+menu-


  • Category Archives How Complicated is it?
  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    I received email notification because I am an interested party (since Jan 26, 2011).  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017).

    Clallam County Commissioners, Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach, You are receiving this email because you are elected Clallam County representatives and you SHALL be deciding the fate of vested, voting, taxpaying, Shoreline private property owners on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. OVER 600  PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    LET’S START WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP REVISED REVISIONS

    2014-2017

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    ————————————————————————————-

    A complete list of Clallam County DOE SMP UPDATE PUBLIC  comments 2010-2012

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…Jul 3, 2012TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected on the block to step up to the plate.

    PLEASE SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know how the 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall  impacted  you and your property. Below is their contact information:

    ——————————————————————————

    Indeed, elected in 2014, DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn,. The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive …

    Director of Community Development

    Mary Ellen Winborn
    mwinborn@co.clallam.wa.us
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles Washington 98362
    360-417-2321

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/03/wa-doe-amending-the-smasmp/

    Mar 3, 2017 – Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S … Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

     

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    PLEASE SEND YOU COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know the impacts that this 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall have on you and your property.

    Contact information:

    County Commissioners

    Mark Ozias, District 1
    mozias@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Randy Johnson, District 2
    rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Bill Peach, District 3
    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Not one of the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How many of the 624 SMP  public comments have Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach actually read?

    And, how many of the 624 SMP Public comments have been shoved under the rug, through the combined efforts of ESAAdolfson  SMP Consultant Margaret Clancy (between 2012 and 2017)  and Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Clallam County Dept. of Community Development using after the fact cut off dates for public comment et al,  and  a matrix system?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected commissioners, participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected, on the block, to step up to the plate.

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…

    Jul 3, 2012 – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012. Available on Clallam County …

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

    http://www.clallam.net/realestate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

    I will complete the comments on #1 to #99 and document the pros and cons.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    July:
    ·    070212 – RKonopaski – G
    ·    #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?
    June:
    ·    062312 – ESpees – G
    ·    175-150 + 10 foot setbacks
    ·    061712 – PHewett – G
    ·    DOE private meeting
    ·    061412 – PHewett – G
    ·    Futurewise and Grays Harbor
    ·    061412 – PHewett – SED
    ·    WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?
    ·    061112 – PHewett – G
    ·    See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks
    ·    060912 – PHewett – G
    ·    25 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).
    ·    060712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law
    ·    060312 – ESpees – G
    ·    #276 public access to our shorelines
    May:
    ·    053012 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL
    ·    052912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #274 COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712
    ·    052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft
    ·    #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029,
    ·    052212 – JBlazer – SED
    ·    #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.
    ·    052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft
    ·    #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from
    ·    private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.
    ·    051712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #270 SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    ·    051612 – PHewett – PPS
    ·    #269 SMP Public Forum participation
    ·    051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft
    ·    #268 SMP references to sea level rise
    ·    051212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM MAY 10, 2012
    ·    051212 – KNorman – SED
    ·    #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.
    ·    051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft
    ·    #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.
    ·    050812 – EBowen – G20
    ·    #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report
    ·    050812 – WFlint – SED
    ·    #263 The Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.
    ·    050812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.
    ·    050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft
    ·    #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.
    ·    050612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditors Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditors office for Public Record?
    ·    050512 – ESpees – G
    ·    #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.
    ·    050412 – LMuench – G
    ·    #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.
    ·    050412 – ESpees – G
    ·    #257 The ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!
    ·    050412 – PHewett – G
    ·    #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.
    ·    050312 – JBettcher – G
    ·    #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.
    ·    050212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #254 REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    April:
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #253 FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #251 No. 87053-5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ·    042612 – PHewett -G
    ·    #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    042112 – Spees – G
    ·    #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.
    ·    042112 – PHewett – G
    ·    #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    041812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #247 The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.
    ·    041712 – Port of PA – G
    ·    #246 Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’
    March:
    ·    032912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.
    ·    032612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.
    ·    032512 – PHewett – G20
    ·    #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)
    ·    032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft
    ·    #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.
    ·    032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G
    ·    #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP comments, testimony, tables and reviews
    ·    032112 – OEC – SMPdraft
    ·    #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….
    ·    031712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #239 PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD
    ·    031412 – MBarry – G
    ·    #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions
    ·    030912 – PHewett – G/NNL
    ·    #237 Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)
    ·    030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft
    ·    #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property
    ·    030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft
    ·    #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing
    ·    030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft
    ·    #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).
    ·    030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft
    ·    #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.
    ·    With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.
    ·    030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft
    ·    #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.
    February:
    ·    022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft
    ·    #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areaslocated within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined bydepartment of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program
    ·    022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue
    ·    #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.
    ·    022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft
    ·    #227 TRIBAL comment
    January:
    ·    010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED
    ·    #226 TRIBAL comment

