Conservative News & Commentary

May 11, 2012 — by: G.W. Washington
Categories: Government

Istock_000004171996xsmallAs I've listened to various candidates, heard their radio ads, received their direct mail pieces and read their opt-ed pieces there is one item that defines them all — whether they believe the KBRA is a good or bad idea.

If a candidate is in favor of the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet that candidate is also for increasing the size and scope of government to solve problems. In order to meet this objective they will need to raise more revenue and that will come at the expense of the tax payer. 

If a candidate is against the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet they are for limited government. They probably are more fiscally conservative want to spend tax dollars on fewer programs but do them well.

The reason I come to this conclusion is that the KBRA is a private agreement among several groups — which is fine in and of itself. The claim is that the KBRA is people coming together to solve a problem. Again this is fine. The problem is KBRA's solution: dam removal and purchase of a tree farm to give to the Klamath Tribes. Both are funded not with their own money, but with tax payer money. This is a classic redistribution of wealth technique and a basic Marxist principle. This is not a principle found anywhere in our founding documents or an idea our founding fathers would approve. Yet, this is exactly what elitists do. They think they know best and then make everyone else pay for their magnanimous ideas. If it wasn't government doing this, we would call it stealing.

So in Klamath County we are at a tipping point. Do we want commissioners, a sheriff, a state representative and a senator who are in favor of taxing everyone for the benefit of a few or are in favor of government doing the few things it is chartered to do (and to do them well) and limit the scope of government.

The choice is yours.


  1. Finnious T Fogbottom ~ May. 11, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

    This all brings to mind that which is going on in places like Kazakhstan etc. etc. etc. etc. Lots of good sounding down sides over there as well. The difference is that we think we have a voice and they know that they don’t. Some still call what they have independence? In reality it is all pretty much the same. Did anyone really think that the Klamath is the only place where there are water users associations and minority stakeholders are watching their water being reallocated by elaborate and onesided whacky NGO /government integrated transboundary holistic environmental resource management sustainability agreements? It’s a small world after all. “The government, represented by the Committee for Water Resources, with support from UNDP and the Global Water Partnership, drafted the IWRM plan that proposed an integrated approach to water management, in which the river basin would be managed holistically, with the participation of water user stakeholders and ensuring environmental sustainability. It is the first document in the country-since independence-that proposes significant reforms in the water sector. The plan is in the final draft form and will be discussed at a ministerial meeting in December 2006. This is a timely development given the pressing management challenges facing the water sector in Kazakhstan.” Funny how the climate change lie sort of drives things. But don’t worry; Oregon Snake is there to hell. It’s just Maoist theory repeated – control the water, control the food, control the people. All and all it is really something to vote about – while you can. #
  2. Paul Clark ~ May. 12, 2012 @ 9:59 am

    I have a question regarding your advice to leave a candidate or measure blank if you don't have a choice or opinion. Voter fraud is everywhere, and especially rampant among liberals. I don't trust them to leave my non-vote blank so I mark all of the selection boxes. Does this cause a problem with the vote counting machine, or with the ballot in general? #

Leave your reply (* = required field)

* :
* :
* Comment: