Land And Water U.S.A.

Friday, February 24, 2017


By Mike McCune

Every political candidate offers promises that, on the surface, look good. It is when the rubber meets the road that we actually find out if there is any merit or not.

The countries those politicians represent often take a tack in the economic headwinds that may look good at first glance--just like the politicians themselves--but on closer inspection turn out not to be so much a pot of gold for the voter or investor but a pot with a rusted out bottom.

Last fall during the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised Americans he would make major adjustments to the income tax--for both the individual and for businesses.

Since he was trailing badly in the polls, most of the leaders of the rest of the world's economic engine ignored his goals. From Nov. 9 to January 19 they continued to dismiss the president-elect's rhetoric. But now the worm has turned. Trump, five weeks into his first term, seems intent on making some major changes to the way America approaches the rest of the world. That is scaring the socks off the other world leaders and they are scrambling to get counter measures into place.

In this, if nothing else, Trump has indeed shown the global community America--while not yet being great again--does indeed matter.

To recap some of Trump's tax reform ideas, he wants to: Reduce corporate tax rates from 35% to 20%, eliminate the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, allow an indefinite carry forward of operating losses, eliminate the deduction currently allowed for (future) loans, and allow American multinational companies to bring home foreign cash holdings under a modest 8.75% tax. But the biggest bananas in his bag are an immediate, 100% deduction for capital investment expenditures and exemption of foreign-paid subsidies from taxation.

As you can see, all of these proposals benefit business which makes sense as Trump battled these provisions as a businessman. What is missing is the individual and household alterations. Maybe Trump figures the business boon will "trickle down" to the low lifes like you and me because we are still the world's largest consumer.

Trump is focusing on producing goods here and exporting them overseas--a reversal of America's government approach to business philosophy since the advent of the "Great Society." But this alteration of the status quo globally on taxation is going to have a major impact on other nations' economic fortunes. Since the dollar is currently the strongest national currency, the other nations are going to have to do a lot of catching up in order to blunt the corporate location changes Trump proposal requires.

To that end, the smart money has been watching intently the interest rates being paid around the globe.

In London, according to, Barclay's recently announced a full 1% rate on its online savings accounts--almost 1200% more than you can get in America. The pound is floundering against the dollar since the Brexit vote last June and the English need a cash infusion very badly to stagger onwards in the divorce proceedings which will be at least two years in the making.

But now we find out that Abenomics in Japan is really in trouble. From San Francisco-based MUFG Union Bank through a brand-new entity named PurePoint Financial comes a stunning offer for 1.25% interest on savings deposits of $10,000 and a gut-churning 1.4% offer for a 1-year CD of $10,000 or more. That's nearly 17 times what one can get from an American bank.

Remember: If the offer looks too good to be true, it probably is.

For all their promises, since Congress abrogated its Constitutional authority to "regulate money" to the Federal Reserve in 1964, the average taxpayer has been stuck in the economic mud while businesses and the financial institutions have been greedily sucking up the new provisions of things like the Consumer Financial Protection Bill to enrich themselves at our expense.

Now, because of Trump, other countries are facing the prospect of complete, overnight economic ruin, not just American households.

Want some proof? The Japanese bank mentioned above, MUFG Union's, parent company is Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group. In Japan it is paying a microscopic one one-hundredth of a percent on 10-year, fixed-term deposits. That means for a Japanese investor to get an equal amount to what is being offered in San Francisco by the same financial entity would take 140 years!!!

The rest of the world, just like November's defeated snowflakes and even the Republican Establishment here, cannot figure Trump out or even get a little advantage. They are running for cover and trying their best to adjust to a new world order where the American President doesn't apologize for America's economic engine but wants to remove the rust accumulated for the past 53 years and let the new model run on the world stage--just like it did post-WWII.

But now, just like our Federal Reserve and Washington have done in the past, the target of every nation is the American consumer. We are the fattest cats on the block by far and every country would like to be America. But they were not, are not and will not be America ever because we have resources others can only dream of.

If Trump succeeds in bringing America's exported business capability back home, the rest of the global community will have to come here to do business on his terms. They are trying desperately to salvage something before those companies come home and the only thing they have going is to entice the individual American to invest overseas so they can use those dollars to entice some into staying put.

