Tuesday, October 10, 2017

NOAA facts forum - part 6 - Kris Sarri

This is Kris Sarri - President/CEO, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation She appears to be here to confirm the idea that money, in the form of grants, will grace any community that accepts a national marine sanctuary.
She is soft spoken, and polite, even gracious. In fact all of the panelists were very polite people.

At about the 5 minute mark, Ms. Sarri says "These are public waters, these are America's waters."No madam, these are not America's waters. They belong, legally, morally and ethically to the people of the state of Wisconsin, just as the natural resources of the other states belong to the peoples of those states. Do I get to say I shouldn't have to pay state income tax like the people of Texas because they have oil to offset their expenses as a state? No. Why not? Because the oil in Texas,(as does the gold in Alaska, the fertile soil in Oklahoma or the pastures of the Dakotas) belongs to the people of that state. These are our waters here in Wisconsin and ours, too, is the responsibility of caring for them and any historic, cultural, etc  heritage they may contain. We have been taking care of them since the state was founded and we are perfectly capable of continuing to do so. With the assistance of your foundation or without it.

Some may say, no, that the federal government owns all the water, that there are regulations and agencies and statutes saying so. But what does the U S Constitution say? Does it mention ownership of resources like land, oil, gold, or water? Article 1, Section 8, when outlining the duties of Congress, says? "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"  

This clearly indicates that any state land (aside from D.C.)desired by the federal government must be"
1. used for the specific purpose of "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
2. ceded to the federal government by the state legislatures and
3 purchased by the federal government. 

That indicates that the federal government does not own the land or resources of the states, nor may it do so except for very specific purposes. That is has done so - particularly in the west (At 84.9% federal "ownership" why is Nevada even regarded as a state at this point?) - is an egregious lapse of vigilance on the part of the citizenry and should be corrected ASAP. And this is the main reason why this author opposes the sanctuary.

The federal government has become incrementally more powerful and usually through the impetus of greed.This author is hoping that tactic will not work here.

Ms. Sarri, at one point, insists that the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is not affiliated with NOAA. Perhaps this is an attempt to present her view as that of an unbiased outsider.
 Their website says:

" The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is the national non-profit partner for the National Marine Sanctuary System and its chief advocate." If there were no agency creating national marine sanctuaries, would there be a national marine sanctuary foundation? She is clearly comfortable advocating for NOAA in her segment. The NOAA and NMSF websites even use the same shade of blue as an accent color. So whether they are officially affiliated or not, they are clearly very cozy with one another and Ms. Sarri cannot be considered to be unbiased based on the claim of no official affiliation.

Ms Sarri says "this is not a federal power grab" repeatedly. What this author heard was "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.". NOAA has it's own law enforcement agency. So, if a citizen of Wisconsin does something that is perfectly legal in Wisconsin, but that violates one of NOAA's regulations - which law enforcement agency will have jurisdiction? Because, logically, if the state of Wisconsin is maintaining control and jurisdiction over our waters, shouldn't it be under our laws and with our law enforcement agencies if this isn't a federal power grab? Are there any readers who think that will be the case?

She then goes on to indicate that everybody didn't agree with Monterey or Thunder Bay and that things are going just wonderfully anyway. (Even though the "old top down" approach was so egregious? ) What this author heard was:"resistance is futile; you will be assimilated". 

As mentioned before, Wisconsin is perfectly capable of taking care of it's own heritage and resources. This is not a question of whether such resources are valuable or whether or not the people of this state wish to preserve our heritage, but whether we can and will do so without submitting to federal agencies and their not-officially-affiliated "friends".

Some may say "Why not take free money and let someone else deal with the hassles of preserving those wrecks and things?" And the answer is TANSTAAFL. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If you give up the responsibility for something, you give up the freedom to enjoy it at the same time. This author hopes that the citizens of the state of Wisconsin will prefer to keep the responsibility and the freedom that goes with it.  
Apologies for the shakiness of the video and special apologies for the many errors in the closed captioning. This one was a bit of a challenge.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox." ~ Prov 14:4

No comments: