With all of Washington, D.C.'s political intrigue -- the commercialization of the White House, the administration's mysterious connections to Russia, and President Trump's ability to be both landlord and tenant on a government property -- why is U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz so curious about the planning and forethought that goes into a Twitter tweet?
No, the Utah Republican is not sifting through the president's Twitter feed. Rather, his attention was caught by a seemingly innocuous tweet from Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, where the staff was thrilled on December 29 to welcome the country's two new national monuments, Gold Butte in Nevada and Bears Ears in Utah.
Was that tweet simply a spur-of-the-moment shout-out, as many tweets are, or did the park staff have advance notice of the designations by President Obama? And if they did, wonders Congressman Chaffetz, how much advance notice?
We're not talking state secrets here. But hey, none of the other national parks in Utah tweeted the news on December 29, although the Traveler did the day before, when the announcements were made. And while the writing was clearly on the wall regarding the new monuments, we didn't get advance word.
The issue with Rep. Chaffetz is that this tweet could be evidence that the Obama White House lied to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert when it wrote him to say that as of December 15 "no decision had been made about Bears Ears."
Could it be that the White House really was planning as of December 15 to designate those two monuments, as it did on December 28, and that Bryce Canyon officials were in the loop?
"When was a Bears Ears map slot created in the Bryce Canyon National Park's front desk national parks and monuments map area?" Rep. Chaffetz wrote to acting Bryce Canyon Superintendent Sue Fritzke on January 19 (attached below).
"Who made the decision to create a Bears Ears map slot in the Bryce Canyon National Park's front desk national parks and monuments map area," he added in a follow-up question.
Finally, the congressman wondered, "(W)hen did you become aware of the Bears Ears National Monument designation and from whom?"
Bryce Canyon's celebratory tweet, Rep. Chaffetz explained in his letter, "created the appearance that officials at Bryce Canyon coordinated with the White House prior to this most recent designation."
Beyond being curious about the map slot for the new monuments, the committee chairman asked the superintendent to "identify any employees of Bryce Canyon National Park consulted regarding the Bears Ears National Monument Designation. For each employee, identify the communications, that is, when did those conversations occur and with whom?"
Why is Rep. Chaffetz, who has issues of national security to investigate, so concerned about Bryce Canyon's tweeting habits? True, the designation of Bears Ears National Monument went against plans that the congressman and his fellow Utah Republican, Rob Bishop, had for the landscape involved.
But polling shows Utahns were in favor (47+ percent for and 32 percent against) the Bears Ears designation, and a strong majority (60 percent) have no interest in seeing monuments decommissioned. And Rep. Chaffetz made a quick reversal last month when legislation he drafted to transfer 3 million acres of federal lands to the states was soundly criticized by hunters and anglers.
At day's end, we'd like to think taxpayer dollars could be better spent than on investigating a harmless 24-word tweet.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
"This isn't normal, and it's not OK":
http://www.commoncause.org/take-action/act/jason-chaffetz-trump-ethics-t...
Chaffetz really is embarrassing himself these days.
I have worked for the Trinity National Forest as a cartographer. I can tell you that our department was one of the first to be notified when anything "new" was being added before any announcements.
Additionally, I have visited these areas and the only reason this politician would have any interest in these areas is personal gain. I do not reside in Utah, but it is my opinion that this man has no intetest in protecting the land or its people.
Chafe is merely helping the White House distract gullible Americans from what's really going on.
Rep. Chaffetz is a total POS that has no interest in the enviroment. The people of Utah need to vote him out.
Can he be re-called? I know his district hates his guts and have for years. People have wondered how he's been re-elected, because of how much people in the Cottonwood Heights area hate him.
"I know his district hates his guts and have for years."
And that is why he won by a 47 point margin in the last election? There may be people that hate him, but as a whole, it would appear the district loves him.
Just out of curiosity, how gerrymandered is his district?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/UT/3
It's not hard to carve out a GOP-favoring seat in Utah, so I don't know if I'd say this is egregiously gerrymandered. DailyKos (not exactly nonpartisan) thinks Utah would look like this if it boundaries were drawn more fairly. Chaffetz might still win in their "district 2".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/29/1611906/-Here-s-what-Utah-might...