The proof is in the pudding and PurePoint Financial, in announcing the new rates, even went so far as to make a pledge to you and me--a non-campaign campaign promise if you like. In a press release yesterday is stated it "pledges to help grow America's personal savings rate."

That sounds an awful lot like every candidate for every political office in every campaign in my lifetime, how about yours? The only thing missing from the PurePoint campaign-like press release was the requisite attachment "to Make America Great Again."
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, February 23, 2017


Chuck Sylvester's response to an attack

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
8833 Ralston Road
Arvada, CO 80002-2239

Public Lands Council
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20004

Dear CCA, PLC and NCBA,                                                  February 22, 2017

It has just been brought to my attention that your organizations, the Public Lands Council (PLC), Colorado Cattlemen's Association (CCA) and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) filed a joint objection to my involvement with the Range Allotment Owners Association (RAO). 
From my years of observation, I’d have to agree with your collective claim, “Public Lands Council is the only organization in Washington, DC, who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands.”
Please understand though, that as a Range Allotment Owner, PLC doesn’t represent me. And because I couldn’t find an entity that does protect Property Rights on Range Allotments, I helped co-found RAO.
RAO is only concerned about the Property Rights of Range Allotment Owners. PLC represents ranchers on public lands. These two needs are wholly different. 
I like to exercise preventive maintenance by resolving situations before they get out of hand and end up in court. RAO is an essential form of preventive maintenance.
Due to the vast difference between RAO and PLC, it is my assessment that the PLC should be relieved they don’t have to add another department beyond their long-standing representation of the public on public lands.
Now you know why I enthusiastically co-founded the Range Allotment Owners Association.
Thank you in advance, for supporting my endeavor to protect my Property Rights on my Range Allotments.

Charles W. Sylvester 
Ranch Owner and Retired General Manager of National Western Stock Show
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                             

PLC and Legal Community Comment on the  
Range Allotment Owners Association

Contact:Ed Frank

WASHINGTON (Feb. 20, 2017) -- Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council, today released the following statement and open letter regarding the Range Allotment Owners Association:
"The Public Lands Council is the only organization in Washington, DC, who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands. Since 1968, PLC has had boots on the ground in the halls of Congress and the federal land management agencies, working to ensure that rancher’s voices are heard.
"Recently, a group has materialized, claiming to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher. This group, called the Range Allotment Owners Association, is advancing a compelling but dangerous theory, that ranchers who hold grazing permits on public lands are not merely permittees, but allotment owners. While we at PLC fight every day for the preference and property rights of ranchers, we feel that this particular theory goes beyond our legal rights and could ultimately result in the loss of permits and subsequent destruction of family ranches.
"We are lucky in this industry to have a deep bench of legal talent that is focused on our issues and represent our interests in the courts. These assembled legal minds have released the following open letter on this general topic, which we present to you independent of our opinions and analysis. That so many of the names on the attached letter will be familiar to you is a testament to their commitment to our industry and their years of work on behalf of ranchers."

PLC has represented livestock ranchers who use public lands since 1968, preserving the natural resources and unique heritage of the West. Ranchers who utilize public lands own nearly 120 million acres of the most productive private land and manage vast areas of public land, accounting for critical wildlife habitat and the nation's natural resources. PLC works to maintain a stable business environment in which livestock producers can conserve the West and feed the nation and world. 
© Copyright 2016 Public Lands Council, all rights reserved.
This email was sent to:
This email was sent by: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300 Washington DC 20004

Open Letter                                    February 21, 2017 
Open Letter as to status of Grazing Permits issued by BLM and USFS 
We understand that there is a movement currently underway to encourage federal permittees/lessees to take matters into their own hands and ignore their grazing permits/leases and attempt to unilaterally modify grazing permits/leases on the grounds that a “grazing allotment” and “grazing rights” are absolute and cannot be modified without the permittee/lessee’s consent. This movement has been motivated by frustrations regarding management of federal grazing allotments and treatment of permit/lease holders. In many cases, these frustrations are well founded. Often management of federal lands has harmed families and agriculture businesses, as well as the working landscapes upon which grazing allotments exist. We share these frustrations and believe that reasonable reform of livestock grazing rules and regulations is long overdue, but we discourage permittees/lessees from ignoring their existing permits/leases and from attempting to take unilateral action to change the terms of their permits/leases. We stand ready as a resource to help advise those who seek to obtain reform of existing laws, regulations, and guidance so that livestock grazing on USFS and BLM grazing allotments can thrive and benefit local economies, ranching businesses and families, and rangeland health. In many cases, federal agency personnel would also benefit from training as to what consult, cooperate and coordinate, as stated in existing law and regulations, means in terms of directly involving and listening to the permittees/lessees. Many conflicts can be addressed administratively. Unilateral action by permittees and lessees, however, poses a real risk that such action(s) will result in adverse action upon the grazing permits/leases and that it will be difficult or very expensive to remediate the consequences of those actions. Therefore, we discourage permittees/ lessees from ignoring terms of their permits or undertaking unilateral permit modifications. We, the undersigned attorneys, encourage ranchers dependent upon federal lands to work with the federal land management agencies to maintain and enhance their ability to graze upon the federal land. This can be done by, among other things, monitoring of the resource, applying for permit/lease modifications, applying for range improvements (i.e. removal, modification, installation), actively participating in any NEPA analysis and decision-making processes, defending against permit/lease actions by the federal agencies, and defending permits/leases in cases filed by adverse interests seeking to undermine grazing on federal lands. In addition, we encourage ranchers to take the opportunity – via livestock associations or other similar organizations — in this new Congress and new administration to obtain statutory and regulatory reform that will maintain and enhance the existing grazing statutory and regulatory framework on federal lands. Sincerely, Constance E. Brooks Karen Budd-Falen Frank Falen Scott Horngren Elizabeth Howard Caroline Lobdell Bill Myers W. Alan Schroeder

Monday, February 20, 2017


The Pueblo Chieftain
Gentle Folks:
It is with great pleasure that we read in The Chieftain that electricity from wind and solar is becoming cheaper than electricity from natural gas.
The reason this is great news is that we can now save over ten billion dollars of taxpayers’ money every year. The renewable-energy industry no longer needs subsidies, investment tax credits, and production tax credits. They no longer need double-declining depreciation tax breaks and local tax breaks, because their product is very cheap and very competitive. Utilities will no longer to be forced to buy solar electricity from consumers at retail rates (as is now required by net-metering laws). Because solar and wind are so cheap, we will no longer need Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (mandates) to force utilities to get energy from these renewables.
In fact, Pueblo won’t need City Council’s resolution to get 100 percent of our energy from renewables by 2035, because the low price of wind and solar will get us there without any action by the Council.
One caveat: Don’t ride in elevators powered by solar and wind, because you might get stuck for a few days. But that’s a small price to pay for having cheap energy.
Best Regards,
Howard C. Hayden


