Land And Water U.S.A.

Monday, April 15, 2019



Shouldn't we, as American citizens be insisting our government cease and desist from engaging in activity(ies) that for anyone else would be considered un-Constitutional?

By Michael McCune

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested last week in England after the Ecuador embassy there ended his seven-year sanctuary stay. His arrest led to a seemingly non-stop assault from the District of Corruption to hasten the extradition order to the U.S. so the man can face hacking charges.

I am no fan of Assange nor am I an opponent, but the lopsided assault on the man gave me pause to consider some ethical details.

The most egregious charge against Assange was "he hacked into our government computer system and stole information." This 'information' put American lives and American informants' lives at risk but what it also showed is the U.S. government definitely engaged in activities that, for any other country or person on the planet, it itself would classify as "illegal" and prosecute them for to the full extent of the law.  Fair for the goose should be fair for the gander.

There are a couple of legal questions that the District of Corruption has deftly avoided simply because nobody in the free press has had the guts to ask them.

Assange, whether you agree with his politics or not, seems to have disrupted a government penchant for putting and trusting anything and everything on computers--including top secret items. Those in government have effectively forfeited their right to "secrecy" if they put that information on a worldwide web of communication in order to share that information. If you wanted some legally questionable activity to remain anonymous, you shouldn't trust it to the safekeeping of a system that offers millions of outlets.

There is a more troublesome aspect of the Assange/Wikileaks affair that has been nicely slid under the radar and for which I believe those in the District of Corruption will be answerable for if they try to prosecute for hacking. For the past three years Americans have witnessed a continual assault on the current Administration for nefarious activities in the 2016 election. Few, if any, who supported the Clinton campaign in the same election want to discuss what Assange found out about definitive illegal campaign activities by their darling.

On the day of the election, Nov. 8, 2016, Assange released a report on the 2016 election cycle. It began, "In recent months, Wikileaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign's allies, including the Obama Administration [probably including all the intelligence agencies] and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected U.S. President." 

He continued, "The right to receive and impart true information [emphasis mine] is the guiding principle of Wikileaks...Our organization defends the public's right to be informed."

Oh! the horrors that could be unleashed for the District of Corruption if the American public was to know the true facts about things that have been happening with regularity in domestic and foreign arenas because of our incompetent political leaders.

Hacking may or may not have been part of what enabled Assange to release information DC wanted kept quiet. But in some cases--like Chelsea, nee Bradley, Manning's own hacking efforts that Assange exploited where's the crime when Manning committed the act and was pardoned?

Assange, by DC standards, is guilty of the same thing the Trump campaign was guilty of--collusion with Russia. But there is a difficult aspect to the charges that, if DC has proof, is not likely to see the light of day simply because of the convoluted manner in which DC has classified that information. How will the prosecution prove Assange hacked into its system without demonstrating--publicly without a chance at protecting secrecy--that Assange hacked its system? Simply being in possession of such information is not proof of guilt.

If passing along information gained from outside sources without the passer committing an illegal act is now defined as criminal we can kiss the First Amendment, if not all the Constitution, good-bye. If that is the case, that's where the true colors of the District of Corruption will be shown. The single charge made public thus far is that Assange "conspired with with Manning to crack a password on a DoD computer" in 2010.

Assange, by most descriptions, is a self-centered man. But aren't we all to some extent? Is he a creep? Probably. Do I like him? Unequivocally, NO. But I have to respect a man who has the courage to put himself in harm's way of any government by releasing information that government wanted kept secret. Assange's release of CIA technical spying documents in March 2017 that showed hi-tech televisions could serve as a government listening device, even when turned off, was damning for our alleged "protectors of the Constitution." 

Added to that fact the DC crowd is upset that Wikileaks published a video of an American airstrike that killed citizens in Iraq along with military information about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and Clinton-era State Department messages. But if journalism is going to be defined by pleasing the Swamp, the free has to be removed from our description of the press in the Constitution. 

When that happens, we truly are no better than any banana republic out there and our holier-than-thou government Swamp should be expunged completely just to make sure all the rats are homeless as well.

Our government should be more interested in finding out how to protect its top secret material from moles like Assange. But as American citizens we should be insisting our government cease and desist from engaging in activity(ies) that for anyone else would be considered un-Constitutional. If we do not then our corrupt government will continue to grow.and the only people we can blame is the nimrod in the mirror. 
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility towards every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, April 7, 2019


Aurelia Skipwith

Fish & Wildlife Service director nominee joins hundreds of others in confirmation limbo
by Paul Driessen
Aurelia Skipwith has a BS in biology from Howard University, a Master’s in molecular genetics from Purdue and a law degree from Kentucky. She has worked as a molecular analyst and sustainable agriculture partnership manager. She was also co-founder and general counsel for AVC Global, a Washington, DC-based agricultural supply chain development company that helps small farmers link up with multinational buyers and with agronomy, business, financial and other service providers.
For two years, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Interior Department, where she performed her duties so well that last October President Trump nominated her to become the next Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) at Interior. She is an ideal candidate for the post.
She’s also only the third woman ever nominated for this position – and the first African American. Her impeccable scientific, legal, agricultural and conservationist background would ensure fairness, balance, integrity, solid science and multidisciplinary thinking in FWS decision making.
And yet, Ms. Skipwith lingers in confirmation limbo, along with hundreds of others whose nominations have been stalled for many months to well over a year. Too many Democrat senators appear determined to prevent the president from having people onboard who would implement his policies.
In fact, the US Senate has already been forced to hold cloture votes – ending drawn-out debates – on 128 Trump nominees! In glaring contrast, the Senate had a grand total of only 24 such cloture votes for all six previous presidents combined: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II and Obama! That’s 32 times more nominees by this president sidelined by Congress than during all ten previous presidential terms.
Why is Ms. Skipwith being treated this way? It appears to be simple ideological politics. Senate Democrats seem to be acquiescing to the demands of Deep Green environmentalists and Deep State career bureaucrats who hate having their views, policies and agendas challenged.
Her molecular analysis and sustainable agriculture work were with Monsanto, the ultimate Evil Corporation to many of her opponents, because it manufactures both Roundup weedkiller and genetically engineered (GE) crops like Bt corn and Roundup-Ready soybeans. As Deputy Assistant Secretary, Ms. Skipwith supported reversing Obama era bans on planting such crops and using advanced-technology neonicotinoid pesticides in wildlife refuges administered by Fish & Wildlife.
The 2014 bans resulted from collusive sue-and-settle lawsuits between environmentalist groups and Obama DOI officials. They were reversed in August 2018, following a careful review process. As I have noted in many articles (here, here and here, for example), GE crops, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) and neonics are safe for humans and the environment. They also enable farmers to produce more food from less land, using less water and fewer pesticides, and with greater resistance to droughts, floods, insects and climate change, than is possible with conventional or organic crops.
Genetically engineered crops promote sustainable agriculture and help the world feed billions who otherwise face prolonged malnutrition and starvation. And yet, radical greens oppose them. They even attack Golden Rice, which prevents blindness and death in malnourished children and parents, by incorporating genes that produce Vitamin A precursors, vastly expanding nutritional values in rice.
Americans alone have consumed more than four trillion servings of foods with at least one GE ingredient – without a single documented example of harm to a person or the environment.
Regarding glyphosate, only one agency, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), says the chemical is “probably carcinogenic” to humans – and its analysis is tainted by fraud and blatant conflicts of interest. Studies by the European Food Safety Authority, Food and Agriculture Organization,
Germany’s Institute for Risk Assessment, Australia’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and other respected organizations worldwide have concluded that glyphosate is safe and non-carcinogenic.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists conducted a “comprehensive systematic review of studies submitted to the agency and available in the open literature,” and concluded that the chemical “is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.” Health Canada conducted a similarly extensive review of global studies, found no likely cancer risk, and noted that “no pesticide regulatory authority in the world” believes glyphosate is a cancer risk to humans “at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.” As cancer researcher Arthur Lambert noted recently, “exposure to carcinogens influences the risk of developing cancer, which is a function of many factors, including the dose and duration of the exposure” – to glyphosate for example. But other factors also play integral roles, including inherited genes and genetic mutations, how well one’s immune system can find and eliminate mutated cells before they develop into cancer, personal lifestyle choices, and exposure to additional carcinogens over the years. Separating all those factors is virtually impossible.
Risks associated with glyphosate fall “somewhere between the small hazard that comes from eating a considerable amount of bacon (for colorectal cancer) and consuming very hot tea (for esophageal cancer),” Lambert notes. In fact, IARC lumps bacon, sunlight and plutonium together in its “definitely carcinogenic” category and lists as “possible” carcinogens pickled vegetables, caffeic acid found in many fruits and vegetables, and even drinking hot beverages or working the night shift.
If glyphosate poses few risks of cancer in humans, its threats to ducks, geese, turkeys and other animals in wildlife refuges are likely infinitesimal. The same is true for GE crops and neonicotinoid pesticides.
Most neonics are used as seed coatings, which get absorbed into plant tissues as crops grow. They protect plants against insect damage by targeting only pests that actually feed on the crops – and are largely gone by the time mature plants flower, which means they are barely detectable in pollen and don’t harm bees. As to claims that neonics harm bees and thus should be banned from wildlife refuges, a 2015 international study of wild bees found that most wild bees never even come into contact with crops or the neonics that supposedly threaten them. The same study also determined that the 2% of wild bees that do visit crops – and so would be most exposed to these pesticides – are among the healthiest bee species on Earth. The eight senators who recently expressed concern that chlorpyrifos and other pesticides threaten multiple protected species should applaud Interior’s reversal of bans on modern agricultural technologies (which reduce the use of such pesticides). Ducks Unlimited and the National Wild Turkey Federation certainly did.
The bans “were clearly not based on science,” they said, adding that the reversal restored GE crop use as an “essential tool” for waterfowl and wildlife management in national wildlife refuges. Many refuges were established along migratory bird flyways to provide food for waterfowl. But some can provide sufficient food only through cooperative agreements that let local farmers plant crops on refuge lands in exchange for leaving some of their crops unharvested, to supplement natural food on the refuge. Genetically modified crops maximize crop yields, the FWS has explained, and “a blanket denial” of their use limits the latitude that refuge managers need to fulfill the purposes of each refuge. The ban on neonics was equally problematical because they are often used with GE crops and Roundup.
Aurelia Skipwith’s actions reflect the best in science-based (government decision making. Her broad expertise enables her to separate fact from fiction, and reality from ideological agendas. She is the right person for this job – and indeed may turn out to be one of the best FWS directors ever. Now that Mitch McConnell has reformed Senate rules to end Democrat obstruction, responsible senators should confirm her forthwith – along with the rest of President Trump’s nominees. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of many articles on the environment. He has degrees in geology, ecology and environmental law.

Friday, April 5, 2019

VETO SB19-181

Dear Governor Jared Polis, A.G. Weiser, Legislators, 

Review of SB19-181 found 38 pages of regulations. It fails to disclose a singular subject law. Please provide the public the singular subject law you passed. In other words, tell us the legislation you expect Governor Jared Polis to sign into law.  
Because SB19-181 is based on "where wells 'will' go," we assume Gas, Oil and Mineral production sites (wells) that pre-date SB19-18 are exempt; and that only production sites (wells) that postdate SB-181 will be impact.
Regardless pre-date or postdate, as Owners of Gas, Oil and Mineral Rights (Property), we do request your final, definitive position regarding how SB19-181 will apply any of its regulations to our Property.
For our records, Property Owner asks A.G. Phil Weiser to review SB19-181 and notation each regulation whether it violates *The Doctrine of Retroactivity and Prospectivity or the *Fifth Amendment.
We gently remind Governor Jared Polis and the General Assembly, that should SB19-181 become law, any regulation within that denies Property Owner economically viable use of Property, encumbers, devaluates, damages, takes, needlessly disturbs, jeopardizes Property,  said action will be recognized as "takings without just compensation."  We are prepared to exhaust any possibilities for obtaining compensation from legislators on record for their Yay vote, the state of Colorado and its courts. 
Please be aware of *Section 40:  SB19-181 has potential for market manipulation. It’s likely there are parties looking to purchase shares SB19-181 will devaluate. Upon dissolution of SB19-181 - or portions that lift encumbrances, they may be able to sell those shares at a premium.  
If legislators are sincerely concerned about "public welfare, protections, etc." a better bill, a single subject bill should be: 
Full Disclosure of Gas, Oil and Mineral Rights: A bill concerning full disclosure of Gas, Oil and Mineral rights by property sellers. Seller must disclose the existence of "preexisting Gas, Oil and Mineral Rights" that may be exercised at any time and are within (say) 1 mile of property to be sold. Upon purchase of property, buyer waives any rights they may or may not have to sue, protest or otherwise disrupt Gas, Oil and Mineral owner rights to exercise.  Seller's failure to disclose would result in appropriate penalties...​
We encourage Governor Polis to veto SB19-181. 
We encourage this Colorado General Assembly 2019, to immediately draft the very simple Full Disclosure bill and pass it. Full Disclosure would protect Communities and Property Owners at no cost to taxpayers and no loss to Property Owners.  
Thank you,

