Let us look West, Democrats
This editorial was originally published in the Oregonian newspaper on November 17, 2004. The response to the editorial motivated the author, Kari Chisholm, to found WesternDemocrat.com.
Since the election, Democrats have been seized with recriminations and re-evaluations. Some argue that the party should move left to energize its base, while others argue that the party should move right to capture GOP turf. Some point to "moral values" and call for more overtly religious candidates, while others point to former Presidents Carter and Clinton and make the case for a return to the Deep South.
But there's another viable road ahead for disappointed Democrats.
Let us look west.
With the emergence of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada as swing states (all narrowly won by George W. Bush), the Democrats should look to become a Western party. Even in Montana, a state that Bush captured by 20 points, the Democrats have now captured the state Senate, the governorship and four of five statewide elected positions.
It would be a mistake for partisans to learn the wrong lessons from 2004. When polled on issues, Americans consistently agree with the Democrats on health care, the environment, taxes, the minimum wage, foreign trade and even national security.
Some have argued that Democrats should surrender on the culture-war topics of guns, gays and God. But more Americans agree than disagree that reasonable and limited gun controls make sense, and society's views on gay rights are rapidly changing. (Even Bush supports civil unions now.)
So winning is not about the issues and it's not about moral values. So what is it about?
Let's face it: For all of his strengths, average middle-class American families simply couldn't identify with John Kerry. He may be a decorated veteran and an extreme-sports athlete, but he and Teresa always came across as prep-school liberals, part of the brie-and-chablis scene back East.
Conversely, George "Dubya" Bush has portrayed a regular-guy image, comfortable with the NASCAR-and-barbecue crowd. While Kerry tried to fake it with L.L. Bean camouflage hunting gear, Bush looked at home in his blue jeans and cowboy boots.
The Democrats have simply failed to connect with average Americans. Yes, it's true, finding a good ol' Southern boy to lead the party might bring back the glory days, but it's almost impossible to find a Southern Democrat with presidential stature anymore. (With the possible exception of John Edwards.)
Let us look west. In the mountains and ranchlands of the West, there are Democrats who understand real America. Out here, far from the nation's capital, there are Democrats who understand skepticism of the federal government. Out here, Americans will find Democrats comfortable in jeans and boots. In the West, we can find Democrats able to speak plainly in the language of real America.
Can a Western Democratic Party succeed? Absolutely. If the 29 electoral votes in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada had swung from red to blue, John Kerry would have won 281 to 257. And in all 50 states, a Western candidate would signal a fresh start.
While it's perhaps too early to start naming names of possible presidential candidates, we might pay attention to the lessons learned from the politics practiced by Gov.-elect Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Sen.-elect Ken Salazar of Colorado, California Insurance Commissioner (and possible gubernatorial hopeful) John Garamendi, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado and former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, who represented Douglas County timber country before being elected statewide.
Reclaiming a majority is not about turning South, or preaching the Gospel, or moving left or moving right. It's about reconnecting on a gut-level with middle America.
Let us look west.
Your Personal Note:
I love your ideas, and this site. But you need a link to your RSS feed! I found it, but most people won't.
Posted by: Jennifer | Nov 18, 2004 7:17:16 PM
Oh yeah, I live in Colorado.
Posted by: Jennifer | Nov 18, 2004 7:17:38 PM
You bet. It's now over on the left side, at the bottom. Thanks for dropping by!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 19, 2004 4:37:23 PM
Thanks for your input. We're actually discussing the ideas "Let us look West, Democrat" in our Common Ground Common Sense community space and kindly invite you to participate.
Posted by: theglobalchinese | Jan 6, 2005 2:39:43 AM
You guys need to drop gun control, period.
I personally will never vote for any candidate who endorses it, no matter if it's "reasonable or limited". I would have thought that the lesson would have been learned by now. I guess not.
Posted by: Ben Bryant | Feb 5, 2005 4:18:24 AM
I agree with your thesis. I grew up in Montana. There's a lot of potential traction for Democrats in the West if they're just willing to go out and look for it - but they have to make the effort.
Posted by: Billings | May 21, 2005 2:49:37 PM
dan kemmis is such a loser known to missoulians as bastard dan the terrible this guy is so crooked that its hard to believe any takes him seriously but this country is so fullof naves and idoits that any one can pass as a politican. the only thing western about bastard dan is hi ability to baffle people with the most inane bullshit imaginable.
Posted by: biff richarson | May 23, 2005 10:15:47 AM
Im in California. I love your ideas. I was dissapointed that no choices in the primaries were from the west. Its nice to know many people from the west consider running for president in '08. I personally have thought about Democrats moving west as well, before I even found this websites.
Posted by: Morfos | Jun 12, 2005 9:15:46 PM
The Idaho State Democratic Party Platform states under the Freedom section: "We support the rights to own and use firearms as granted in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Idaho Constitution."
I believe that many traditional Republicans are upset by the deficit spending under the Bush government. We need to talk about stagnant real wages and rising healthcare costs. With gas prices rising money is going to be short for most individuals. When we ask are you better off than you were when Bush elected I believe that there is a resounding "no!" among American workers.
Posted by: Bonnie | Sep 13, 2005 10:34:25 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
Finally I hope I have found the Holy Grail website
that will get the Western States to become BLUE.
I am a Mexican/American Democrat born & raised in
Nogales, Arizona which borders Nogales, Sonora,
My Western Democrat friend without the Mexican/American vote the Western States will never
become Democrat...I have a gut feeling that you are well aware of it?
The Arizona 8th Congressional District Race is so
very, very, very important for the Democrats because it will be the stepping stone to making Arizona BLUE!
Plus it will add another Border State Congressman-
women to add to the already 5 out 9 seats in Texas-
(AZ. 8th?) + Az 7th + Ca 51st + Tx 16th + Tx 28th +
Tx 15th= 6 Democrats vs 3 Republicans...Is'nt that
a heck of a lot better than 5 Demos vs 4 Repubs?
My Western Democratic friends remember besides the
Bush Iraq war which I am totally against...The #1
issue in America is BORDER SECURITY!...Immigration reform is part of that equation...That is why Az 8th
gives the Democrats more power when it comes to Border Issue Reforms....
Az 8th has been Republican since 1984...20+ YEARS?
Jim Pederson can pull an upset for Senator in Arizona and topple a Bush Republican Kyle...
United States Senator Democrat Jim Pederson!!!!!!
United States House of Representative Az 8th!!!!!
Arizona on thec way to become BLUE?
For further info. David R Gonzalez (520) 889-0826
Posted by: David R Gonzalez | Jun 18, 2006 9:33:22 AM
Posted by: księgowy | Oct 29, 2006 11:44:40 AM
Greetings. I just found your site and like what I see so far. I want to put a plug into adding Texas as part of the West. I know, I know, those 7th grade Geography class texbooks say El Paso and Corpus Christi are the same as Savannah, Ga... yeah right. My political leanings would probably be called left-leaning libertarian. Democrats have a good deal to offer here, but knowing how to market is a big part of the picture.
Posted by: Greg Southworth | Jan 21, 2007 10:47:10 AM
On whether or not Section 8 land constitutes a dependant Indian community in whole or part.’
First of all, let me state that this commentary is made in public concern. It is not representing
any agency or division of the Federal or State or tribal government. It is not made with
remuneration by any private concern or party. It is strictly the work-product of
individual concern upon the effects or potential effects of a determination offered in
the question and dispute as to whether the land is “Indian country”.
As addressed in the FR, Hydro-Resources, Inc. intends to use the land for the mining of
Uranium (U) in an “in situ leach mining process”. This method ( also called “solution mining”)
is different than conventional mining which involves the removal of rock from the ground, then
breaking it up and treating it to remove the minerals. In Situ Leach mining involves
groundwater fortified with oxygen other solubilizing agents being pumped into a permeable ore
body, and causing the “pregnant solution” to be pumped to the surface. There it is brought to a
treatment plant, uranium is recovered and treated chemically. The uranium slurry is then
dried, resulting in an uranium concentrate (U3O8 ). This concentrate is typically known as
“yellowcake” and usually contain 60-80 per cent uranium by weight. Solution mining has been
increasingly used in the past 20 years and including operations by Hydro-Resources, Inc.