By Mike McCune 

Everyone knows growing older isn't all it is cracked up to be. But, for the first time, aging Americans are facing a debt problem.
Back in the 1960s when universal credit cards were first introduced, the Greatest Generation largely shunned the offer--memories of the harsh reality of the Great Depression were too firmly entrenched. The Greatest Generation gradually accepted the cards as a way to ease their movement without the encumbrance of cash but they usually made sure to repay the bill immediately.
But then came the Boomers. They used the cards willy-nilly but, like their parents, largely stayed within budget at first. As time passed staying within budget was considered passe and the burden of personal credit began an insidious march into the American psyche.
Boomers are now facing retirement. The grim reality staring the vast majority in the face is a diminished income enhanced by a mountain of debt. The choice seems to be simple: work longer or make drastic spending cuts in order to keep the household above water.
In a report released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (back in the 50s and 60s who knew you'd need someone to establish a research firm just to track employer-provided benefits!) it was disclosed that people 65 to 74, in other words Boomers who have retired, currently haveFIVE times the debt load the same age bracket had just 20 years ago when the last of the Greatest Generation headed into retirement.
The bad news doesn't stop there. In the same report the median savings for U.S. households within 10 years of the retirement age has shrunk by 32% to less than $15,000 in the past decade because of the recession.
All of this hits at the same time rates for mandatory healthcare have rocketed upwards. The combination of hits is making it much more unlikely that as many as four in five aging Americans will be able to retire on the government's projected timetable when they were still school kids. But as bad as the Boomers were in staying on a prudent fiscal course, the two generations since are lagging even those low-bar numbers.
The harbinger of an economic collapse is riding in the disparity between income expectations, debt load and planning shortfalls at all age levels in America
particularly since the Fed seems intent on raising interest rates.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported yesterday that the average American household increased its debt load by 1.8% in the fourth quarter. Compared to an economy that registered only 1.6% gain over the previous year, this means the typical household lost ground in the financial fight for their future during the Christmas season. The horrendous news was that the average household in America now owns a personal chunk of the $12.58 trillion individual debt.
This is not government or business debt but I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L debt and it is approaching critical mass weight. This uncertain, mortgaged future is a result of the average American following the lead of the government and kicking the can down the road. The government doesn't have to earn the revenues, it can just print more debt bonds, bills and notes, the citizen cannot.
This hidden pressure is what is an underlying cause of the public turmoil we are witnessing. Trump has promised to largely quash the entitlement programs. Without that meager individual resource, many American households will simply fail overnight.
The New York Fed's report wasn't done throwing the ice water around. "This marked the largest quarterly increase in household debt since the fourth quarter of 2013. Debt today is now just 0.8 percent below the peak of $12.68 trillion hit in the third quarter of 2008." That was at the height of the financial crisis meltdown. The Fed report showed every type of debt climbed in 2016's final quarter compared to the final numbers from the third quarter. Mortgage debt, auto loans, and student debt all jumped faster than the economy in a range of 1.6% to 2.4%. But credit card balances simply shot off the charts with a 4.3% increase and that was the biggest category to start the cycle.
The Fed tried to say the increase was "partly driven by new extensions of credit" in mortgages and auto loans. But that belies the huge increase in credit card use.
The only allusion to Americans' necessary 'fix' of credit card usage in the report came when the Fed tried a lame explanation. "The composition of the debt is vastly different as the growth has been driven by non-housing debt. The rebound has been led by student loans and auto debt with only sluggish growth in mortgage debt."
Fantastic, except that statement destroys the Obama Administration's claims of "solid rebounds in the housing market" since 2010. If that were true then the mortgage loan numbers would reflect that.
What this shows instead is Americans have followed government's lead and are addicted to overspending while never thinking about the consequences. The Baby Boomers were the first generation to come of age with easily-obtained credit. The lifestyle may have been enhanced by overspending at the time but the piper has to be paid. That is coming when normal retirement should be happening.
Suddenly, for every American out of high school, the Golden Years are rusting every time they satisfy a want over a need by using credit. Nearing retirement they are finding Debt is the most unrelenting master of all.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Saturday, February 18, 2017


& The Namastage Theatre
1601 S. Pearl St.
Denver, CO 80210

Scholarship Applicant
Applicant Name______________________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________City ____________________
State _________________Zip ___________________Telephone _______________________
Acting Class ______________________________________________________________
Date begin __________________________________Date end   ________________________
Class cost $ _____________________________
Applicant must be over the age of 16.
Because the Sylvester Foundation has interest in developing great spokespersons in behalf of Domestic Resource Production, you must have a sincere interest or background in logging, mining, fishing, farming and ranching or energy production to receive a scholarship.
Explain why you want to take acting lessons: _______________________________________

Describe what you believe you’ll bring to yourself and your community, by taking acting lessons. ____________________________________________________________________________

Please provide an essay, describing how you will use your education to further educating consumers on the importance of Domestic Resource Production.
Your signature will be your commitment to speaking in behalf of Domestic Resource Production.
Signed _________________________________________________Date _______________
Guardian/Parent _____________________________________________________________

Scholarship Provider

Your scholarship has been approved and will be provided by: The Sylvester Foundation
Signature ___________________________________________________________________
You may send your thank you to:
Charles W. Sylvester Jr.
Sylvester Foundation
P.O. Box 155

LaSalle, CO 80645

Thursday, February 16, 2017


SPONSOR:        Lewis
BILL #:         HB 17-1141
SHORT TITLE:    Equal Protection From Fed Employee Personal Attack
DATE:           Wednesday, February 22, 2017
TIME:           01:30 PM
Good Morning,

