Birders and other environmentalists feared that the appointments of John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court would move the Court to the right on issues concerning clean water, clean air, wetland preservation, and protections for endangered birds and animals, and their worst nightmares have come true, according to the latest Birder's United news update.

In 2006, both Alito and Roberts voted to weaken federal regulations of wetlands. In June 2007 the two new justices were part of the majority in the case National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, which ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have to consider endangered species before handing over Clean Water Act regulatory authority to states that request it.

The Environmental Protection Agency had given regulatory authority to the state of Arizona to approve building permits under the Clean Water Act. The legislation gives the EPA the authority to hand regulatory oversight to a state if the state meets nine specific criteria. But the protection of endangered species is not one of those nine provisions.

Defenders of Wildlife filed suit claiming that the state should not be granted regulatory authority because the state does not consider the impact of housing development on endangered species, including the pygmy owl. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with Defenders of Wildlife saying endangered species were not given adequate protections under the EPA guidelines.

But in a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court decision. Writing for the majority Justice Alito noted that the Clean Water Act states that the EPA “must” give states control if they requested it and complied with the nine provisions. This one word “must,” according to the majority opinion, gave the Court no leeway to decide in favor of Defenders of Wildlife.

Also:

Birders Waiting for the Democrats

Several months ago Birders United noted that many of the leading candidates who hope to be the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party in 2008 had been slow to put the environment at the top of their agendas. We noted at the time that most of the major Democratic candidates appeared to be sidestepping the issue. When environmental issues were mentioned in their campaign materials it was usually related to lessening our dependence on foreign oil in order to put the brakes on global warming or to decrease our dealings in the Middle East.

Nothing has changed. Traditional “green” policies of conservation, expanding open space, protecting endangered species, and making sure we have clean air and water are still not at the top of the Democratic candidates’ agendas. A survey of the major Democratic candidates’ Web sites shows that not one lists the environment as one of their top concerns.

The fact that environmental issues are not deemed important by the major Democratic candidates is extremely disappointing, especially after the very serious damage that has been done to bird habitats during the six and a half years of the Bush presidency.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 09:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Before the wires move a story on it, you can watch President George W. Bush on CNN or C-SPAN in a rare Rose Garden press conference say "the economy is on the fast track" and fake concern for renewable energy sources - as he refuses to get the troops out of Iraq and saber rattles about the coming war with Iran.

While the local newspapers and TV news stations continue to report that the economy is great and unemployment is at record low numbers, we suspect an investigation of the numbers would reveal that they are as cooked as Enron's and HealthSouth's books.

As for renewable energy sources, Bush's energy plan focuses solely on opening up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas drilling and some incentives for ethanol and research into hydrogen.

Besides, his base could care less about the environment - they are just interested in keeping the gas cheap for their SUVs so they can drive everywhere they go.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In September 2003, President Bush nominated William J. Haynes II to a key judicial seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a Harvard-trained lawyer for the Department of Defense, Haynes argued that the bombing of an island in the Marianas, an important haven for many rare species of birds, would actually be beneficial for bird watchers. Haynes and his team of Defense Department attorneys contended that the bombing would disperse the birds to other islands so many more people would be able to see the rare species. If you are one of the 15 million or more Americans who have an interest in protecting the habitat of birds, you might want to know about Birders United.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 01:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a classic example of how crass the Bush administration can be when it comes to the natural environment and pandering to the public to try and make a come back in the polls, just hours after some of us celebrated the 36th anniversary of Earth Day, President George W. Bush went for a bike ride in a restricted mountainous area of California where the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep live, according to The (Palm Springs) Desert Sun.

It was uncertain Sunday night if White House organizers accompanying President Bush knew about the voluntary avoidance program, according to the paper - or whether they cared, according to us.

The wires are now reporting Bush's remarks this morning in which he is supposedly calling for an investigation into gas price gouging. Does anyone actually believe there is any truth at all to this story? Bush lost any credibility on this issue long ago. It would be nice to see some skepticism of his sincerity reported as part of this story. Guess you have to turn to the blogs for that, eh?

Bush Takes Aim at Gasoline Prices

Really? This should be interesting. How many of the people can you fool some of the time again?

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced strong questioning today by Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other members, in the attempt to determine whether President George W. Bush's program to spy on Americans via the National Security Agency is legal - or not.

Gonzales Faces Tough Questions on Spying

If you care about individual liberties, watch it live on C-SPAN and make up your own mind as to whether the program is legal or warranted.

It is pretty clear to me that the president has already admitted breaking the law. He just doesn't admit that what he did and is still doing is against the law. He is asserting, through the Justice Department, that he is above the law, while saying he is NOT above the law.

This is classic double-speak right out of George Orwell's book 1984. This is Big Brother, and it is a mystery why anyone calling themselves a conservative could support the administration on this issue. I thought conservatives and libertarians wanted the government out of our bedrooms, not listening in on our telephone conversations, land lines and cell phones, and reading our mail and e-mail.

The misleading defense of this specific NSA program is that only calls to and from abroad are included. But that ignores the larger issue of other agencies of the federal government, including the Pentagon, spying on peace groups, environmental groups, journalists and yes even bloggers.

If the Senate Judiciary Committee wants to get to the bottom of how this administration has broken the law rising to the level of impeachment of the president and the vice president, the inquiry should be exanded to include the other domestic spying programs. The probe should not just be limited to an inquiry of the NSA's sweeping program of searching for key words in phone calls and e-mails.

As has already been reported widely, most of the NSA's requests for a followup investigation by the FBI have been dropped because the target was clearly not associated with any real terrorists or al Qaeda.

But what I have been saying over and over again since before this Web site was started is that the Bush administration is intent on characterizing as a "terrorist" any activist who disagrees with Bush's policies.

Carefully read this post from Sept. 26, 2004, along with the links.

No One Likes a Critic; Democracy Demands Criticism

We suspect, although it is not yet coming out in the press, the media, or in the questioning of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that when administration officials say they are only looking at "al Qaeda" and "terrorists" and "their associates," what they mean is any opponent of the administration, especially peace advocates, animal rights activists and groups and individuals who oppose the administration's radical views that pose a grave risk to the national and global environment.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I hate to say I told you so - again. But for all the new readers lurikng here (and they are legion according to our Moveable Type Blog Stats), we've written for months about the Bush administration's tactics to investigate activist Americans as terrorists.

Everyone Who Opposes Bush Is A Terrorist?

One of these days someone will start listening to us.

Alarming Volume of FBI Files Collected on Activists

FBI Terrorism Unit Monitored Activists' Web Sites

Which story do you like best, the New York Times version or the Washington Post's? Who is winning the battle as the national newspaper of record?

Meanwhile, we can't wait to read the entries from our Web sites in the FBI file.

Note to self: Call the A.C.L.U. Monday morning.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bill Moyers denounced the politcal right and top officials at the White House for trying to silence their critics by controlling the news media, according to this report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

He also took aim at reporters who become little more than willing government "stenographers," the Dispatch reports. And he said the public increasingly is content with just enough news to confirm its own biases.

Moyers, whose reports have appeared on the Public Broadcasting System since the 1970s, spoke in St. Louis at a conference on media reform. He is a former newspaper publisher and was an aide to President Lyndon Johnson in the early 1960s.

Moyers said those in power - government officials and their allies in the media - mean to stay there by punishing journalists "who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable."

Answering for the first time recent charges that public television in general and he in particular have become too liberal, Moyers described those officials as "obsessed with control" of the media. He said they are using the government "to threaten and intimidate."

Those charges came from Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a Republican, who paid an outside consultant $10,000 to keep track of the political leanings of guests on Moyers' show, "Now." Moyers left the show last year but is back on public television as host of the series "Wide Angle."

On the recommendation of administration officials, Tomlinson hired a senior White House aide to draw up guidelines to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts, according to a May 2 report in The New York Times.

Give 'em hell Bill.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The last 58.5 million acres of untouched national forests, which President Clinton had set aside for protection, were opened to possible logging, mining and other commercial uses on Thursday by the Bush administration, the Associated Press is reporting.

Where will the destruction end with this administration?

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)