The Kansas Federalist

Editor and Publisher Currie Myers, former sheriff of Johnson County Kansas and conservative strategist.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

What Memorial Day Means to Me

My family’s national heritage goes back to 1670 when John Worland of Charles County, Maryland proved his right to 200 acres of land signed by Charles Calvert, Second Lord Baltimore and Chief Governor of the Province of Maryland. Charles County lies south of Washington D.C., and is on the east side of the Potomac River. The intent and use of the land was tobacco farming. From John, sprang 13 generations of the Worland Family including the Myers family.

In 1776, John Worland II and his sons, John, Robey, Charles, and Henry all took the oath of fidelity to the United States of America and fought in the Revolutionary War. It is an honor to be a Son of the American Revolution. Our family went on to settle in states like Kentucky, New York, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Wyoming, and Montana. In Kansas, our family settled into a little town called Tonganoxie in 1872, where my grandfather, Ray was born to Lynn Currier Myers and Kate Worland. To this day if you look close you can see the L.C. Myers name embossed in brick on one of the buildings downtown, which my great-grandfather owned as a harness shop.

I have been asked why do I write under the name, the Kansas Federalist. In short, the reason that I am a conservative and a federalist is quite simple. It’s in honor of the family that I’m blessed to be a part of. It’s in honor of my family that has fought in every major war since our country was founded. It’s in honor of my forefathers that framed the Constitution, took oaths to protect that Constitution and gave us the opportunity to succeed in a land blessed by Almighty God.

This weekend when the hot dogs are grilling and the chips are eaten. Please spend a quiet moment or two and thank our Founders for the country that has been provided and to the men and women who have fought to preserve it for the rest of us.

My God bless the United States of America.

Currie Myers – The Kansas Federalist

Sunday, May 21, 2006

The Continuing Decay of Journalism

As a child, I distinctly remember my Dad going into town on Sunday’s to get the Kansas City Times. I watched his enjoyment as he would read the paper, sip a cup of coffee and prepare for the day. My Dad worked for the federal government and was interviewed by the paper from time-to-time. Sometimes he was misquoted, but he assumed in general that most of the paper was fact based and truthful. My Dad was not in politics like his son!

I first noticed sensationalism in the media when I was a state trooper. Like my father, it was generally misquotes, so I determined that it was a result of the individual reporter as opposed to a generally conspiracy. As a KBI special agent and as the media point of contact for drug investigations I began to see a broader scope of unreliable reporting and agenda building on the part of media. But still I was not aware of the political side of the print media.

As sheriff, I saw real agenda building on the part of the media. Always looking for conflict within the story as opposed to the news behind the story itself. They are experts at pitting one person against the other. It seems to me that since the 1970’s all journalist are aspiring Woodward’s and Bernstein’s! What people don’t realize, unless you are one, is the intense scrutiny the media has against conservatives. Until I became active in politics, I would never pick up on the story “between the lines”.

As an example, I would like to give you some pause for thought and reinforce my opinion. The Kansas City Star Sunday Edition for this week has literally dozens of stories for the reader. But what is the secret by-line? What is one of the most liberal papers in the US trying to reinforce within those articles and editorials written. Well, I will share with you that information in a snapshot of real journalistic integrity. Just one paper, for one day, in one city.

The Kansas City Star – Sunday Edition – May 21, 2006

“Senate bill reaffirms primacy of the language” The KC Star/Washington Times calls the Republican bill the most controversial.

“Though Iraq Death Drop, Missouri Mourns More” The KC Star cannot even give acceptance to the fact that US death statistics are declining each month in the war. Instead the Star end the article with the following, “So many fresh faces….so many fresh graves…. So many heartbreaks.”

“Delay Movie Premieres” The Star refers to the scandals of Tom Delay (R).

“No Big Love Here” The Star makes light of a statement by US Senator Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah.

“Making Amends” The Star talks positively of US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D).

“Gore’s Medical Condition” The Star talks positively about Al Gore (D) and his suspected run in 08.

“That Low Down Feeling” The Star speaks of President Bush’s low approval rating.

Article on the “Fence Bill” However, the picture displayed by the Star is one of an illegal alien’s hands on a fence looking into America. The perception looks like he is in jail.

“English – Critics Fear for Non-Speakers” The Star is worried Spanish speakers will be treated poorly in the US.

“Religious Liberals Re-Emerging in US” The Religious Left’s causes: Poverty, Healthcare and eh em, Global Warming.

“Teens Get Short End of New Tax-Cut Deal” The Star and the NY Times are concerned that teenagers from age 14-17 will not get any tax cuts from the Bush Tax-Cut Plan.

“GOP’s Woes Put Ohio on the Fence” The Star fears for the GOP in Ohio?

“The Battlefield for House Rule Grows Bigger” The Star and their old friends the NY Times discusses the perceived new takeover of the Democrats in 08.

“America Misjudged the Clout of the Chameleon” The Star and LA Times (Does the Star ever write their own stuff) explains how the US underestimated al-Qaida.

“Taliban Present a Challenge to NATO Forces” The Star explains how the Taliban are regaining footholds in Afghanistan.

“Combative Factions Form Government” The Star explains the dysfunction of the Iraqi new government.

“A Dysfunctional Police Force” The Star and NY Times explain the ineptness of the new police force in Iraq and how the US Government underestimated the task.

“Middle-Class Iraqis Look for Way Out of Violence-Ridden Country” The Star and NY Times explain how the average Iraqi citizen has had enough and are leaving their country in droves.

“Once Again, The United States Fiddles While the World Burns” The Star’s commentary section educates us all on the Demon US and how we have allowed the world to go to hell in a hand basket in South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe by not being good global brothers. Did I mention the author spend years writing to us from Paris!

Well, that’s it my Kansas Federalist friends. One paper, on one Sunday, in one city. Not one article or editorial to the negative of the Democrat Party. Only the trials and tribulations of Republicans and how the GOP is placing the US on the endangered species list. As I have stated before nearly everything is a supply and demand issue. The Star may indeed supply us with a paper, but we do not need to demand it!

Currie Myers – The Kansas Federalist

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a Mistake in Waiting

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation just recently finished a study showing the long term effects if the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) is passed by the US Senate. This bill if passed could have a devatising impact on our country if passed. The following information highlights Rector's arguments:

If enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.

The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.

Immigration Status
To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:

Temporary Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time.
Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. and are given the opportunity to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.
Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons in this category have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to naturalize and become citizens. As naturalized citizens, they have the constitutional rights to vote and to receive any government benefits given to native-born citizens.
A key feature of CIRA is that most immigrants identified as “temporary” are, in fact, given convertible status with a virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.

Another important feature of both CIRA and existing immigration law is that immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and may also become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.

Key Provisions of CIRA
Four key provisions of CIRA would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration.

Amnesty for Current Illegal Immigrants: CIRA offers amnesty and citizenship to 85 percent of the nation’s current 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Under the plan, illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years or more (60 percent of illegals) would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country between two and five years (25 percent of illegals) could travel to one of 16 “ports of entry,” where they would receive amnesty and lawful work permits.[1] In total, the bill would grant amnesty to 85 percent of the current illegal immigrant population, or some 10 million individuals.

After receiving amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years in a provisional status before attaining LPR status. After five years in LPR status, they would have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens and vote in U.S. elections. As well, the spouses and dependent children of current illegal immigrants would have the right to enter the U.S. and become citizens.[2] There would be no numeric limit on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR status; under the amnesty provision, such individuals would not be counted against any other cap or limit in immigration law.[3]

The New “Temporary Guest Worker” Program: CIRA creates an entirely new “temporary guest worker” (H-2C) program. There is nothing temporary about this program; nearly all “guest workers” would have the right to become permanent residents and then citizens.

Foreign workers could enter the U.S. as guest workers if they have a job offer from a U.S. employer. In practical terms, U.S. companies would recruit foreign workers to enter the guest worker program and immigrate to the U.S. Most likely, intermediate employment firms would specialize in recruiting foreign labor for U.S. employers.

Guest workers would be allowed to remain in the U.S. for six years.[4] However, in the fourth year, the guest worker could ask for LPR status and would receive it if he has learned English or is enrolled in an English class.[5] There are no numeric limits on the number of guest workers who could receive LPR status. Upon receiving LPR status, the guest worker could remain in the country permanently. He could become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections after just five more years.

The spouses and minor children of guest workers would also be permitted to immigrate to the U.S.[6] When guest workers petition for LPR status, their spouses and children would receive it as well. Five years after obtaining LPR status, these spouses could become naturalized citizens. The bill sets no limit on the number of spouses and children who could immigrate under the guest worker program. After workers and their spouses have obtained citizenship, they would be able to bring in their parents as legal permanent residents.

The bill does provide numeric limits on the number of guest workers who can enter the country each year, but the number starts high and then grows exponentially. In the first year, 325,000 H-2C visas would be given out, but if employer demand for guest workers is high, that number could be boosted by an extra 65,000 in the next year. If employer demand for H-2C workers continues to be high, the number of H-2C visas could be raised by up to 20 percent in each subsequent year.

The 20 percent exponential escalator provision allows the number of H-2C immigrants to climb steeply in future years. If the H-2C cap were increased by 20 percent each year, within twenty years the annual inflow of workers would reach 12 million. At this 20 percent growth rate, a total of 70 million guest workers would enter the U.S. over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. While it is unlikely that so many workers would enter, the program does have the potential to bring ten of millions of immigrants to the U.S.

The “guest worker” program, then, is an open door program, based on the demands of U.S. business, that would allow an almost unlimited number of workers and dependents to enter the U.S. from anywhere in world and become citizens. It is essentially an “open border” provision.

Additional Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families: The permanent entry of non-immediate relatives—such as brothers, sisters, and adult children—is currently subject to a cap of 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives (the parents, spouses, and minor children of U.S. citizens) admitted in the prior year. CIRA eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap.[7] This effectively increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year.

Additional Permanent Employment Visas: The U.S. currently issues around 140,000 employment-based visas each year. Under CIRA, the U.S. would issue 450,000 employment-based green cards per year between 2007 and 2016.[8] After 2016, the number would fall to 290,000 per year.[9] Under current law, LPR visas going to the spouses and children of workers with employment-based visas are counted against the cap. Under CIRA, these spouses and children would be removed from the cap and given legal permanent residence without numeric limits.[10] Historically, 1.2 dependent relatives have entered the U.S. for each worker under employment-based immigration programs.[11] This means that some 990,000 persons per year would be granted LPR status until 2016 and, after that, 638,000 per year.

Estimating Future Immigration Under CIRA
Most provisions of CIRA are straightforward; in many categories, the number of future immigrants allowed is either directly stated or can be easily calculated from the law’s provisions. In some areas, however, the law’s impact is uncertain. To estimate future legal immigration under the bill, three assumptions have been used in this paper:

Spouses and children of workers: Dependent spouses and children represent a major component of current immigration. In the current employment-based visa program, 1.2 dependents enter for each incoming worker.[12] This paper assumes this ratio will continue in the employment-based program and will also apply to those entering under the new guest worker program. This is a conservative assumption: guest workers are likely to have lower education levels and thus to have larger families. Finally, many current illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty under the bill already have families in the U.S.; therefore the ratio of incoming spouses and children to amnesty recipients is assumed to be only 0.6, or half the ratio of the employment-based program.
Parents of naturalized citizens: Parents of naturalized citizens currently make up eight percent of all new legal immigrants. This paper assumes that half of all adult immigrants will naturalize after five years of LPR status and that 30 percent of the parents of these naturalized citizens will immigrate in the three years after their children’s naturalization.
Growth in the guest worker program: The number of immigrants in the guest worker program will be driven by employer demand. The bill allows the number of H-2C visas to increase by 20 percent per year; this level of growth would result in an extraordinary 60 million guest workers in the U.S. over the next twenty years. This paper assumes that the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10 percent per year. Alternative estimates for 20 percent growth and zero growth in the program are also presented.[13]
A Flood of Legal Immigrants
Under CIRA, immigrants could enter the country or attain lawful status within the country through eight channels. In each channel, immigrants would be granted permanent residence and the right to become citizens. The first channel represents immigrants who would have entered under current law; the second channel represents illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and would be given legal permanent residence under the bill. The other six channels represent new inflows of legal immigrants that would occur as a result of the bill. The total number of new legal immigrants over a twenty year period would be as follows: (See Charts 1 and 2.)