You’re receiving this notice, because you’ve expressed interest in HB17-1141, the Equal Protection bill. Your interest is greatly appreciated. Thank you. 
The Equal Protection Bill will be a tremendous “equalizer” for ranchers on Federal lands, who have to deal with federal employees on a daily basis.
In reality, Equal Protection will help all Colorado citizens in a multitude of ways. Here are some:
I.R.S. agent overreaches the defines of his or her authority in investigating your taxes.  You, the taxpayer, would have immediate recourse.
EPA agent trespasses your property and starts charging you with regulatory violations, you, the property owner would have immediate recourse.
Federal employee wants to tie up your project with claims of such as Preble’s Jumping Mouse. You have the right to demand “Just Compensation” initiates - the minute they set foot on your property.
By statute, pre-existing rights to easements (trails/roads), forage, beneficial use of water and improvements will no longer be threatened by federal employees. Instead, they will be recognized and honored. Staying these rights will sustain opportunities to trail ride, hike, fish, camp, hunt, run livestock, and whatever else property owner gives permission to do.
Basically, any who would oppose HB 17-1141, knowingly wants federal employees to continue to subject unjust, unconstitutional, statute violating, costly actions against private citizens.
Your testimony, citing your situation, will sturdy up argument to pass HB 17-1141.
We look forward to seeing you and hearing your testimony on February 22nd. Let's get Equal Protection passed into law! 
Thank you,
Charles W. and Ronita M. Sylvester
Please support the Equal Protection From Federal Employee Personal Attack.
Please ask your organization to support Equal Protection. 
If you have been subjected to a personal attack by a Federal Employee, please consider testifying February 22nd. 
Please tell your story and bring evidence as to how their actions cost you personally. 
Thank you Representative Lewis, for sponsoring Equal Protection From Federal Employee Personal Attack.  
Roni Bell Sylvester 
Testimonies will be heard - 1:30 p.m. February 22, 2017 Colorado Capitol 

                             NOTICE OF HEARING

SPONSOR:        Lewis

BILL #:         HB17-1141

SHORT TITLE:    Equal Protection From Fed Employee Personal Attack

DATE:           Wednesday, February 22, 2017

TIME:           01:30 PM
Full draft attached: 

Concerning the malicious deprivation of constitutional rights by a federal employee related to public lands.
LAST ACTION: 02/1/2017 | Introduced In House - Assigned to State, Veterans, & Military Affairs
SPONSORS: Rep. K. Lewis
2017 Regular Session
The bill makes it illegal for a person who is a federal employee acting under color of law to take any action:
  • That deprives a range allotment owner of any property right appurtenant, inherent, or related to the range allotment, including the right to possess, use, dispose of, exclude other from, or defend the range allotment; and
  • For which the deprivation offends due process or is a physical or regulatory taking without the payment of just compensation.
A violation is an unclassified felony punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. An owner who suffers a loss as a result of the person's actions also has a civil right of action to recover damages.
Please print out the attached copy of HB 17- 1141.
For your convenience though, we’ve also cut and pasted:
First Regular Session Seventy-first General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO DRAFT LLS NO. 17-0494.01 Michael Dohr x4347 HOUSE BILL House Committees Senate Committees A BILL FOR AN ACT 101 CONCERNING THE MALICIOUS DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL 102 RIGHTS BY A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RELATED TO PUBLIC LANDS. Bill Summary (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at The bill makes it illegal for a person who is a federal employee acting under color of law to take any action: ! That deprives a range allotment owner of any property right appurtenant, inherent, or related to the range allotment, including the right to possess, use, dispose of, exclude other from, or defend the range allotment; and HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Lewis, SENATE SPONSORSHIP (None), Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute. REDRAFT 1.30.17 Double underlining denotes changes from ! For which the deprivation offends due process or is a prior draft physical or regulatory taking without the payment of just compensation. A violation is an unclassified felony punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. An owner who suffers a loss as a result of the person's actions also has a civil right of action to recover damages. 1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 2 SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly 3 finds that: 4 (a) The livestock sector of the agriculture industry of the state is 5 a critical and significant portion of the agriculture industry of the state 6 and necessary for the continued health, prosperity, and well-being of the 7 people of the state; and 8 (b) A significant number of livestock within the state spend a 9 significant part of their lives on federal range lands. 10 (2) The general assembly further finds that: 11 (a) The United States supreme court has held that stockwater 12 rights, range rights, right-of-ways, and improvements appurtenant to or 13 associated with range allotments are property rights worthy of protection 14 under the fifth amendment of the United States constitution; and 15 (b) Federal employees are required by the fifth amendment and 16 executive order 12630 to consider the takings implications of their 17 decisions and actions on the property rights of ranch or range allotment 18 owners before taking those actions. 19 (3) The general assembly declares that this act is necessary to 20 preserve public safety and welfare. 21 SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 18-8-410 as 22 follows: -2- DRAFT REDRAFT 1.30.17 Double underlining denotes changes from 1 18-8-410. Malicious deprivation of prior draft constitutional rights. (1) A 2 PERSON WHO IS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW 3 COMMITS DEPRIVATION OF A RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER'S 4 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THE PERSON TAKES ANY ACTION: 5 (a) THAT DEPRIVES THAT RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER OF ANY 6 PROPERTY RIGHT APPURTENANT, INHERENT, OR RELATED TO THE RANGE 7 ALLOTMENT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO POSSESS, USE, DISPOSE OF, 8 EXCLUDE OTHER FROM, OR DEFEND THE RANGE ALLOTMENT; AND 9 (b) FOR WHICH THE DEPRIVATION OFFENDS DUE PROCESS OR IS A 10 PHYSICAL OR REGULATORY TAKING WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF JUST 11 COMPENSATION. 12 (2) A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHO COMMITS DEPRIVATION OF A 13 RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS DEEMED TO BE 14 ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ANY FEDERALLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY 15 AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF ANY FEDERAL IMMUNITY 16 FROM PROSECUTION, AND THE EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO BOTH A CIVIL 17 ACTION AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE. 18 (3) A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS PUNISHABLE AS AN 19 UNCLASSIFIED FELONY CARRYING A FINE OF UP TO FIVE HUNDRED 20 THOUSAND DOLLARS AND UP TO FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, FOR 21 EACH SEPARATE OFFENSE. 22 (4) A PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED PURSUANT TO 23 SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION HAS A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION 24 AGAINST THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATED SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS 25 SECTION AND IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES. 26 SECTION 3. Potential appropriation. Pursuant to section 27 2-2-703, C.R.S., any bill that results in a net increase in periods of -3- DRAFT REDRAFT 1.30.17 Double underlining denotes changes from 1 prior draft imprisonment in state correctional facilities must include an appropriation 2 of money that is sufficient to cover any increased capital construction, any 3 operational costs, and increased parole costs that are the result of the bill 4 for the department of corrections in each of the first five years following 5 the effective date of the bill. Because this act may increase periods of 6 imprisonment, this act may require a five-year appropriation. 7

Friday, February 10, 2017

WANTED - Cost of Bureaucrat Control

An economist/mathematician/accountant - who will voluntarily gather and provide us what it "costs to do business with government(s)" - aka "Bureaucrat Control."
Bureaucrat Control costs accrued to private parties first, include: 
1) Down time costs accrued when called away from work to attend government hearings/meetings etc. Costs would include hiring someone to finish calving, haying, whatever; meals; fuel; possibly motel and photo copies. 
2) Re-do business practices to accommodate an alleged threatened species.
3) Construction, earth moving, tree planting, delayed or stop construction to accommodate an alleged threatened specie.
4) Addressing threats by government employees; would include attorney/accountant etc. fees.
5) Housing excess feral horses.
6) Cut in A.U.M's.
7) Additional paper work (includes employee and your time) due to attempts to comply with regulations.
You get the gist.
Then we need the cost to a county and state government's in trying to wade through unconstitutional regulations - such as and including EPA. Example: Presently, to protect Colorado from the very rogue EPA, our Attorney General has had to file suits. At what cost?
Or - if there are existing records on the cost of Bureaucrat Control, we'd be grateful for them! 

Monday, February 6, 2017


The hidden agendas of sustainability illusions

Absurd, impractical sustainability precepts are actually a prescription for government control

