[Update: Pat Powers responded to this post without denouncing Johnson's socialist plan. So the points made by this post have been confirmed.]
Looks likeTim Johnson wants to use Tony Dean's name to advance the socialist anti-property rights agenda in South Dakota:
Hermosa ranchers Scott Edoff and Dan O'Brien live just 3 miles apart, but the men have vastly differing opinions on a proposed wilderness designation for 48,000 acres of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands.
The neighbors testified Wednesday before the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee considering the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., introduced the bill in May that would designate more than 48,000 acres of the grasslands as wilderness.
The U.S. Forest Service recommendation designating land in the Indian Creek, Red Shirt and Chalk Hills areas as wilderness would create the nation's first grasslands wilderness, according to Johnson.
Here is how Tony Dean got his name attached to this socialist legislation:
There is no grassland wilderness in America, but we have a chance to change that. President Bush has proposed the creation of the 71,381-acre Cheyenne River River Valley Grassland, which makes up just 0.15 percent of South Dakota…and this land is already in public ownership. It includes cedar ridges, incredible vistas, rugged badlands country and excellent big game herds. The beauty is haunting, and to see it is to say, “Let’s save this…one of the last great places.” Some say this isn’t the time to create wilderness. I say it is the best time because it is still wild country.
But its fate depends on South Dakota’s congressional representatives; Senator’s Tim Johnson and John Thune, and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth. To date, Johnson and Herseth have stepped forward to say we’ll embrace this. Thune has not, and the reason is what it’s always been…politics and elections. The usual opposition of public land grazers and a few county commissioners, who combine to make noise beyond their numbers, always strikes fear into the hearts of elected officials. Perhaps that’s why Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite President. He was a fearless leader, one who stood for conservation.
Here is a history lesson on Teddy Roosevelt:
The gloves then came off. The Republican Party, long fracturing between conservatives and progressives, split into two corners: the Old Guard, siding with Taft, and the Insurgents, who felt that Taft's policies were tantamount to a blatant rough-riding of Roosevelt's legacy. As president, Roosevelt had energetically traded blows with the spawn of the industrial era—the newly created corporate monopolies, the big Beef Trust, Standard Oil Co., American Tobacco—earning himself the nickname "trustbuster." He had also championed conservation. Taft, though not opposed to government reform, noticeably lacked his predecessor's zeal.
Stalemate. By 1912, it was clear that the Republican Party would be hard pressed to agree on a candidate. Taft, the reigning electoral champion, weighing in at 340 pounds, was the obvious choice for the Old Guard. The Insurgents, after briefly flirting with Wisconsin progressive Robert La Follette, threw their allegiance to Roosevelt. Though initially hesitant to go haunch-to-paunch with his hefty former ally, Roosevelt acceded to their pleas in February 1912.
The battle for the Republican nomination degenerated into spectacle. Taft portrayed Roosevelt as "a flatterer of the people," "a dangerous egotist," "a demagogue." Roosevelt responded similarly, calling Taft a "fathead" and a "puzzle wit." Roosevelt held the upper hand, at first. He dominated the spring primaries and entered the Republican National Convention in June just shy of the delegate count he needed to win the nomination. But the Old Guard, which controlled the committee tasked with assigning the rest of the delegates, clearly favored Taft. A handshake here, a few wrist-squeezes later—and the Republicans handed Taft the nomination, by a hair.
The Insurgents went nuts. Roosevelt stormed out of the convention his enraged followers in tow. He quickly accepted the nomination of a newly formed third party, the National Progressives.
Pat Powers' devotion to Tony Dean, whose favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt, brings truth to the statement that Pat Powers is part of the Progressive Movement, whose aim is to destroy conservatives as history from 1912 shows. Tony Dean was co-leader of Republicans for Tim Johnson in 2002, but Pat Powers ignores that fact. Instead he seems to be furious that I exposed the folly of Tony Dean and helped change the dynamics of the 2004 Senate race here in South Dakota. The race whose end results changed the dynamics in America. But only for a short while.
Tony Dean's favorite president split the Republican Party by running as a independent, and allowed Woodrow Wilson, another member of the Progressive Movement, to become President. So why is Pat Powers painting me as anti-Republican for running as an independent? Mike Vehle is part of the Republican Progressive Movement. The movement is about Big Government;the anti-thesis to limited government, liberty and freedom. It is against individuality and is instead for statism and collectivism.
I am trying to save not only the Republican party, but also South Dakota and America from the same Progressive Movement that has also taken over the Democrat Party. That not only explains why Tony Dean supported Democrats, but also explains why conservatives should not trust Republicans who claim to be conservatives, but don't walk the walk in regard to the Republican platform.
I will be presenting more research on the South Dakota Republican Progressives who are using, not only out os state, but influence from outside the United States, to influence public policy here in South Dakota.
The Progressive Movement is about transforming American into another socialist European state. Leading that charge today is Barack Obama. And the Progressives of the South Dakota Republican Party are intent on implementing many of the policies of Barack Obama. And so are the far-left Daschle/Hildebrand faction of the South Dakota Democrats. And let us not forget that there were Republicans for Daschle in 2004.
Yes, both parties are under control of the anti-American Progressive movement. Their only fight is over which special interest group obtains the most political control in order to get a bigger cut of the money that becomes available from an ever-expanding government. Time for the truth to be told. Time to take the elephant skin off of Pat Powers and see the RINO that is found inside.
Comments