Visas under current law: Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million. This represents the status quo under existing law.
Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. These individuals are currently living in the U.S.; amnesty would allow them to remain legally and to become U.S. citizens.
Expanded family chain migration: The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.[14]
Employment-based green cards: The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year. For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.[15]
The guest worker (H-2C) program: CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. Assuming 10 percent annual growth in the annual number of guest workers entering the country (well below the bill’s maximum), the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.
Spouses and children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.
Spouses and children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.
Parents of naturalized citizens. The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million.
Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. This is roughly one-third of the current population of the United States. All of these new entrants would be permanent residents and would have the right to become citizens. This would be a 84 million person net increase over current law.

Legal Flow Compared to Illegal Immigration
All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.

Range of Estimates
The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10 percent per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate permitted by the bill, 20 percent per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. On the other hand, if immigration under the H-2C program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law. (See Chart 3.)

The tables in the Appendix show annual inflows of total legal immigrants in each of the eight channels mentioned above over the next twenty years. The tables show the estimated yearly rate of immigration under three scenarios for the H-2C program: zero growth, ten percent growth, and twenty percent growth.

Dwarfing the Great Migration
Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration known as the “great migration”. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13 and 15 percent of the population.[17]In 1924, Congress passed major legislation greatly reducing future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5 percent of the population.

In the last three decades, immigration has increased sharply. The foreign born now comprise around 12 percent of the population, approaching the levels of the early 1900’s. However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population.[18] There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history.

If enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. In its overall impact on the nation, the bill would rival other historic milestones, such as the creation of Social Security or Medicare.

The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.

Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Kudos for the Tax Cutting Senate

Washington — The Senate gave final approval Thursday to a $70 billion package of tax cuts that will extend lower rates for investors and save billions for families with above-average incomes. The bill passed the Senate by a 54-44 vote, and President Bush is expected to sign the bill next week. The President said in a statement that the bill “prevents an enormous tax hike that the American people do not want and would not welcome.”

The debate followed partisan lines, with Republicans eagerly crediting the tax cuts, first enacted in 2003, with a surging economy, millions of new jobs and booming tax revenues. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the bill, saying its tax cuts on capital gains and dividends will flow mostly to wealthy.

President Bush’s tax cuts have been an important lesson in economics. High School government classes and college economics clases should use the last six years to truly examine the importance that tax cuts have on the economy. The more money taxpayers have back in their wallets, the more they will spend on consumer goods and thus stimulating additional revenues back into the government.

Our country has overcome the economic downturn left by the Clinton Administration and the devastation left by 911 and hurricanes. Kansas Senator’s Brownback and Roberts should be applauded for their efforts in voting for this important bill. The next step is to limit government spending to complete the entire conservative tax picture.

Currie Myers – Kansas Federalist

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Liberal Perceptions of the U.S. Military

Whether it’s the drive-by media or liberals in general, I have noticed for the past few years a real hatred for our military, in particular, our military leaders. Our Country has had a great tradition of military service and as a result as trained some of the finest military minds the world has ever known. The list of great military men and women is long. Staff officers have been great organizers, business leaders, and even presidents. The training of these men and women is impeccable and the institutions they have graduated from are known for their leadership and organizational preparation.

I have had the privilege over the least 15 years to work very closely with the U.S. Military. There have been times that I worked with them professionally in joint counter-narcotic missions, or I have met with officers to discuss work productivity or mission successes. I have taught as a guest instructor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and have answered their questions poised with integrity and presence. Businesses have hired numerous retired staff officers due to their organizational skills and many non-profits have retained retired staff officers to lead their respective organizations into the future. On occasion, like the general public, you will have these officers not measure up to standards that you wish, but all in all, military officers have been excellent choices to lead organizations. That is, in fact, what they are trained to do as professionals.

This week, President Bush announced the appointment of a new CIA director. The man, General Michael Hayden is a pick of unquestionable ethics and leadership. Gen. Michael V. Hayden was the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Washington, D.C. Appointed by President George W. Bush; he is the first person to serve in this position. General Hayden was responsible for overseeing the day-to-day activities of the national intelligence program. He is the highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the armed forces.General Hayden entered active duty in 1969 after earning a bachelor's degree in history in 1967 and a master's degree in modern American history in 1969, both from Duquesne University. He is a distinguished graduate of the university's ROTC program. General Hayden has served as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center. He has been assigned to senior staff positions at the Pentagon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, National Security Council and the U.S. Embassy in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. The general has also served as Deputy Chief of Staff, United Nations Command and U.S. Forces Korea, Yongsan Army Garrison, South Korea. Prior to his current assignment, General Hayden was Director, National Security Agency, and Chief, Central Security Service, Fort George G. Meade, Md.