Amelia and Mega, Utah's gerrymandering has been cited as some of the worst in the U.S. Using computerized voter registration data, the GOP was able to carve out district boundaries that snake up and down streets, between back yards and in any way that can jam as many registered Republicans into a district as possible. In one case in Salt Lake, a boundary includes two buildings in a six unit apartment complex and then dodges across the street to take in one building out of several there. Portions of Salt Lake have been parceled out into each of the four districts. Salt Lake County is the "most liberal" and great pains have been taken to neutralize opposition voting there. Somehow they make it work despite the fact that something like 60% of Utah voters are registered as "unaffiliated."
Add to that the fact that Utah has a long history of just about the lowest voter turnout in the entire U.S. (A quick check just showed that in the past election, Utah's turnout was the third lowest in the nation.)
This is from an article in the Salt Lake Tribune: "
Only 28.8 percent of the voting-age population actually cast ballots.
That was 577,973 voters out of the estimated 2,004,283 Utahns age 18 or older, according to the state's final voter canvass and census data.
Utah tied with New York for the third-lowest turnout. Even worse were Indiana (28 percent) and Texas (28.5 percent), according to the United States Election Project, an ongoing academic study of voter turnout."
http://www.sltrib.com/news/1873023-155/utah-had-3rd-lowest-voter-turnout...
It's terribly frustrating because so many people tell us that they simply don't vote because they feel it's just a waste of time if they are not Republicans. Add to that the fact that in a majority of races, there are no other candidates on the ballot. My big pitch to people is that if all who don't vote would just get out and do it, we'd certainly hand the predominent party a big surprise. But Apathy is powerful.
Even among what the state calls "active voters," the percentage was less than 50%. (An "active voter" is one who has voted in recent past elections.)
In the case of the recent 3rd Congressional district voting, Chaffetz did win by about 70% of votes cast. But the number of voters casting ballots in that district was only about 26% according to the Hinkley Institute of Politics. That was actually a little higher than usual, but this time he was not running unopposed. His opponent was a business executive in a company called Overstock.com. At the time of the election, there were a number of charges of problems with the company and assertions that Stephen Tyron, Jason's opponent, was being manipulated by the company's owner.
So, I guess the simplest answer to your question is that too many Utah voters have simply given up hope that their votes will count for much of anything.
It's downright pathetic. But some of us keep hoping and keep working to convince our more sensible neighbors that their votes just might really count -- IF they'd just get out and cast them.
lee, draw us a district that would have had Chaffetz lose. I suspect it would make a checkerboard proud.
Lee -- is the story true that I read, that the initial gerrymandering to Chaffitz' benefit was redrawing the lines so that he actually residedin his district?
Rick, that is just one small part of it all. But yes, the lines were redrawn to include him in the district. But there is no law -- at least in Utah -- requiring a member of Congress to live in the district they represent.
Repeated attempts to require that drawing of district maps every ten years be done by a non-partisan committee have been shot down time and again.
The only hope we have is convincing apathetic voters that their votes don't count only when they fail to vote (Unless it's because they've been disenfranchised by the Electoral College . . . but that's another story in itself).
Chaffetz is a world-class waffler, whose congressional oversight committee only investigates cases which fit his ideological agenda. He was an embarassment when supposedly offended by the Billy Bush tape, quoted as unable to vote for Donald Trump for President because of moral turpitude. He reversed himself and voted for Trump anyway. This session of Congress, he introduced 2 bills. One would have transferred millions of acres of BLM administered Public Land to the States, presumably to be sold off to developers. That bill was withdrawn after protests from sportsman groups. He introduced another bill to abolish the law enforcement programs of the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM. He would transfer federal money to County Sheriff's Departments to patrol the Public Lands. Unfortunately, many of these rural sheriffs departments are in cahoots with resource violators, which would underemine effective law enforcement on the public lands.
The first paragraph of this is nothing but fake news. None of it is true.
zb39 --- your allegation is what the party line says. Unfortunately for you guys, the majority of the citizens of the nation disagree with you. Is this a great nation or what?
It is a great nation, always has been. Which is why I spent 6 1/2 years flying jets for the USAF. 1500 hours of jet time and 58 combat missions. Of course I'm a little older now and prefer to just visit all the NP in my RV.
Enjoy retirement; I certainly am. Just put out a little less of that Trumpian party line and you'll make even more new friends.
I called Congressman Chaffetz’s office to ask how he could be interested in when the Supt. of Bryce knew about Bear Ears and ignore the ties between the Trump administration and Russia. As soon as I said, “I’m Rick Smith from AZ”, the staffer hung up on me. So much for chairing a committee that represents, supposedly, all of us.
zb39 don't expect real news here. Most stories on here have a heavy left distortion and environmental extremist spin.
Beach, I guess you see what you want to see.
Kurt, I call a spade a spade.
Ok, beach, then I challenge you to defend your position that "most stories on here have a heavy left distortion and environmental extremist spin."
Indeed, I'd ask the other readers out there if they agree with you?
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the Wall Street Journal and 10 being Huffington Post, I'd put the Traveler at about a 6.
Indeed, just looking at the news stories for the past week, there's no spin or distortion at all. They're straightforward news stories about skiers dying or going missing in Grand Teton, a reading list for Glacier National Park or Yosemite, one about paving the road through Arches National Park, repairs on pump stations in Grand Canyon, storm damage to stairs at Cape Cod, the Outdoor Retailer Show leaving Utah, what do Santa Monica Mountains NRA coyotes eat, trout fisheries at Yellowstone, seaplane access to Isle Royale, the NPS hiring freeze, and similar.
To support your contention, "most" of those stories would have to reflect "heavy left distortion and environmental extremist spin." Could you point to it? Heck, there was even a story back on February 3 about the back road at Cape Hatteras that you approved of, saying, "Superintendent David Hallac is turning out to be a positive for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. He is truly working to improve access for all."
How did we possibly manage to report that one straight enough for you?
On the feature side, what's the spin regarding the museum at Chaco Culture? Or the BLM's drilling issue near Zion? Or the views of the NPCA and Coalition to Protect America's National Parks? As for Lee Dalton's piece on National Park Diplomacy, that's an opinion column that stands on its own merits.
Quoting folks who you disagree with is not spin, it's just reporting.
Great reply, Kurt! I find the Traveler pretty middle-of-the-road politically. IMO, the main source of “distortion and… extremism” in America is today’s Republican party.
My old college dictionary contains the following definition. “Fascism: A philosophy or system of government...of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism and religious or racial scapegoating.”
The only definition element missing from this administration is “dictatorship”, but one party rule led by a madman is pretty close.
Not wasting my time on your challenge Kurt. I will retract that "most" part and say some...
Well, beach, when you find the time, I'd sincerely be interested. While we support the NPS mission, we strive to be middle-of-the-road with our coverage and definitely don't try to spin anything.
If we're complaining about "Extremist spin", then Rep. Chaffetz' conduct is a perfect example. He is using his congressional oversight committee to further an extremist anti-environmental agenda. As Kurt has pointed out, his committee limits itself to investigations which further his political views.
THIS CARTOON IS A HOOT! It captures the whole situation in one look and a big laugh.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4973188-155/bagley-cartoon-sometimes-bear-...
Extremism? That is laughable. It is not extreme to want to protect our borders and our economic health and return to the country's foundation as laid out in the Constitution.
As to fascism, the Cambridge Dictionary says "a political system based on a very powerful leader, statecontrol of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed" . The only part of the definition I see happening now is "pride in country" which is hardly a bad thing. I also note that neither this definition or the one from my 1970 Webster's dictionary attribute fascism to the "right".
The definition from your "old college dictionary" is actually the 1983 American Heritage definition cited by Sourcewatch (what a coincidence) American Heritage has since replaced that defintion with: a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Again, no mention of left or right. Fascism can come from either extreme and is coming from neither at the moment.
Agreed, Lee. Good cartoon, and knowing the usual appetitie of bears, even more chuckles.
Kurt - thank you. That was a perfect example of how to deal with the extremist one-true-way slanderers. "A political system based on a very powerful leader, statecontrol of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed" Wow - in his own mind Trump is a "very powerful leader", but otherwisee this is what is being attempted exactly. Witness his aide Miller stating that the President's decisions should not be questioned. Witness their attempt to redeine the media as 'fake', even if it is merely quoting him back accurately.
The only people who can't see that this fascist ocean is wet are those also standing in the water.
Rick, if anything it is the left that wants state control of social and economic life and it is the left that actually shuts down dissent. The fact that Trump is pointing out the fake news doesn't mean he is trying to shut down news outlets. He is just pointing out their obvious biases. And while an aide may say his decisions shouldn't be questioned (attribution and context needed), noone is preventing anyone from doing just that. Your fascism charges are just more of your baseless accusations.
EC, in my nearly four-decades long career as a journalist, I have never witnessed anyone at such a high level as the president of the United States actively trying to discredit media that doesn't parrot what he says. Trump is not pointing out biases, but actively trying to discredit mainstream media while catering to those who don't question the words that come out of his mouth.
There's nothing wrong with questioning bias, but when the president dubs anything he doesn't agree with (say, the size of his inaugural audience, his staff's communications with Russia, that he wasn't at odds with the intelligence community) as "fake" news, it's not only disturbing, but the trickle down is incredible divisive.
Are there questionable "news" outlets? Absolutely, and they should be discredited based on the merits. But for the president to dub stories he disagrees with as fake news is greatly disturbing. The more he does it, the more it pervades the views of people who simply shout "fake news" over issues they disagree with.
There is a clear and necessary role for a free, independent media in the country. The president certainly seems to disagree. As evidence, have you seen his "Mainstreet Media Accountability Survey"?
https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/
And in my years, I have never seen the media falsely attack at such a high level. When they make up the stories he is fully justified to try to discredit them. What he is not doing is trying to shut them down, you know, like how the climate change community tries to shut down critics. Now that is fascism.
Like you say, Kurt. If the media reported that he had a large wart on the end of his nose, he would declare it false news despite video evidence of a large wart-like lump on the end of his probiscus and a bottle of Compound W wart removal medicine in his hand.
And the usual suspects of his apologists would support him.
And in my years, I have never seen the media falsely attack at such a high level. When they make up the stories he is fully justified to try to discredit them. What he is not doing is trying to shut them down, you know, like how the climate change community tries to shut down critics. Now that is fascism.
And the usual suspects of his apologists would support him.
QED
That is were you are confused, Rick, no one is apologizing. We are applauding. Trump got elected for what he said he was going to do and now he is doing what he said he was going to do. How refreshing to have an elected official actually live up to his campaign promises.
Ahem.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
ec--your comments are laughable. Trump is a world-class liar.
Kurt, look at the first "lie" they recorded. The story on Sweden. That is a total fabricated story. Trump never indicated there was an "sinister occurence" or as other outlets reported "terrorist attack" , "terrorists", "incident" etc. He made the factual statement that Sweden was having increasing problems with immigrants. His comment was based on a (accurate) report he saw "last night" His statement was 100% true yet politifact calls it a lie and the media fabricates and then attacks statments he never made. This is typical of their (the media in general and politfacts specifically) analysis.
EC, I really hope we get to sit down over a bottle of that Breckenridge bourbon you've mentioned, but right now I can't agree with your interpretation of what Trump said. You're the only one I've seen who ties his reference of "last night" to the Fox news piece.
This is what Trump said:
But nothing happened "last night."
This is what the Swedish Embassy followed up with:
And then...
Frankly, I wish he'd get over his terrorist issue and address gun control in the U.S.
Yes, something did happen. He saw a news report about the increased levels of crime. Did he articulate that well - no. We all know he tends to speak in broken and unfinished sentences. But he never said terrorist attack, he never said there was a specific incident "last night" yet that is what the media went with. It's no wonder the Swedish prime minister was confused.
Frankly, I wish he'd get over his terrorist issue and address gun control in the U.S.
I agree, they need to get rid of all the unconstitutional gun laws but I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss the terrorist issue. It is far more real than Trumps fascism or racism.
Not surprising. The story is out there but that isn't what the media wants to report. Instead, they report their made up stories about terrorist and incidents. That is what is picked up by the Yahoo and major network news feeds. That is what is repeated on the blogs you read. That is why you have heard the later and not the former.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-updates-everything-president-what...
Ah, the old "next day" spin...
OK, back to work on national park issues.
Here's what troubled me this week about the American "press." On Tuesday morning, President Trump visited the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, accompanied by Dr. Ben Carson and his wife. Even I was unaware, until the president disclosed it, that one of the featured exhibits honors Dr. Carson for his contributions to American medicine. Not only did the president offer a ringing endorsement of the museum, he called for confronting the problems of race in our inner cities, adding that anti-Semitism, again on the rise, was something the nation should never tolerate.
Later that day, the mainstream press utterly surprised me with how it "interpreted" the entire event. At CNN, the gist of the commentary was that the president had “waited too long” to speak up on race. Meanwhile the president should take his own advice, in that he, falsely claiming national security, wished to block immigration from only Muslim countries.
“Waited too long?” Trump’s administration is barely four weeks old. A “false” affront to national security? How could the press possibly know what threatens the country, or from where those threats originate?
In any event, the day should have belonged to Dr. Carson. But no, the press wanted to talk about Donald Trump. Years ago, a dear friend of mine, himself African-American, reminded me how it “works.” “If black, you have to get permission to succeed—and become a Democrat,” he noted.
Last Tuesday, his comments struck home. Ever since President Trump nominated Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the press has used him to get to Trump. Carson’s not qualified; he has no administrative experience. We don’t care what the Smithsonian thinks.
It’s not that Trump is wrong about the press; it is rather that he knows how to get around them. By taking Ben Carson to the Smithsonian, he reminded those stalling Carson’s nomination of their hypocrisy.
That is what the president means by overcoming “fake news,” nor did he fake his comments on Sweden, either. See the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning: “Trump Is Right: Sweden’s Embrace Of Refugees Isn’t Working,” by Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson. One sentence says it all. “Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life.”
Years ago, that would have been enough for anyone. Two Swedish politicians commenting on their own country in a newspaper worthy of respect. But no, the president didn’t get it EXACTLY right, so he is not entitled to be right at all. That’s not just fake. That’s sick. No one ever gets anything exactly right, although yes, by appointing Dr. Carson Mr. Trump got it right.
So, this Jewish reporter walks into a White House press conference...
http://www.jta.org/2017/02/15/default/president-trump-answered-a-questio...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-ja...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/15/donald-trump-o...
So, this reporter walks into the White House, and effectively accuses the president of being a racist. Who cares what the reporter's religion is? He is still supposed to be a reporter.
Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we’ve seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic — anti-Semitic incidents across the United States. And I wonder, what do you say to those among the Jewish community in the states and in Israel and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones?
No, I would not have answered by discussing the Electoral College, but the minute I was accused of "playing with xenophobia and/or racisim," I would have shown that particular reporter the door.
Here is how the question should have been asked, that is, how I was taught to ask a question:
Mr. President, how will you confront anti-Semitism across the United States?
The rest of the question is an editorial itself side-stepping anti-Semitism. When I was in college, now Binghamton University, 70 percent of my undergraduate colleagues were Jewish. Whom did they accuse of anti-Semitism? The Middle East, led by Egypt at the time. During the Six-Day War of 1967, they turned the Student Center into a command post, raising $500,000 among a student body of 2,000 in just a single night. And those were 1967 dollars.
How this "reporter" could spin anti-Semitism into something uniquely Donald Trump's doing is a pathetic exercise in the ahistorical gibberish that now commands the American press. Question: How many Germans did we admit into this country between 1941 and 1945? Was that being anti-German, or simply common sense? When someone says he is your enemy, you take him at his word. That's being neither racist nor xenophobic. Again, it is simply common sense.
Ask the question, and sit down. The question about anti-Semitism is fair. The rest of it, phishing for an answer acceptable to the questioner, makes a mockery of our craft.
Actually, he didn't accuse him of being a racist.
Fair enough, Kurt, but the point remains. These reporters are not asking questions; they are rather delivering speeches. Do they ever stop to think how they sound? "Despite what some of my colleagues may have been reporting, I haven't seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself of anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic."
Why not just say: "Mr. President, I know you are not anti-Semitic," and let it go at that?
So what is the point? I don't understand why those stories are part of this conversation or why you believe they are condemning.
Pages