Greg Awtry

The reasons Americans are allowed to own guns is because we have a right to do so. It is a
right given to us in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It is neither
complicated nor lengthy. It is a mere 27 words.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

For a couple of centuries we have had debates about these words, but there is no question in
their meaning.

The first 10 amendments, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, is a list of “Rights”
given to the people to help get the anti-federalists to ratify the
Constitution. In the Preamble of the Bill of Rights there is a phrase that
better explains where are founder’s thoughts were at the time.

But remember the times. Americans had it up to their ears with the overpowering English
government; so much so, we waged the Revolutionary War and won our
independence. The founder’s were concerned that America might develop it’s own
heavy-handed government so they took great care in crafting our founding
documents to never allow the federal government to become so large.

In the Preamble, which explains the reason we need a Bill of Rights, there is a
sentence, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of
their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added.” The “restrictive clauses” were
restrictions on the federal government, not the people.

Thus, the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment was adopted. The Second Amendment was
intended to balance the power between the emerging federal government, the
states, and the people. The people were, and still are allowed to bear arms to
defend their person, property and their liberties.

Now, after the insidious acts of a few deranged individuals, our right to bear arms is under
attack. We all want to end senseless murders, in that there is no question. We
all want to end the gun violence in our cities and neighborhoods, no question
there either. The question is how?

Taking guns away from citizens is not the answer. Benjamin Franklin knew that when he
penned the now famous words, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those words, if you don’t
know, are also on a plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

Simply put, Americans have the right to bear arms. Those who abuse that right, lose that
right, and in that may lay the answer. We as a society and a government must
have a zero tolerance for gun violence. We need swift and powerful justice for
anyone committing a crime with a gun. Those who do must lose their liberties
and be separated from society forever, no exceptions.

Folks, we have gun laws, hundreds if not thousands of them. More gun laws won’t work for the
simple reason people who commit crimes with guns don’t obey the laws. Just look
at Chicago, a city with tough gun laws, yet has
more people murdered in their city each year than Americans who died in Afghanistan. Washington, D.C.
is not much better.

However, it is time we had a national discussion on ways to end the gun violence we hear about
nearly every single day. What type of civilized society would tolerate such
mindless acts perpetrated on fellow citizens? But before we just pass more gun
laws, further encroaching on the right to bear arms that millions of
responsible Americans enjoy, we have to make sure what we do actually does what
we wish.

There have been a few ideas tossed out there. Armed guards in school… are you kidding me? How
about the mall, the post office, or the grocery store? What are next, our
churches? This is an act of damage control gone amuck, and do we really want to
live like that?

Ban assault rifles and large capacity clips? Will that stop the crazed perpetrator from
carrying out a mission of human destruction? Of course not.

We the People must do everything in our power to educate everyone about the sanctity of life,
the ultimate yet fragile gift from God. We also must increase punishments for
those who commit crimes with guns, sending a clear and unfettered message to
those who do. One strike you are out of this society forever. At the same time,
we must also be wary of a government eager to jump at an opportunity to disarm
the very people they govern.

Follow Greg on Twitter, Facebook and read his Blog

In round numbers the United States government spends about $10 billion every day. They bring in only about $6 billion every day. To pay their bills, they must borrow $4 billion every day. Currently there is no budget in place to stop this madness or to repay the loans, which have grown to over $16 trillion and are headed to $20 trillion in the next four years. So, what’s Washington’s plan?

Wow! These are big numbers! Let’s boil them down to something we can get our heads around, and see if this makes any sense. Let’s see what happens if these numbers were applied to an average household.

Say you make $50,000 a year but you spend $83,000 a year. You would have to walk into your local banker and borrow $33,000 a year, and then tell the banker you had no way to ever repay the loan. You wanted to do this every year until you die, then your kids will pay it off. That is exactly what the U.S. Government is doing.

The democratic plan to tax the rich is equivalent to your banker telling you to go earn another 3 percent, or another $1500 a year. That means instead of borrowing $33,000 a year to live your lifestyle, you would only have to borrow $31,500 a year. Hey, that’s no plan. That’s no solution to our fiscal crisis. And above all, that is not fair to your children!

How did this happen? Some blame the president. He or his predecessor didn’t do this. Congress did. They control the spending. They control the taxes. They are so busy pointing partisan fingers at each other and so busy trying their darnedest to stay in power, that the work of the American people is not getting done.

The fiscal cliff just didn’t appear out of the partisan fog after the election. Everyone in Congress knew this was coming at year-end, but because it was an election year, they refused to address it until after the election. I call that insubordination.

Taxes are not the problem. Spending is. And neither party has enough patriotism in their veins to take care of it. With the red-hot political climate in D.C. you can imagine the political fallout if the Republicans have to tell us what programs they would cut, and vice versa. And the Democrats; they can’t even spell “cut”. It is obvious Congress is more interested in working for their party than for us.

But it is not us who have forgotten who they work for. They have!

It is our responsibility to remind them. Our message needs to be crystal clear:

“Congress, you have given us a government we cannot afford. You have given us a debt that is impossible to pay off in our lifetime. You have placed a near insurmountable challenge on Americans of all ages, but especially on future generations who will be saddled with our excess.

We trusted you to manage our nation’s fiscal responsibilities and you have failed miserably. In your quest for votes you have promised more than you can deliver. You have reduced this great nation to a debtor country while ignoring the warning signs so eveident to us in debt-ridden European countries. And still, you continue to ignore the crisis and choose to play your games of partisan politics to either retain or regain power.

You have now reached your last chance. Do not talk to us about your political parties. Do not talk to us about the president. Instead, try talking to each other.

Admit your collective errors; stop pointing fingers of blame, and toss partisanship out of the Halls of Congress. Are higher taxes in order to pay the bills we have piled up? Yes they are. Are drastic spending cuts in order to stop this madness? Yes they are. Are you able to do this in a patriotic fashion, putting partisanship aside for the sake of America? It seems unlikely given your recent history.

Congress, your house is broken. We didn’t break it. You did. You are a disgrace to your profession and to those who served before you. You have let down our generation and are now messing up our children and grandchildren’s future.

Hear this. Get it right and get it right now or we will never, ever vote for you again!”

Follow Greg on Twitter,
Facebook and read his Blog

The TransCanada Keystone pipeline hearing in Albion, Neb., was last Tuesday night.

Far more people signed up to testify than the NDEQ allowed time for, so many in attendance submitted written instead of oral testimony. I was one of those.

I began my testimony, “I stand here tonight 200 feet from one of the world’s most amazing natural wonders, the Ogallala Aquifer. In fact, everyone in this room is less than 200 feet from it. It is not a mirage or just a light blue spot on a map. It’s right below our feet.

If there is one single thing that defines the state of Nebraska, it is agriculture, and if there is one single thing that defines our ability to have an agricultural economy, it is the Ogallala Aquifer.

With the aquifer we provide more jobs to Nebraskans than a thousand pipelines. Without the aquifer, we are once again the Great American Desert, relinquished to the observation of Edwin James, an 1800s geographer who said of our land, “I do not hesitate in giving the opinion, that it is almost wholly unfit for cultivation, and of course, uninhabitable by a people depending upon agriculture for their subsistence.”

Do you understand? The Ogallala Aquifer is our environment, is our economy, and is the single most valuable resource in our state, bar none!

So I am puzzled as to why anyone, Nebraskan or not, would put at risk even one single drop of this precious resource … ever!

I also stand before you today in full agreement with Gov. Dave Heineman, when he wrote an Aug. 31, 2011 letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton mentioning the Ogallala Aquifer no less than five times.”

Here is that letter:

August 31, 2011

Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton:

I am writing to you today regarding a very important issue to the State of Nebraska and to our citizens – the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am opposed to the proposed route of this pipeline.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement compares a potential spill in the Sand Hills region to a 1979 Bemidji, Minn., spill and concludes that “the impacts to shallow groundwater from a spill of a similar volume in the Sand Hills region would affect a limited area of the aquifer around the spill site.”

I disagree with this analysis, and I believe that the pipeline should not cross a substantial portion of the Ogallala Aquifer.

Of the current proposed route, 254 miles of the pipeline would come through Nebraska and be situated directly over the Ogallala Aquifer. The aquifer provides water to farmers and ranchers of Nebraska to raise livestock and grow crops.

Nebraska has 92,685 registered, active irrigation wells supplying water to over 8.5 million acres of harvested cropland and pasture. Forty-six percent of the total cropland harvested during 2007 was irrigated.

Maintaining and protecting Nebraska’s water supply is very important to me and the residents of Nebraska. This resource is the lifeblood of Nebraska’s agriculture industry.

Cash receipts from farm markets contribute over $17 billion to Nebraska’s economy annually. I am concerned that the proposed pipeline will potentially have detrimental effects on this valuable natural resource and Nebraska’s economy.