While this process has little disturbance in removal of the minerals and no waste rock
generated, the ore bodies must be permeable to the liquids used. Further, the operation must
be so located as to not contaminate groundwater away from the ore body. Waste resulting from
the process is usually handled in one of three methods. Most of the excess is re-injected into
the orebodies.Some of the solution is used to maintain pressure in the pumping system. Other
waste is treated through re-injection into approved disposal wells ( usually in depleted areas of
the ore bodies.)
The whole mining process usually produces in a period of 1 to 3 years--with most of the
uranium being recovered in the first 6 months of operation. This has clear advantage over
conventional mining as the “costs of operations” are less and the “recovery period” is quick.
And while it can be a very safe method of production, strict environmental controls must be
employed throughout the production cycle. This includes the usual radiation safeguards.
The whole process involves the Safe Water Drinking Act ( USC 42 §300).SDWA is an environmental statute establishing overall minimum drinking water protection standards for the nation, and providing, in many instances, for delegation of specific regulation and enforcement to states and Indian tribes. The statute directs EPA to establish minimum requirements for control of underground injection processes in order to protect sources of drinking water. See 42 U.S.C. § 300h. 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1 provides for state primary enforcement of UIC programs ("primacy") upon a showing by that state that its program meets the requirements of the SDWA. For states without programs, or whose programs have been disapproved, EPA is required to prescribe federal UIC requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1(c). In 1986, Congress added 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1(e), providing for primary UIC program enforcement responsibility by an Indian Tribe under certain circumstances. 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1(e) additionally provides that until a Tribe assumes primary responsibility, the "currently applicable underground injection control program shall continue to apply," and if such program does not exist, EPA shall prescribe one.
After Congress in 1986 authorized EPA to treat Indian tribes as states for SDWA purposes, see 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1(e), the agency approved the Navajo Nation, in 1994, for Treatment as a State ("TAS") with respect to "all lands located within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Reservation . . . all satellite reservations . . . and the following lands located outside the boundaries of the formal Navajo Reservation within the Eastern Navajo Agency: all Navajo tribal trust lands, all Navajo allotments, and all tribal fee lands and federal lands previously determined to be part of 'Indian country.' EPA did not approve the Navajo Nation's TAS application with respect to private fee lands and state trust lands within the Eastern Navajo Agency, stating that the Navajo Nation had "not demonstrated the requisite jurisdiction." Id. The Navajo Nation has not yet assumed primacy in SDWA enforcement for those lands for which its TAS application was approved.
To avoid undue delay in implementation of the UIC program, EPA set forth the following strategy for implementing the UIC program on disputed lands:
As described above, EPA will assume that lands described by the definition in 40 CFR 144.3 are Indian lands and will begin implementation of the UIC program on them. If disputed territory is later adjudged to be non-Indian lands, it will be deleted from the EPA Direct Implementation Indian land program and added either to the EPA (non-Indian land) DI program for that state or to the State program, as appropriate. In a letter dated July, 1997, the EPA announced its decision to treat the Section 8 lands as “disputed Indian country ”and implement the direct federal UIC program.
The action has a direct and immediate impact on HRI. HRI must obtain a permit from EPA prior to commencing underground injection on Section 8. HRI resurrection of a request from the
New Mexico Environmental Department appears to be again a “tails wags dog argument” to the determination of the appropriate agency for the issuance of a UIC permit.
While the request at hand involves 160 acres and follows HRI’s “corporate strategy” to proceed
incrementally (“subject to timely permitting”, “availability of water rights”, “availability of sales
contracts”, and “availability of capital”) the holdings encompass 2,225 acres consisting of three parcels: Section 8, Section 17, and the Mancos properties. HRI maintains “none of these lies “within the area constituting the Navajo Reservation”. HRI’s section 17 claim is mineral rights and the surface rights are owned by the United States Government held in trust for the Navajo Nation. Those lands are adjacent the Section 8 lands, in which there are patented and unpatented claims. The unpatented claims require an annual payment of $100 per claim payable to the Bureau of Land Mangement ( “BLM”).
Section 17 met the test of Federal supervisory authority… For purposes of defining Indian country, the term simply refers to those lands which Congress intended to reserve for a tribe and over which Congress intended primary jurisdiction to rest in the federal and tribal governments. . . . A formal designation of Indian lands as a 'reservation' is not required for them to have Indian country status." Indian Country U.S.A., 829 F.2d at 973 (citing McGowan, 302 U.S. at 538-39).