By Paul Driessen

As President Trump downgrades the relevance of Obama era climate change and anti-fossil fuel policies, many environmentalists are directing attention to “sustainable development.”
Like “dangerous manmade climate change,” sustainability reflects poor understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction and manufacturing principles – and a tendency to emphasize tautologies and theoretical models as an alternative to readily observable evidence in the Real World. It also involves well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists who use the concept to gain greater government control over people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards.
The most common definition is that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources, and must reduce current needs and wants so as to save raw materials for future generations.
At first blush, it sounds logical and even ethical. But it requires impossible clairvoyance.
In 1887, when the Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit via hydroelectric power, no one did or could foresee that electricity would dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. Decades later, no one anticipated pure silica fiber optic cables replacing copper wires.
No one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing power than a 1990 desktop computer or 3-D printing or thousands of wind turbines across our fruited plains – or cadmium, rare earth metals and other raw materials suddenly required to manufacture these technological wonders.
Mankind advanced at a snail’s pace for thousands of years. As the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up at an increasingly breathtaking pace. Today, change is exponential. As we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so on. We did it because we innovated – invented something better, more efficient or practical. Each advance required different raw materials.
Who today can foresee what technologies future generations will have 25, 50 or 200 years from now? What raw materials they will need? How we are supposed to ensure that those families meet their needs?
Why then would we even think of empowering government to regulate today’s activities today based on the wholly unpredictable technologies, lifestyles, needs, and resource demands of distant generations? Why would we ignore or compromise the needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs – including the needs of today’s most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished people, who desperately want to improve their lives?
Moreover, we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon. A 1-kilometer fiber optic cable made from 45 pounds of silica (Earth’s most abundant element) carries thousands of times more information than an equally long RG-6 cable made from 3,600 pounds of copper, reducing demand for copper.
In 1947, the world’s proven oil reserves totaled 47 billion barrels. Over the next 70 years, we consumed hundreds of billions of barrels – and yet, in 2016 we still had at least 2,800 billion barrels of oil reserves, including oil sands, oil shales and other unconventional deposits: at least a century’s worth, plus abundant natural gas. Constantly improving technologies now let us find and produce oil and natural gas from deposits that we could not even detect, much less tap into, just a couple decades ago.
Sustainability dogma also revolves around hatred of fossil fuels, and a determination to rid the world of them, regardless of any social, economic or environmental costs of doing so. And we frequently find that supposedly green, eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives are frequently anything but.
U.S. ethanol quotas eat up 40% of the nation’s corn, cropland the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, and vast quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, tractor fuel and natural gas, to produce energy that drives up food prices, damages small engines and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline.
Heavily subsidized wind energy requires standby fossil fuel generators, ultra-long transmission lines and thus millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass. The turbines create chronic health problems for people living near them and kill millions of birds and bats – to produce intermittent, wholly unreliable electricity that costs up to 250% more than coal-based electricity. For all that, on a torrid August 2012 day, Great Britain’s 3,500 giant wind turbines generated a mere 12 megawatts of electricity: 0.032% of the 38,000 MW the country was using at the time. The United Kingdom also subsidizes several huge anaerobic digesters, intended to convert animal manure and other farm waste into eco-friendly methane for use in generating electricity. But there is insufficient farm waste. So the digesters are fed with corn (maize), grass and rye grown on 130,000 acres (four times the size of Washington, DC), using enormous amounts of water, fertilizer – and of course diesel fuel to grow, harvest and transport the crops to the digesters. Why not just drill and frack for natural gas?
That brings us to the political arena, where the terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic, the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.
The Club of Rome sought to build a new movement by creating “a common enemy against whom we can unite” – allegedly looming disasters “caused by human intervention in natural processes” and requiring “changed attitudes and behavior” to avoid global calamities: global warming and resource depletion.
“Building an environmentally sustainable future requires restricting the global economy, dramatically changing human reproductive behavior, and altering values and lifestyles,” said Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown. “Doing this quickly requires nothing short of a revolution.”
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable,” Canadian arch-environmentalist Maurice Strong declared.
“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change,” former Vice President Al Gore asserted – “these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” Environmental activist Daniel Sitarz agreed, saying: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions intended to be implemented by every person on Earth. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”
“Sustainable development,” the National Research Council declaimed in a 2011 report, “raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy, including how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls.” In fact, said Obama science advisor John Holdren, we cannot even talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power, and control. Especially control.
Of course, the activists, politicians and regulators feel little pain, as they enjoy salaries and perks paid by taxpayers and foundations, fly to UN and other conferences at posh 5-star resorts around the world, and implement agendas that control, redesign and transform other people’s lives.
It is We the Governed – especially working class and poor citizens – who pay the price, with the world’s poorest families paying the highest price. We can only hope the Trump Administration and Congress will dismantle and defund sustainable development, the alter ego of cataclysmic manmade climate change. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( ), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.


Blog Archive