I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to pipelines. We already have hundreds of them in our state.  I am opposed to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route because it is directly over the Ogallala Aquifer.

Therefore, I am asking you to disapprove TransCanada’s pending permit request. Do not allow TransCanada to build a pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer and risk the potential damage to Nebraska’s water.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Dave Heineman,

Governor

Now many of you reading this have been led to believe TransCanada moved the pipeline route off the Ogallala Aquifer. This is not true.

They not only didn’t move it off the Aquifer, they actually cross more miles of the aquifer than they would have in their first route! Sure they went around a few sandhills in Holt County, and they believe that will satisfy Gov. Heineman.

If our governor’s words mean anything, and I am talking about the words in his letter to the president, then let’s look at them once again. Gov. Dave Heineman said, “I am opposed to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route because it is directly over the Ogallala Aquifer.”

Well, governor, if you see this, and I will make sure you do, then it would seem your decision is already made for you. TransCanada’s exaggerated claims of fortune don’t add up to 1/10th of 1 percent of what our great state produces agriculturally, made possible by that one single thing that defines our way of life here in Nebraska, the Ogallala Aquifer.

TransCanada likes to talk a lot about good neighbors. Well, here in Nebraska we know a few things about good neighbors, and what better neighbor (less than couple hundred feet away) to practically every single one of us than the Ogallala Aquifer?

So I, like the governor, remain “opposed to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route because it is directly over the Ogallala Aquifer.”

I urge Gov. Heineman to deny the new route request by TransCanada, and insist they do what they should have done originally; respect our Governor, respect Nebraskans, respect and go around the great Ogallala Aquifer.

Last week, Mike Johanns joined the growing group of politicians who can’t be trusted.

He signed a letter urging President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska and the Ogallala aquifer.

In doing so Sen. Johanns performed a Romney-like flip-flop, completely changing his position that the potentially deadly pipeline should avoid the Ogallala Aquifer.

He also displayed complete disregard for the newly passed pipeline bill, calling for an extensive study o Diluted Bitumen (tar sands diluted with chemicals to thin it enough to be pumped through our aquifer). That report won’t be ready until next year.

The new bill also calls for an exhaustive study on pipeline companies’ leak detection process and again, that study must take a minimum of two years.

Last week’s letter seems to be in stark contrast to Johanns’ earlier letters. In a letter to Secretary of State Clinton in 2010, Johanns said there is, “heightened environmental sensitivity when a pipeline traverses an irreplaceable natural resource, the Ogallala Aquifer …”  In another letter to Clinton, Johanns writes in October
2010, “… I have repeatedly expressed concern that regulatory actions related to this permit application b executed such that maximum care is taken to safeguard the Ogallala Aquifer, an irreplaceable natural resource in the state of Nebraska.”

Then again on August 31, 2011 Johanns wrote, “I support Governor Heineman’s request that President Obama and Secretary Clinton deny the current application from TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline along a route crossing Nebraska’s Sand Hills and the center of the Ogallala Aquifer. The proposed route is the wrong
route.”

Well, Sen. Johanns, it is clear to Nebraskans you were just using the Ogallala Aquifer for political cover which is disappointing, as Nebraskans use the aquifer to supply our drinking water and to turn what was once called the Great American Desert into some of the most productive agricultural land in the world.

You see, we don’t play politics with our future, and you need to understand Nebraskans will go to great lengths to preserve and protect what you call, “an irreplaceable natural resource.” If you were as concerned about the aquifer as you said, then why not let the two federal studies be completed before you sign a letter asking for
immediate approval?

So to whom can we turn to help us protect the aquifer, the health of our citizens and the lifeblood of our economy? How about Congressman Adrian Smith? Smith’s position on the Keystone has remained constant, flawed, but constant. He has repeatedly stated he will adhere to the science of the project.

Congressman Smith, in a colossal flip-flop now chooses to ignore the new pipeline law and the two studies that must be done regarding the toxic DilBit and leak detection process.

Smith also sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, the same committee, according to the IRS, that said that DilBit is neither oil nor petroleum and therefore not subject to the 8-cents per barrel Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax!

That gives Canadian producers and or refineries nearly a $50 million tax break and $23 million of that will go to companies that would use the Keystone XL to transport their dirty oil. Does that make any sense at all?

This pipeline will have spills. Every study, including those done by TransCanada acknowledges that fact.

The recent spill in Michigan has cost nearly a billion dollars to clean up, so why isn’t Congressman Smith, whose entire third district would be sliced open with the dangerous pipeline, introducing legislation demanding that Canadian DilBit be subject to the same tax as North Dakota crude oil that will be taxed and will go through the exact same pipe?

And finally we have Governor Dave Heineman, who also wrote President Obama and Secretary Clinton. In his letter he said, “Of the current proposed route, 254 miles of the pipeline would come through Nebraska and be situated directly over the Ogallala aquifer.

The aquifer provides water to farmers and ranchers of Nebraska to raise livestock and grow crops. Nebraska has 92,685 registered, active irrigation wells supplying water to over 8.5 million
acres of harvested cropland and pasture. Forty-six percent of the total cropland harvested in 2007 was irrigated … I am concerned that the proposed pipeline will potentially have detrimental effects on this valuable natural resource and Nebraska’s economy… and I believe that the pipeline should not cross
a substantial portion of the Ogallala aquifer.”

Maybe it’s just me because I make a living with words, but words mean something. Whether they are written, spoken or just given, as in, “I give you my word.” It is important we hold accountable those who give us their words.

Nebraskans, you are caught squarely in the middle of two of our federal representatives’ obvious failure to stand up and fight to protect Nebraska’s most valuable resource at all cost, and a governor who has to make a decision on the Keystone XL route.

On Dec. 4, in Albion, Neb., there will be a public hearing, hosted by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to review TransCanada’s poor excuse for a re-route across the state, which still crosses, as Heineman put it, a “substantial” part of the aquifer. Hundreds of Nebraskans will be there.

I think Heineman, Johanns, Smith, along with Deb Fischer, a Sandhills rancher and newly elected U.S. Senator whose family business is dependent on the aquifer, should all be there.

What are the chances any of the four will attend? Are you kidding me? That would take courage and conviction.

They have already shown us what they are made of.

The York County Board of Commissioners will soon be hearing pleas from TransCanada officials who want to place the Keystone XL DilBit pipeline smack dab through York County, right next to rural citizens’ private wells and very near several municipalities.

The TransCanada folks need permission from the Board to tear up county roads in exchange for a promise they will put things back to normal. They sat before the Board once before and the Board succumbed to their requests like toy robots. But, since the pipeline route has been changed, they now need to arrange for another agreement.

“Do-overs” rarely present themselves, but in this case the York County Commissioners have the chance to it right this time.

The first thing the Commissioners need to remember is TransCanada has no right to expect an agreement in light of the fact TransCanada needs a federal permit to build the pipeline and they don’t have one. So, the Commissioners can take their time, study all their options and wait until if and when the Presidential Permit is ever issued. Once it is, if it ever will be, then the Commissioners can act, but in no way is it necessary for York County to act on TransCanada’s request at this time.

It is well known that TransCanada had some issues with other counties when Keystone 1 went through several years ago. Communities in Kansas and the Dakotas had trouble with TransCanada repairing the roads to the approval of county boards, as well as having trouble making TransCanada put up enough money to get the roads repaired.

York County Commissioners could learn a lot from Marion County, Kansas who had to settle for less money than necessary for road reconstruction, or from Beadle County, South Dakota who had to wait months for road repairs because TransCanada felt the costs were too high.

The York County Commissioners must ask for bond money to ensure funds will be set aside that are designated solely for York County. The Board also needs to control those funds, not TransCanada.

The Commissioners need to have a say in what third party company will be hired to do a pre-pipeline evaluation of county roads.

The Commissioners need to have language in the agreement pertaining to emergency responders having access to all rural residents at all times.

The Commissioners must have specific timelines in the agreement pertaining to how soon the damaged roads will be repaired, and stiff penalties if TransCanada does not meet those deadlines. York County’s previous agreement simply states, “Keystone will use reasonable efforts to complete the restoration of such Haul Roads in a timely manner.” This is “sucker” language because you must be a sucker to sign this and not have a specific time frame detailed. Who decides what is “Reasonable” and “Timely”, TransCanada?

The Commissioners must find out if a diluted bitumen spill occurs on York County’s property, who is liable for damages to private lands or private wells.

Will TransCanada pay for easements where the proposed pipeline crosses county land like they do when the pipeline crosses private land?

A Haul Route Agreement is a critical document that should only be signed after thorough due diligence is completed by the county and absolutely not signed until TransCanada receives the Presidential Permit to construct the Keystone XL.

Let’s see if the York County Commissioners can get it right this time.

Follow Greg on Twitter, Facebook and read his Blog