General Hayden will face quite the inquisition during the Senate confirmation hearings from the left and some of “our” liberal Republican friends that just can’t help but wander off the ranch on a constant basis. If the general is confirmed it is my hope that he retires from his worthwhile career in the U.S. Air Force and dives headstrong into an organization that needs leadership, organizational skills, and most importantly some discipline. However, it’s my greatest hope that the left will again embrace the importance of our great military traditions and become respectful of the men and women whom have sacrificed so greatly to serve our country.

Currie Myers – Kansas Federalist

Friday, May 05, 2006

Developers Beware of the $500M SSSSNAKE

The Contra Costa Times recently reported that the land set aside to protect the Alameda whipsnake means an estimated $500 millon lost to real estate developers, according to a draft economic analysis.

The draft economic analysis was prepared as federal regulators consider whether to finalize critical habitat designations for the Alameda whipsnake, a smoky gray racer with yellow stripes that can grow to 4 feet long. The nonpoisonous snake eats mostly lizards and elevates its head when hunting. It lives in the East Bay's chaparral, oak woodlands and streamside zones. Development of snake habitat is the major threat to their survival.

A lawyer for the Homebuilders of Northern California, an industry group, said the estimated loss of $500 million, or about $47 million a year, was likely too low because it fails to include the high cost of lawsuits or the uncertainty that critical habitat designations bring. The lawyer, Paul Campos, added that his group believes critical habitat designations are ineffective and should not be used in areas determined by local governments to be suitable for building. "It's this hold-out group of extreme environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity that refuse to compromise at all," Campos said. "Ultimately, they want the entire state designated as critical habitat." Last month, the Fish and Wildlife Service designated 450,000 acres statewide as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. That was drastically lower than the 4 million acres designated in 2001 before that rule was overturned in the courts.

Kansas developers should begin to prepare for the same onslaught of government over-regulation in the near future. Afterall, what begins in California eventually ends up in Kansas. Maybe if I play my cards right, I can get the Myers name designated as endangered and get all of Mission, Kansas turned over to me as critical habitat. How's that one for an eminent domain issue!!!!!!!!!!!!

Currie Myers - The Kansas Federalist

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

The Anonymous Bla-Bla Blogging of Kansas Politics

In November of 2005, I decided to start a blog called the Kansas Federalist. The whole reason behind my wanting to start the blog was that I wanted people to read what the “drive-by” media was not printing and that I wanted to express my political opinions and interpretations freely, just like my federalist forefathers. I started it anonymous but after a two-week trial, I went public with the site. My blog displays my name and what I’m about and I don’t have a comments section because quite frankly, I write for my own needs and not for others. I don’t spend too much time reading other blogsites, but a good friend recently pointed out to me that the political blogs of Kansas and especially the comments section was starting to get out of hand. So I research and found the same.

Blogs certainly serve different purposes. Some kids have them, the media uses them to stimulate news, some are used by perverts to trap our children and get them to provide details and information that they wouldn’t normally do, but most are anonymous in nature and that is when it turns problematic, at least, in the world of politics. My suggestion is for political bloggers to come out of the shadows and attribute their work to whom they really are and to write blog editorials and comments as a result of their beliefs and political opinions.

When it comes down to it, like all things, it’s a supply and demand issue. Those of you that believe with me that the anonymous blogs and comments are overboard, out-of-control, and of little value should assist me in this process. If you know a blogger, call them and voice your displeasure, asked them to change their sites and if they need feedback on a topic have them provide an email in order to gain other information. Finally, in the true spirit of competition, if the blogsites fail to change, we should ignore the blogs completely and never read them, and our various club websites should remove them from their links lists.

Let’s discuss issues that could affect our country, our lives, and the lives of our children. Let’s end now the anonymous bla-bla blogging of Kansas politics!

Currie Myers – Kansas Federalist