The split nature of the surface and mineral estates does not alter the jurisdictional status of these lands for SDWA purposes. In promulgating its regulations for the Indian lands UIC program, EPA specified that "[i]f ownership of mineral rights and the surface estate is split, and either is considered Indian lands, the Federal EPA will regulate the well under the Indian land program." 53 Fed. Reg. at 43,098. This is not an unreasonable interpretation of the SDWA, considering the federal government's role in protecting Indian interests and the relationship of mining and underground injection to Indian communities and their public water supplies.
Before continuing and applying the tests upon the specific as to whether Section 8 is “Indian country”, some additional considerations should be brought forward. First of all, HRI’s objective
is not just “In Situ Mining” which can be employed in the mining of other elements, such as gold
and silver. HRI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI). URI was incorporated in 1977 with the “primary objective to acquire, develop and place into production
Uranium deposits in the Southwestern United States. HRI’s role is the operating company for the acquistion, lisencing and development of the New Mexico properties. Collectively, of which Sections 17, 8 and Mancos property are part, they operate under a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commision (NRC). The NRC is an independent regulatory agency of the United States Government. It was formed under the “Energy Reorganization Act of 1974” with the responsibilities of oversight of civilian use of nuclear materials.(42 U.S.C 5801 et seq.) The
requirements of the NRC are binding “on all persons and organizations who receive a lisence to
use nuclear materials or operate nuclear facilities. While New Mexico Environmental Protection is by compact between the NRC and the State of New Mexico to monitor or supervise licensees such as URI or HRI, the general supervisory authority remains constant with the NRC. ( see agreement NRC/ State of New Mexico (April 4, 1974)) In a sense, independent of the specific status of Section 8, a general binding effect of “federal supervision” remains as conditional upon the objective and acts that “develop and place into production uranium deposits.”
Consideration should also be placed upon the promotion of effective administration of regulatory functions. Modern governance and effective administration often rely upon a concept of lead agency. The objectives and obligations such as “safe water” and ‘public health concerns” are often shared objectives and obligations of governmental agencies and organizations, be they
federal, state local or tribal. Structure is not necessarily top down, but concurrent in time.
Stakeholders may be the result of jurisdictional roots, or statutory roots, or by agreement and mutual accord. Practical applications, such as the resources of an agency, proximity to the
actual circumstances, or specialized knowledges must be considered along with “charge and authority”. Of course there are controversies and disputes ( that’s what our Courts are for);but few of those will provide to fulfill the obligations of effective administration. Fulfilling the
responsibilities of adequate protection of the public and the environment is for the actors of
Government-- and the table is round.
Thirdly, it may be well to view the holdings of HRI ( of which Section 8 is one parcel) in an
entirety rather than as a patchwork the resultant of a checkerboard of jurisdictions. In much the same way, the checkerboard is not seen as “red or black squares” but in a unity and wholeness.
While some of the lands and holdings of HRI are both surface and mineral rights, all of the
lands and holdings are with the corporate intent of development of the mineral rights. The actions require multiple permits and multiple agencies often in simultaneous statutory interest which
regulate mineral recovery activities. But all times it is the same principle and the same corporate
Throughout the process there have been consistent opposition by the Navajo Nation and the
local Navajo officials. Navajo objections were filed before the State Engineer regarding water
rights transfer to HRI of United Nuclear Corporation’s prior water rights. HRI proposed
a “corpus water system ”( Closed tank, pool and loop system) “re-circulating a single calculable
pore volume” in acquiring water rights approval. The Navajo Nation litigated that through the
State Courts. The Navajo Nation through Executive order issued in 1992 a “moratorium” on all
uranium -mining activities. “ The Navajo Nation shall not approve any exploration,
development, mining, milling or transportation or uranium unless and until the responsible party
is able to certify and prove that the proposed activities will not contribute directly or indirectly to
any further radioactive or heavy metal contamination of Navajo air, water, soil, vegetation,
wildlife or livestock”. The Crown Point chapter ( a certified local government of the Navajo
Nation) specifically proposed and passed resolution opposing “the Crownpoint uranium solution
mining proposed for sites Crownpoint and Churchrock, New Mexico” . (CPC 00-03-746) That
resolution cites “widespread local and regional opposition to Hydro Resources Inc (HRI’s)
Crown point Uranium project, including:
a) resolutions opposing the mining adopted by the eastern Navajo Health Board
( January, 1995), the Crownpoint Healthcare Facility safety Committee ( May, 1997),
the Eastern Navajo Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council ( October,1997), and
the Navajo Utility Authority Board ( December, 1997)
b) resolutions opposing the mining adopted by Little water ( 1995), Pinedale (1999),
Smith Lake ( 1999) and Standing Rock ( 1999) Chapters
c) a resolution opposing the mining adopted by the Eastern Navajo Agency Council
(ENAV-99-04-200), by a vote of 65 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 abstained on April
From a standpoint of “baseline water quality standard” the Navajo’s may have cause for
concern. Water Quality tests conducted in conjunction to early applications of HRI
3 of 4 test wells met the water quality standard present at the time for uranium contaminents of
5.00 mg/l . Under a revised standard (20.6.2 NMAC effective 09/26/04), 3 of 4 Crownpoint
test wells would fail the baseline standards for uranium contaminents.( see Appendix)
As to Venetie and the determinants as to whether Section 8 qualifies, while Venetie provides
a fundamental two-prong approach to making a determination, few of the facts of Venetie apply
in the matter of Section 8.
The determinant that the property was “set aside” is well documented. Following Executive
orders 709 and 744, Congress appropriated funds which included Section 8 as well as the
previously adjudicated Section 17. The 1928 Act, which specifies only a lump sum of money and not particular lands to be purchased, is nevertheless sufficient to establish congressional intent to set aside lands purchased thereunder, (see 10th Circuit record.) Excepting for “the disputed lands of HRI( which comprises of part of Section 8 ), the United States remains the owner of Section 8.
HRI’s claim comes about through the railroad “right of way” granted the Santa Fe Pacific
Railroad through the Indian country. That “right of way” reserved certain mineral rights. In 1957,
Phillips Oil began drilling in the Churchrock area and they encountered “uranium
mineralization.” In 1961, United Nuclear Corporation acquired 50% interest in the operations,
including the discovery of Northeast Churchrock mine and the Old Churchrock mine.
Operations continued until United Nuclear’s mine were shut down in 1982. HRI purchased the
rights in the mid 1980’s. Despite several efforts, no operations have been restarted.
Additionally, HRI’s maintenance of claim of “unpatented mineral claim in Section 8 include a
required annual fee of $100 per claim to the Bureau of Land Management.
As to the second prong of the Venetie, records can make a clear showing that the United States
maintains more than minimal federal supervisory authority. The United States continues to retain
title to most of Section 8. As with the adjudication of Section 17, BIA continues to oversee the
property. And it continues to hold the property in Trust. It preserves roads and access to the
Land. BIA has been active in the coordination with the Navajo nation with self determination
and education assistance . BIA has conducted planning and coordination with the local chapters
including the Navajo chapter most proximate the “disputed land of Section 8-- the Crownpoint
Chapter. BIA has continuously promulgated rules that adhere to the special trust obligation to protect the interests of Indian tribes, including protecting tribal property and jurisdiction.
The federal supervision of the lands are not mere statutory recitations until the lands
are disposed of , but intentional upon control and that they be preserved. This is much the same
as discussed in Roberts (185 Fed 3 at 1135).
Further, the actions of oversights (as discussed above) are not limited to a single agency; but
have been conducted by multiple agencies active As Felix Cohen points out in Handbook :
Since the trust obligations are binding on the United States, these standards of conduct would seem to govern all executive departments that may deal with Indians, not just those such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs which have special statutory responsibilities for Indian affairs.
Moreover, in some contexts the fiduciary obligations of the United States mandate that special regard be given to the procedural rights of Indians by federal administrative agencies.
Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law at 225 (footnotes omitted) (1982 ed.); see also Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985) (discussing canon of statutory construction, derived from the trust relationship, requiring construction of statutes liberally in favor of Indians and resolution of ambiguities in their favor).
The activities of the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA) in the specifics of this controversy itself demonstrates this direct supervisory effect. While not directing itself to the “period of neglect” prior to the National Environmental Protection Act ( NEPA, 1969), it has provided the “fullest extent” in policies, regulations and public law. The Tenth Circuit decision points out:
Congress's intent to protect tribal lands and governance extends no less to EPA than to other departments of the federal government, and therefore, in accordance with Indian Country, U.S.A., the agency's interpretation of its rule to permit recognition of a dispute under the circumstances of this case is clearly permissible…EPA's decision, while made within the framework of administering the SDWA, implicates the core federal trust responsibilities of administering--and safeguarding--Indian lands.
With regard to the elements of cohesiveness between HRI and the community of reference, it
is clear that that the prospect of uranium mining is divisive. HRI owes its allegiances to its parent corporation, URI of Dallas, Texas. HRI is not a native business nor does it conduct itself
in the common to the Navajo population-- using the land for farming and grazing, developing
tourism and related activities, etc. As mentioned above, the Navajo Nation has declared a moratorium on uranium mining and related activities.
With regard to the uses of the aquifer, if the well test summaries are true ( and those tests are
“old” and unverified (1989), it is not suitable for drinking water or consumption purposes. The magnitude of well samples generally exceed the limits prescribed by what is now federal and New Mexico standard ( .03 mg/l of uranium) .( HRI Report of Water Quality, filed May 1, 1989, NM Groundwater Bureau ) With results such as the high contamination level of 6.627 in Test well 8 and an average of 1.795 for uranium, restoring to acceptable levels would be required-- even for agricultural or industrial use. A proposed “In situ mining” projects runs a higher risk factor than non disturbance and it is legally unacceptable to allow HRI’s proposal to restore the well field to‘a condition consistent of pre-leaching use and removing of surface disturbance.”
Additionally, it was pointed out that the lands carry “trace of traditional culture ceremonies
that the Navajo people perform.” For many Navajos, the ground water cannot be valued because it is one of the four sacred and essential elements of Mother Earth. "Tó eii be'iina' át'é" - water is life.
In conclusion, a recommendation to the Administrator that the whole of Section 8 remain
under Federal supervisory is supported in several aspects. The tests presented by Venetie are in
the history and character of the lands with respect to “set aside” and “federal supervision”. In
light of Navajo community objections, safety relevant concerns, and the harmonization of
regulations and administration ( including the adherence to trust obligations and the mandate
that special regard be given to Indians by Federal administrators), the determination is
Recent developments in Uranium Resources: Licensing of in situ leach recovery operations for the Crownpoint and Church Rock uranium deposits, New Mexico:
Acase study . Pelizza & McCarn, IAEA, June 2004.
Crownpoint Chapter resolutions (2001) and letter from Chapter President Jamison DeVore, December 2005.
HRI Groundwater section report of water Quality for Churchrock, (5/1989) , New Mexico Environmental Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
HRI v EPA , Tenth Circuit Opinion, No. 97- 9557a, January 6, 2000. Before Ebel, Briscoe, & Lucero
Alaska v. Venetie Tribal Government, Opinion of the Court, No. 96-1577, published
Opinion, Justice Thomas for the Court.
Uranium Mining Plan Splits Navajo Communities in New Mexico. Chris Shuey
Southwest Research and Information Center Albuquerque, New Mexico .June 1996
Building Partnerships in Tribal Communities. FEMA/EMI IS-650 , January ,2004.
Note originally filed with EPA Region 9. January 2006 A determination has yet to be as of January, 2007
Posted by: Eliot Gould | Jan 23, 2007 5:41:54 PM
Mass-Movement politics as a strategy for political change always fails, ALWAYS. Review the history of the country and you will be convinced. It is a wonderful device for duping the young and enthusiastic and sucking them dry of energy. You can always tell it is a scam because you have old politicos active at the top. They are there to make sure thing don't get out of hand. What does work? Pushing one or two issues without compromise. Try these: Create a new constitution and move the National capitol from the East coast deep into the interior of the country. The enemy will show his face because he will not support those demands. There is one thing each of us can do on a day-to-day basis and that is work to alert people to those Protestant ministers who peddle their Rapture drivel and Ten-lost-tribes nonsense.
Posted by: Ralph Swanson | Jul 17, 2007 2:09:42 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)