of entertainment. That includes tickets, parking, soda for the kiddoes and a couple of cold ones for mom and dad who will need one especially after plunking down more money for ball caps, jerseys, a stuffed animal team mascot or whatever other tchotchkes their kids absolutely cannot live without. (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-11-24/sports/29958848_1_night-games-soda-ticket#ixzz1bq3B4oYN)

Ask that same Joe or Jane if the 4.1 billion in revenue is a lot of money and they will say yes. Ask them if spending something in the neighborhood of 300 clams for one night of fun is a lot of money, and when they stop laughing at your ridiculous question, they will say yes again. Incidentally I did ask around, and everyone I talked to thought 4.1 billion in revenue was a helluva a lot of money and that 300 bucks was too much to blow in one night . And I am willing to bet there will be far fewer people interested in coughing 300 bills for a night of fun this season than in seasons past. Why? Because everyone I know has better things to do with 300 bucks right now than watch a bunch of guys chase a ball up and down the court.

Quoting Players Association rep Billy Hunter from ESPN.com: “They (the players) are principled individuals and I think that they realize the struggle that they are incurring,” he said. “They may be paid at a higher level but it’s the same issue that we see that is endemic right now, not only in our country but around the world — it’s about folks at the top who have the leverage and power who need to impose upon the workers of the world.” (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7146097/nba-lockout-2011-league-cancel-two-more-weeks-regular-season-according-report)

Seriously? Are we down to Occupy Madison Square Garden?

Hello? Players? Owners? Newsflash: You’re luxury items. We don’t need you. If you all went away tomorrow we would mourn for a while, but the world would go on. NBA Basketball is not critical to the survival of the free world. Don’t get me wrong. I was among the first and loudest to cheer in back in ‘98 when the Jazz went on to face the Bulls in the Championship. And what a series that was. But the bottom line is, basketball does not make the world go ‘round.

And while you guys are arguing over a 50-50 revenue split and salary caps, remember the one factor that you seem to be forgetting: The Fans.

The Fans pay to see the teams play. The Fans buy the posters, the jerseys the shoes, the pennants, and whatever else the NBA is hawking, The Fans visit the wesbites, The Fans draft the fantasy leagues, The Fans tune in to watch the games when they can’t come up with $300 to go to the arena. It’s The Fans that line up for your autographs, and call you on sports radio.

So its not about the salary cap, its not about the owners and its not about the player’s Union. It’s about The Fans. And you would not be arguing right now if we, The Fans were not out there driving the engine.

I’ve said before that capitalism works when there is a good product that appeals to the buying public. And right now you hothouse orchids who have locked yourselves out of the owners boxes and locker rooms don’t look all that appealing to us. Especially in this day and age when more and more families are taking a scalpel to the budget and seeing what they can do without. When it comes right down to it, you are grown men who make in some cases obscene amounts of money to host, manage, market and play a kid’s game.

We love you, but not that much. And we can learn to live without you.