Muted Support for GOP Change Grows By Jonathan Weisman,

Washington Post Staff Writer

Amid Scandals, Some Republicans Push to Permanently Replace DeLay as Leader

Abramoff’s

interactions with DeLay and his staff — including lavish trips to the Northern Mariana Islands and the famed golf course of St. Andrews,

Scotland — has created considerable trepidation among rank-and-file lawmakers, House members and GOP aides say.

In addition,

DeLay was ferried three times in 2003 and 2004 on corporate jets owned by the company of Brent Wilkes, a California defense

contractor who allegedly made illicit payments to Cunningham in exchange for legislative favors. Neither DeLay nor the company

has disclosed the purpose or destination of the trips, which were billed to one of DeLay’s PACs at a commercial flight rate as permitted

under election law.

“The Scanlon thing, the Cunningham thing, I think you have more people waiting for the other shoe to drop,”

said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Justice Department investigators are trying to link campaign contributions to official legislative

actions. Nobody knows how wide a net the investigators will cast, a DeLay adviser conceded. Such charges of quid pro quo are extremely

difficult to prove but very easy to level, in light of the large amounts of lobbyist money sloshing around Capitol Hill.

Even if

DeLay is never implicated, his return to the majority leader’s post would create political “havoc,” said one Republican House member,

who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The lawmaker pointed to DeLay’s decision in October to fly to Texas ahead of his first

courtroom appearance aboard a corporate jet owned by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

“The fact that he flew down on a corporate

jet for his mug shot, and not just any corporate jet but Big Tobacco’s corporate jet, that’s a double whammy,” the lawmaker said. “A

number of my colleagues say he just doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand how this plays.”

site:www.mjhinton.com DeLay – Google Search

You probably already know

about Congressman Richard W. Pombo’s (R-CA) efforts to “modernize” the ridiculously outdated 1872 Mining Patents Act. Many people agree this act does not

charge enough for the resources one can grab through it. So, to his credit, Pombo wants to charge more — up to $1000 / acre, instead of

pennies — though probably not what the minerals or land are really worth.

My gripe is the underlying assumption — widely held in

the GOP — that the public should own less land. They regularly sneer at all the land “the government owns.” Wrong! You and I own that

land and it serves many uses, including just sitting there for the hell of it. It is neither necessary nor healthy to require every acre

of the earth to belong to someone and “produce” something.

Read through these 4 articles (two by the same author); the third one

attempts to refute the concerns raised by the others.

Our own Saint Pete may be a key player here. Let him know what you think

about this. mjh

Write Your Representative – Contact your Congressperson in the U.S.

House of Representatives.

U.S. Senate: Senators Home
—–

ABQjournal: Plan for Selling Public Lands Worries Govs. By Jennifer

Talhelm, The Associated Press

Six Western governors, including New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, and a growing number of senators say

they fear a congressional plan allowing the sale of millions of acres of public lands could do permanent harm to everything from

agriculture and the environment to the ski industry.

“It’s got implications for hunters, sportsmen, people who use lands for

grazing and basically anybody who uses public lands,” said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard, one of a

handful of Republican senators expressing concern about the proposal.
—–

House Stealth Measure Sells Off Public Lands BY

MIKE DOMBECK AND JACK WARD THOMAS, Former chiefs, U.S. Forest Service

Sometime around 1 a.m. Nov. 18, the House of Representatives

passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 by a vote of 217-215. Buried in the 680-page
bill was language that lifts an 11-year

moratorium on the patenting, or sale, of public lands to mining companies, and appears to pave the way for the sale of public lands to

mining companies and other development interests for as little as $1,000 per acre.

These public lands are a birthright that

should not be gambled on legislation passed in the dark of the night with an essential absence of any public notice or scrutiny. …

There are few decisions that Congress makes that have irreversible consequences. Selling off our public land legacy is one that does.

…

Some believe that something so valuable should not be owned by all U.S. citizens but should instead be devolved into other

ownership or corporate control. To be certain, it is the prerogative of members of Congress to change laws as they see fit in the best

interest of their constituents. And it is our duty as citizens to ensure they know our views before they vote. Legislation that has the

potential to remove public lands from public hands should only be brought to a vote after a full and vigorous debate. …

But that

debate, and the debates to follow, can and will occur only so long as public lands remain in public ownership. Within the next few weeks,

the public land sales provisions that passed the House of Representatives will be considered in a conference between the Senate and the

House. Members should be urged to strip out the provisions of the House-passed bill that allows for the sale of our public lands — the

heritage of future generations. Then, by all means, let the debate relative to the provisions of the 1872 Mining Act began in the full

light of public scrutiny.
—–

New land rush? Not so fast! by Editor Hering

First,

the person must hold a valid mining claim open to actual mining, having completed all the required state and federal paperwork. Then the

claim must be contiguous to claims where mining has been or is being done. And finally mining on the claim itself must be taking place.

The committee sums things up by citing as fiction: “Real estate speculators, oil and gas companies, foreign mining corporations

or anyone who is willing to pay as little as $1,000 per acre could buy the land and develop it any way they wanted.”

“The

statement,” the committee answers, “fails to pass the laugh test. Unless real estate speculators, oil and gas companies and the like want

to enter the mining industry and begin staking mining claims and developing hardrock minerals, they would not qualify under the

provisions of this bill to purchase lands.”

If you want more or to check yourself, be my guest. The site is resourcescommittee.house.gov.

A few things about the

preceding defense of the proposed changes. First, how many times have we heard “trust us” only to find out later that, oops, we didn’t

realize this might happen. Second, what an odd tone from a congressional committee — the “laugh test”?! Sounds like it was written by

some corporation that has spent millions already and has no intention of letting anything spoil the deal. Finally, if this is such a

noble effort, why is it buried in a 600+ page budget bill? mjh

—–

Greedy

grab for public land

There are plenty of examples of how companies have used the 1872 mining law to get their hands on public

resources. In 1970, Frank Melluzzo “patented” — bought — public land near Phoenix for $150. Ten years later, he sold it for more than

$400,000. Today, the Pointe Hilton Hotel in Phoenix sits on this mining claim. …

Now a few folks in Congress want to turn back

the clock. The results of these policies will be a fleecing of taxpayers and a cheating of future generations of public land.

Roosevelt said: “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased, and not impaired, in value.”

A majority of Americans distrust Duhbya and

dislike Cheney (even fear/hate/loathe him). A majority believes we were ‘manipulated’ into war. A majority gives at least lip service

to freedom of speech and dissent. Yet, a majority believes talking about the war hurts troop morale. So, are we to just shut up or is

lowered morale the price we must pay to get at the truth? mjh

Newsday.com:

Poll: Dems’ barbs hurt troops THE WASHINGTON POST

[A] new poll conducted Nov. 17-20 indicates most Americans are sympathetic

to Cheney’s point. Seventy percent of people said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale – with 44 percent

saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies.

Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent

believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
—–

As VP goes on attack, poll numbers fall off CHICAGO

TRIBUNE

The vice president’s hard-line language fires up the conservative base that remains fond of Cheney, it does not appear to

impress much of the rest of the country. Polls show Cheney is less popular than Bush, who himself is suffering from the lowest ratings of

his presidency.

Cheney’s image has not been helped by such moves as his decision to attend an upcoming fundraiser for Rep. Tom

DeLay, R-Texas, the in-dicted former House majority leader. A cartoon in The Washington Post recently showed a glowering Cheney, angry

that Bush pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey.

Among Republicans, 80 percent in a Nov. 11-13 Gallup survey said they approved of

Bush’s job performance, while 68 percent ap-proved of Cheney’s.

A majority of all 1,006 voters surveyed rated Cheney’s

advice to the president as “bad.” [mjh: amen.]
—–

The Phony War Against the Critics By

Michael Kinsley

“One might also argue,” Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday, “that untruthful charges against the

commander in chief have an insidious effect on the war effort.” That would certainly be an ugly and demagogic argument, were one to make

it. …

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, “I’m unwilling to say that” —

“that” being what he had just said. He generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president this

week). Then he resumed hurling adjectives like an ape hurling coconuts at unwanted visitors. “Dishonest.” “Reprehensible.” “Corrupt.”

“Shameless.” President Bush and others joined in, all morally outraged that anyone would accuse the administration of misleading us into

war by faking a belief that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons.