Tag Archives: bob parker

Ozarks National Heritage Area Plan Appears Dead

Posted on by
Reply

If news published Monday on the front page of the West Plains (Mo.) Quill* newspaper is accurate, one might assume plans to establish the Ozark Highlands National Heritage Area are dead:

Group to no longer seek possible formation of National Heritage Area

“In light of the situation that has developed and in a demonstration of our good faith in this effort, we have decided to redirect our attention toward opportunities to foster cultural conservation and economic opportunity that won’t necessitate the involvement of the National Heritage Area program and will rely as much as possible on private funding,” said Ozark Preservation Inc. (OPI) President Kris Norman of West Plains in a letter to The Quill today.

Members of the Ozarks Property Rights Congress appear to be thinking otherwise.

In an e-mail sent Tuesday morning to members of OPRC, a group formed to stem government interference with private property rights in the 13-county area of southern Missouri, group leader Bob Parker used an optimistic-but-cautionary tone:

We will continue to seek documentation that this is really the case.  We will request what actions they have taken to stop this effort.  While on the face of this it looks good, we must verify this is in fact the truth.

In other words, Parker seems to believe actions speak louder than words and will wait to see if the heritage area plan is, indeed, dead.

If, indeed, the plan is dead, it brings to an end a battle I’ve chronicled since late January:

In a Jan. 27 article, Big Government Puts Ozarks in the Crosshairs, I highlighted the fact that farmers, ranchers and other land owners in 13 Missouri counties had joined forces to fight for their rights as land owners and shared details of a glossy, full-color feasibility study developed by backers of the plan (Note: Cross-posted at BigGovernment.com);

On Feb. 14, I shared a second piece, Private Property Rights Battle Brewing in Ozarks, in which details of a never-before-published draft of that feasibility study were accompanied by Parker’s comments about key provisions it contained; and

On Feb. 28, I provided an update in Missouri Land Owners Continue Fight Against ‘Ozarks National Heritage Area’ Designation, a piece which highlighted the fact that several county commissioners were standing in opposition to the heritage area plan.

Here’s to hoping the good folks in southern Missouri can put the Ozark Highlands National Heritage Area in their rear-view mirror permanently.  Until then, I’ll keep an eye out for any new developments in this and other plans connected with the National Park Service.

*Note:  Unfortunately, The Quill is a subscription only newspaper; therefore, I can offer no links to the article.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Missouri Land Owners Continue Fight Against ‘Ozarks National Heritage Area’ Designation

Posted on by
1

Commissioners in Dent County, Mo., made it clear they’re not interested in having the federal government sticking it’s “nose” into the business of area land owners.  In a Feb. 24 letter to Matt Meacham at West Plains (Mo.) Council for the Arts — the local front group for the National Park Service effort to designate private land in the Ozarks of Southern Missouri as the “Ozarks Highlands National Heritage Area” — they offered the following:

Click to view larger.

The Dent County Commission, by unanimous vote strongly opposes the National Heritage Area proposal for the Ozark region, encompassing Dent and twelve additional counties, and therefore respectfully asks that Dent County be removed from any further discussions, studies, etc. involving the establishment of a National Heritage Area.

In a post Jan. 27, I shared news about farmers, ranchers and other land owners in 13 Missouri counties being up in arms, fearful that the federal government will designate their land in the Ozarks of Southern Missouri as the “Ozarks Highlands National Heritage Area.” In addition, I shared a copy of a feasibility study related to the plan.

In a post two weeks later, I shared disturbing details from a never-before-published draft of that same feasibility study.

Dent County Commissioners Darrell Skiles, Dennis Purcell and Gary Larson are not alone in holding their opinion, according to Bob Parker, a cattle rancher and real estate pro from Raymondville, Mo., who’s deeply involved in the fight as a member of the Ozarks Property Rights Congress.  County commissioners in Wright, Texas and Douglas counties have sent similar letters and officials in several other counties are expected to follow suit soon.

OPRC members — primarily farmers and ranchers — continue holding meetings to plot their strategy against OHNH.  The next meeting is set for March 3 at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center/Chamber of Commerce in downtown Mountain View, Mo.

Stay tuned!

UPDATE 3/01/2011 at 9:05 a.m. Central: Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com.

UPDATE 3/15/11 at 6:23 p.m. Central: See Ozarks National Heritage Area Plan Appears Dead.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Private Property Rights Battle Brewing in Ozarks

Posted on by
3

A property rights battle is brewing in the Ozarks of southern Missouri, and it’s about to reach the boiling point.

Almost three weeks ago in Big Government Puts Ozarks in the Crosshairs, I shared the public version of a feasibility study that has farmers, ranchers and others in 13 southern Missouri counties standing in opposition to the proposed establishment of the “Ozarks Highlands National Heritage Area.” Today, however, I’m able to share details from a never-before-published draft of that same study.

While advocates of the so-called “Heritage Area” will say that the draft is not relevant, Americans familiar with the way the federal government works will tell you it pays to be vigilant when private property rights are at stake.

Bob Parker is a cattle rancher and real estate pro from Raymondville, Mo., who serves as a spokesperson for the Ozarks Property Rights Congress and has read both versions of the feasibility study.  In an e-mail today, he forwarded snippets from the draft that do not appear in the public version of the document in an e-mail.  Those snippets appear below, followed by Parker’s comments in italics:

Page 1 — “The National Heritage area program has been developed by the National Park Service.” This program will basically take our 13 counties under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

Page 54 – “Incorporate approaches employed by European nations for preserving parks and other special places without removing them from the life and culture of the nation.” That is a system where everything is regulated, permitted, and controlled. You will now longer control your private property. You will now be in a National Park. They call it a ”Heritage Area”, but it will give them control over you and your property when fully implemented.

Page 54 – “The formal administration of the National Park Service of the National Heritage Area program in the Ozarks Highlands would likely continue to facilitate a culture of distrust of the National Park Service in the area, particularly by private property protection groups and alternative heritage preservation methods would likely be preferred.” Seems as if they understand there will be opposition to their program once the information got out. They are trying to figure out how to keep us from understanding the Park Service will be in charge. How? Local representation is appointed, not elected, but Park Service will have final say because everything must match up with their ”criteria” or goals to keep the designation and keep the federal dollars flowing.

Page 57 – The efforts of the national heritage area program to facilitate the goals of the NPS guideline are foremost….” This will be a gradual takeover of our area by the National Park Service and it’s global goals. European style management systems? The facts are clear.

Page 58 – “Public officials from EVERY COUNTY have been contacted and been provided information concerning the function of a National Heritage Area and have offered their support towards this effort.” Did your local official read the documents about this program? Did they have any idea what they were signing on to support? Have them read this letter and ask them to get these feasibility studies and read it for themselves. Have them research “Agenda 21″ and “Sustainable Development.” This is the socialist style of land control. Do we want that in America?

Page 58 – “Special attention has also been made toward those groups who are interested in Private Property Protection to provide them with information and documentation in this process.” We just received these documents after weeks of waiting and only then by FOIA requests. When we met with officials from Ozark Action and other supporting entities no official documents were produced. I suspect no community leaders understood what was happening either. Warning:  Get educated about Sustainable development and Agenda 21. All the federal and state agencies are promoting these concepts and programs. They cannot be trusted to tell you the details of these programs. It’s likely that they don’t know the details themselves. DON’T BE FOOLED!

Page 58 — “…the National Heritage Area would likely have no negative impact on economic activity.” Resource control, regulations, planning, permitting, unelected boards determining the future of your farm or business.Increased taxation to bring the Heritage Area into “self reliance”… This will have NO impact? Are you kidding?? Key word is ”likely.”

Page 59 — “This sustainable development approach…” Again, this is sustainable development. Google or YouTube it. Lot’s of good information on the about this program.

Page 23 — “Management-specified actions, policies, strategies, taken to meet the goals and recommendations of the heritage area.” The National Park service will tell the local committee what they must do to get funding. They must meet the NPS guidelines and criteria. NPS will pick who is on the board and what they do. This is the Soviet style of governing by council and committee. We have elected officials and a State and Federal Constitution. I think we should stick with that. Soviet means unelected or appointed councils that rule. This is what the regional planning centers, Federal Agencies and these other schemes are all doing, creating another layer of government over our Constitutional one. This is the socialist model of governing. Most elected officials have no idea what is happening.

Page 23 — “Resource Protection, the act or process of preventing, eliminating, or reducing human-caused impacts to natural resources and natural processes.” This is the ultimate goal, total control over our farms and businesses. Permits, regulations, inspectors, boards, and councils that can take over control and implement the new federal agency guidelines of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. This will destroy our property rights and destroy our system of government. Are you feeling GREEN?

There’s more to come on this matter, I’m sure, so stay tuned!

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

UPDATE 3/15/11 at 6:22 p.m. Central: See Ozarks National Heritage Area Plan Appears Dead.

Big Government Puts Ozarks in the Crosshairs (Update)

Posted on by
5

Farmers, ranchers and other land owners in 13 Missouri counties are up in arms these days, fearful that the federal government will designate their land in the Ozarks of Southern Missouri as the “Ozarks Highlands National Heritage Area.” As members of the Ozarks Property Rights Congress, they’re meeting tonight at the Hayloft Restaurant in Mountain Grove, Mo., to plot their strategy against such a designation.

Bob Parker

I found out about the controversy from Bob Parker, a cattle rancher and real estate pro from Raymondville, Mo., who showed up on my political radar for the first time when he challenged incumbent Republican Jo Ann Emerson in the primary for Missouri’s 8th Congressional District seat.

Excerpts from a glossy, full-color feasibility study provide an inkling of what has OPRC members standing in opposition to the heritage area designation.

In the introduction on page 5, local residents are assured that they individually select participation and what to preserve throughout their lives and the lives of their offspring.

On page 6, the law that allows the federal government to intrude into the lives of citizens is explained:

The enabling legislation for every new National Heritage Area includes this Private Property Protection Clause:

Click to download study (pdf).

In short, this policy means that the National Heritage Area can not require people to participate in its programs and cannot seize private property or abridge property owners’ legal rights in any way.  Concern for the protection of private property owners’ rights from government intrusion has long been a part of the culture of this region and was heightened because of federal authorities’ use of question- able methods in obtaining land for the establishment of scenic riverways and related purposes during the twentieth century. The organizations responsible for this feasibility study share this concern and are committed to seeking the ongoing input of private property rights advocates and doing everything possible to ensure that National Heritage Area status (or any other status or designation that might result from this exploratory process) will never be used as a basis for infringing the rights of property owners.

The NHA program is led and managed by area residents as a voluntary partnership that helps citizens steward regional ecologies, historic resources, and local economies. This type of designation is based on grass roots organization, voluntary participation, and does not involve property regulation or land use regulation.

One page later, an explanation about who funded the feasibility study is offered:

This feasibility study is funded wholly with federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds received by Ozark Action, Inc., from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided by the Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division. The funds received from the Family Support Division are all federally funded.

What does it mean to be designated as a heritage area?

For people like Parker and his neighbors in 13 Ozarks counties, it raises fears:  of being taken under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and unseen global planners; of losing control of their farms, ranches and businesses; and of suffering under the guidelines of Agenda 21, a program described on the United Nations web site as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”

“Seems as if they understand there will be opposition to their program once the information gets out,” Parker wrote in an e-mail to friends and colleagues this morning.  “ This is an immediate threat to our property rights and to the freedom to use our land and streams. If we lose our private property rights, they may be lost forever.”

Stay tuned!

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

UPDATE 2/1/11 at 11:03 a.m. Central: Bob Parker advised me of a three-year-old article by Tom DeWeese which sheds light on this subject.

UPDATE 3/15/11 at 6:20 p.m. Central: See Ozarks National Heritage Area Plan Appears Dead.

Missouri Right to Life President Explains Endorsement of Candidate Who Voted FOR Embryonic Stem Cell Research TWICE

Posted on by
3

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.)

Recently, Republican Jo Ann Emerson received received a boost in her bid for re-election in Missouri’s 8th Congressional District.  That boost came in the form of a highly-coveted endorsement of Missouri Right to Life, and it came despite the fact the seven-term incumbent had cast votes against life on at least two occasions during the past five years.

Curious as to how MRTL President Pam Fichter might explain how her organization’s leaders reached such a decision, I asked her about it Saturday when I caught up with her in O’Fallon, Mo.  The key point I picked up during the interview was that Emerson changed her position on at least one contentious issue and, as a result, she became more fit for the group’s endorsement.  The interview appears in the video below:

Below are links to information about the two votes which I suspect many pro-lifers would say should disqualify her for the pro-life group’s endorsement:

  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines (Vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007); and
  • Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research (Vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005).

FYI: Emerson’s GOP primary opponent, Bob Parker, is pro-life and told me he would never vote to approve the killing of human embryos.

Vote wisely, Missourians!  Emerson just might change her mind again and vote against protecting human life!

Emerson, Blunt Earn ‘Pretender’ Labels From Iowa Republican for Failing to Battle ‘ObamaCare’

Posted on by
4

U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has labeled two of his Missouri colleagues — Jo Ann Emerson and Roy Blunt — as “pretenders” in the fight to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., “ObamaCare”).

“In the case of the repeal of ObamaCare, a discharge petition is the only way that the American people will get a vote in the House—so long as Nancy Pelosi holds the Speaker’s gavel,” said King, the man leading the effort.   “The effort to move a discharge petition will allow the American people to separate the pretenders from those who are truly committed to repealing ObamaCare.”

“While individual Members can make this or that argument against signing on as a cosponsor of repeal legislation, a discharge petition puts the question in a different and simpler way: Do you want to repeal ObamaCare or not?”

As of this posting, 109 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed the discharge petition, the aim of which is to start the process toward repealing ObamaCare.  Among those not signed on to back the effort (a.k.a., “the pretenders”) are Emerson, who represents the 8th Congressional District in southern Missouri (including the Boot Heel), Blunt of the 7th CD who is probably too busy running for a soon-to-be-open U.S. Senate seat to worry about such matters and all four House Democrats from the Show-Me State — William “Lacy” Clay, Ike Skelton, Russ Carnahan and Emanuel Cleaver.  Three House Republicans from Missouri — U.S. Reps. Todd Akin, Sam Graves and Blaine Leutkemeyer — signed on to support the effort last week.

Fret not, conservatives.  Both Emerson and Blunt have conservative competitors in their primary races this fall.

The list of conservative challengers to Emerson includes Republican Bob Parker, a rancher from Raymondville, Mo., and Independent Larry Bill, a businessman and military veteran from the Cape Girardeau, Mo., area.

The only serious conservative challenger to Blunt is Republican State Sen. Chuck Purgason who lives near Springfield, Mo.

RINO Congresswoman Thrives in the Boot Heel

Posted on by
5

Make no mistake about it: U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) will win in November.  Her well-oiled fund-raising machine and unmatched name recognition combine to make the job of unseating her virtually impossible.

What can one learn by studying the 8th Congressional District race in Southeast Missouri?  He can learn that a Republican In Name Only can survive — and thrive — in the Boot Heel of the Show-Me State.

Emerson’s political might and savvy might stem from the fact she was born in 1950 and raised in the Washington, D.C., area in a neighborhood where members of Congress lived next door.  The daughter of Ab Hermann, a former professional baseball player who served as director of the Republican National Committee, she went on to earn a degree in political science degree at Ohio Wesley University and hold positions with both the Republican Party and with trade organizations — including one as a lobbyist for the American Insurance Association.

In 1975, she established ties to the district when she became the second wife of future eight-term Congressman Bill Emerson.  Those ties grew stronger following her much-loved first husband’s death in 1996 when sympathetic voters elected her in his place.

Today, she stands on a 35-year record of contact with the people of the district which borders the Mississippi River and includes Cape Girardeau, the boyhood home of Rush Limbaugh.

Emerson’s challengers in 2010 include the following candidates:

  • Tommy Sowers is an ultra-liberal Democrat without competition in the August primary.  A former Army Special Forces officer and instructor at West Point, he appears to be running solely on the strength of his military uniform and hoping little attention is paid to his stands on issues and the people who support him.  He is, for instance, admittedly pro-choice and pro-ObamaCare, though you’ll find no specifics about either issue on his campaign web site.  Single, he moved back to Missouri from New York to run for the 8th CD seat.
  • Larry Bill is an Independent candidate and Air Force veteran who served as a pilot during the Cold War and the Gulf War. Bill is a conservative family man dissatisfied with the offerings coming from both the Democrat and Republican parties.  A staunch advocate of First and Second Amendment rights and bringing an end to illegal immigration, he thinks unnecessary federal spending must be brought under control and embraces ideas like the Fair Tax and term limits for members of Congress.
  • Bob Parker is the only Republican challenger to Emerson.  A cattle rancher and family man who advocates many of the same issues as Bill, Parker has been an outspoken critic of Emerson.  In addition to drawing attention to the incumbent’s votes in favor of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and the “Cash for Clunkers” effort, Parker faults her for voting to censure Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for shouting “You lie!” during President Barack Obama’s joint address to Congress on health care reform and for voting in favor of a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

What do conservatives like me, who align more closely to Bill and Parker on most issues, find wrong with Emerson’s record?  For starters, they’re troubled by her ties to earmarks.

According to Legistorm, Emerson’s legislative fingerprints can be found on more than $361,314,075 worth of earmarks she sponsored or co-sponsored during 14 years in office.  Among the largest pork projects she has sponsored was a $3 million earmark to fund a Congressional Hunger Program that bears her first husband’s name.  Based on my review of the program’s web site, it appears taxpayer dollars earmarked for the program pay for college kids to go out and see how the “other half” lives in impoverished parts of the country.

Despite the earmarks and other votes many conservatives would label as “misguided”, Emerson’s constituents seem content with re-electing her time and time again.  Citing her stands as a pro-life, pro-Israel and pro-defense congresswoman who usually gets things right, they appear to like the fact that she “brings home the bacon” in the form of costly projects, such as the $170 million Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge (above) and the $62 million Rush H. Limbaugh Federal Building (right).

Someone who would appear to benefit from the “bacon drippings” is Emerson’s second husband, Ronald C. Gladney, whom she married in 2000.  A Democrat and attorney who is a member of the St. Louis-based law firm, Bartley Goffstein LLC, Gladney represents 12 powerful labor unions, including the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers for whom he serves as general counsel.  One would think they had a hand in building the bridge and the federal building that hosts one part-time judge.

Gladney is also a big supporter of President Obama.  According to CampaignMoney.com records, he made matching $2,300 contributions to Obama for America in 2007 and 2008.  Since then, he’s contributed only $10 to Obama.

Will conservatives opt to vote for anyone but Emerson?  IF history is any indicator and IF they don’t want to risk putting an ultra-liberal Sowers in the seat, the answer will be, “No.”  And the Emerson juggernaut rolls on.

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s worth noting that there appears to be no familial relationship between Emerson’s husband and Kenneth Gladney, a St. Louis man who was beaten — allegedly by SEIU thugs — at an Aug. 6 health care town hall meeting hosted by Democrat U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri’s 3rd CD.

SEE ALSO:

Why Does RINO Republican Avoid Tea Parties?

Should Jo Ann Emerson Run as Independent?