Charles W. and Ronita M. Sylvester 
Weld County, CO 

*Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." Often when the government regulates the use of a person's property, the effect on the particular person is adverse.

*The Doctrine of “Retroactivity and Prospectivity” is made clear in the Act of July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 635 codified at: 1 U.S.C. § 111. Repeals as evidence of prior effectiveness, “No inference shall be raised by the enactment of the Act of March 3, 1933 (ch. 202, 47 Stat. 1431), that the sections of the Revised Statutes repealed by such Act were in force or effect at the time of such enactment: Provided, however, That any rights or liabilities existing under such repealed sections shall not be affected by their repeal.”
In layperson's language; one cannot go backwards and extinguish a pre-existing right of property.

Though a law may be repealed, one cannot repeal those rights acquired under a previous law.
Article V Legislative Department 
*Section 40. Bribery and influence in General Assembly
Article V Legislative Department
Section 43. Member interested shall not vote. A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the General Assembly, shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.
Article IV Executive Department
Sec. 11. Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor. If he approve, he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall return it, with his objections…(and so on).

*record: Senators:  Jeff Bridges, Lois Court, Jesse Danielson, Kerry Donovan, Stephen Fenberg, Ronda Fields, Mike Foote, Joann Ginal, Julie Gonzales, Kevin Grantham, Lee Sanford, Dominick Moreno, Robert Rodriquez, Tammy Story, Faith Winter, Nancy Todd, Angela Williams, Rachel Zenzinger, Brittany Pettersen. Representatives: Jonathan Singer, Jeni Arndt, Jon Becker, Adrienne Benavidez, Shannon Bird, Janet Buchner, Yadira Caraveo, Lisa Cutter, Monica Duran, Tony Exum, Meghan Froelich, Rochelle Galindo, Alec Garnett, Serena Gutierrez, Emily Sirota, Marc Soper, Tom Sullivan, Kerry Tipper, Matt Gray, Chris Hansen, Leslie Herod, Edie Hooton, Dominique Jackson, Sonya Lewis, Chris Kennedy, Cathy Kipp, Tracy Tharp, Julie McCluskie, Barbara Hall, Jovan Emerson, Jenet Michaelson, Kyle Mullica, Dylan Roberts, Alex Valdez, Mike Weissman. 

Bill and Fiscal Note 


SB19- 181.  
This bill violates  "Section 21 of article V of the Colorado Constitution requires that the subject matter of a bill be "clearly expressed in its title..." and that the bill contain only one subject. The title must also state the purpose of the bill. This means the title must accurately reflect the substance of the bill without being so broad as to violate the Constitution's single-subject requirement." ​
The subject > CONCERNING ADDITIONAL (more than one subject) PUBLIC WELFARE (ambiguous) PROTECTIONS (more than one subject) REGARDING 101 THE CONDUCT (ambiguous) OF OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS (too broad). ​
This bill is a list of new regulations; not a singular law. ​
"The bill enhances local governments' ability to protect public health, safety, and welfare and the environment by clarifying, reinforcing, and establishing their regulatory authority over the surface impacts of oil and gas development. Current law specifies that local governments have so-called "House Bill 1041" powers, which are a type of land use authority over oil..."​
This is redundant, for "local" - i.e. county -  government's already have such authority. What is the sponsors definition of "enhances?"​
Additionally, because there are no inclusions respective of honoring and exercising of "preexisting" Gas Oil and Mineral Rights, SB 181 is in reality, a violation of private property rights... known in our Colorado State Constitution as "Takings without just compensation." ​


Blog Archive