    SMP Comments 2011:
    December:
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #225 WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf
    ·    120711 -OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G
    ·    #223 Sea level  rise and climate change
    ·    120611 – WDOE- ICR20
    ·    #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization
    November:
    ·    113011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.
    ·    112511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.
    ·    112411 – ESpees – G
    ·    #219 It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.
    ·    111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED
    ·    #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.
    ·    111111 – JPetersen – SED
    ·    #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.
    ·    111011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”
    ·    110611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW
    ·    110511 – ESpees – NNL
    ·    #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.
    ·    110511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.
    ·    110511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.
    ·    110311 – WDFW – ICR
    ·    #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.
    ·
    October:
    ·    103111 – WDOE – ICR
    ·    #204  Not a copy format
    ·    103111 – JLarson – ICR
    ·    #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?
    ·    101911 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.
    ·    101811 – JEstes – G
    ·    #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to
    ·    further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.
    ·    101711 – PHewett – G
    ·     #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.
    ·    101711 – WSP – ICR20
    ·    #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011
    ·    101111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?
    ·    100811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science
    ·    100611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?
    No b comment for #193?
    ·    100411 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.
    ·    100311 – JTatom – G
    ·    #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions
    ·    of our “privately” owned property.
    ·    100111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?
    September:
    ·    092611 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.
    ·    092511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #188 Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland
    There is no #187  public comment?
    ·    092211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,
    ·    that is the problem.
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”
    ·    092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #183 Tribal comment
    ·    091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #182 Tribal comment
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011
    ·    090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR
    ·    #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and
    ·    Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.
    ·    090211 – ESpees – G
    ·    #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext
    August:
    ·    083111 – WDNR – ICR
    ·    #175 Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may
    ·    encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.
    ·    083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.
    ·    083111 – JLWisecup – G
    ·    #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.
    ·    083111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that
    ·    are out of control.
    ·    083111 – ESpees -G
    ·    171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.
    ·    082811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?
    ·    082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps
    ·    #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.
    ·    082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR
    ·    #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.
    ·    082511 – DAbbott – G
    ·    #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.
    ·    082411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.
    There is no comment#164
    There is no comment #163
    ·    081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.
    ·    There is no comment #161
    ·
    ·    081011 – WSP – ICR
    ·    #160 not able to copy
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #159
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #158
    ·
    ·    080511 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #157 Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #156
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #155
    ·
    ·    080111 – FutureWise – ICR
    ·    #154 The Sierra Club
    July:
    ·    072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR
    ·    #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist
    There is not comment #152
    ·    072211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?
    ·    The State owns all rainwater?
    ·    072011 – CCPlCom – ICR
    ·    #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that intended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.
    There is no comment #149
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature
    ·    072011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)
    ·    Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several
    ·    072011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR20
    ·    #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber
    ·    071711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS
    ·    071711 – ESpees – G
    ·    #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’
    ·    071211 – TSimpson – ICR
    ·    #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #139 COLD ENOUGH?Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and
    ·    the full identity of EVERY contaminator.
    ·    071111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.
    ·
    ·    No comment # 134
    ·    No comment #133
    ·    No Comment #132

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.
    June:
    ·    062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20
    ·     #131 She was very concerned about any
    ·    potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.
    ·    062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20
    ·    #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.
    ·    062411 – DMansfield – G20
    ·    #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property
    ·    062411 – PCWidden – G20
    ·    #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.
    No comment #127
    ·    062011 – JEstes – G
    ·    #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified
    No Comment # 125
    ·    060611 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #124 local DOE
    ·    060611 – PortofPA – CR
    ·    #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT
    ·    060411 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat
    ·    060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR
    ·    #121 Tribal Comment
    ·    060311 – HBell – CR
    ·    #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241
    ·    060311 – WSP – CR
    ·    #119 State Park comment
    ·    060311 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #118 Local DOE
    ·    060311 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden
    ·    060211 – RCrittenden – CR
    ·    #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.
    ·    060211 – JEstes – CR
    ·    #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated
    ·    need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.
    ·    060211 – SForde – G
    ·    #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: None – in fact, you are violating them.
    ·    060211 – QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #113 Tribal comment
    ·    060211 – CRogers – CR
    ·    #112 -Page 4 typo error
    ·    060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #111 Tribal comment
    ·    060111 – AStevenson – CR
    ·    #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process
    No comment #108
    ·    060111 – PHewett – G #107
    ·    TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.
    ·    060111 – MTWalker – G
    ·    #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #105 Tribes Not Affected
    May:
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.
    ·    053111 – MGentry – G
    ·    #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.
    ·    053111 – PHewett – G / CR
    ·    #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack
    ·    052911 – ESpees – G
    ·    052911 – PHewett – G
    ·    052811 – ESpees – G
    ·    052811 – RHale – G
    ·    052711 – ESpees – G
    ·    052711 – PHewett – G
    ·    052611 – MGentry – G
    ·    052111 – PHewett – G
    ·    051811 – JPetersen – CR
    ·    051811 – NOTAC – CR
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051011 – TSummer – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – G
    April:
    ·    042611 – ESpees – G
    ·    042311 – MBlack – G
    ·    042011 – KAhlburg – G
    ·    041811 – QuileuteNation – G
    ·    041411 – RColby – G
    ·    041411 – TSimpson – G
    ·    041211 – BBrennan – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – MGentry – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – RMorris – G
    ·    041111 – NMessmer – G
    ·    041011 – RMorris – G
    ·    04 –11- RMorris – G
    March:
    ·    031511- PHewett – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031411 – MGentry – G
    ·    031111- JWare – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    February:
    ·    021711 – MLangley – G
    ·    021511 – PHewett – G
    ·    020211 – RBrown – G
    January:
    ·    012611 – MBoutelle – G
    ·    012111 – CAbrass – G
    ·    011811 – DJones – G
    2010:
    ·    110810 – WDNR – G
    ·    080510 – PSP – G
    ·    031010 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030910 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030810 – LMuench – PPS
    ·    030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS
    ·    022410 – FutureWise – PPS
    ·    020910 – JMarrs – PPS
    2009:
    ·    120509 – DemComm – G

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

    Comments are closed.


  • In An Apparent Shell Game S.2012

    The bill in question is No. S.2012 -the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792 page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas

    ———————————————-

    Polson, Montana –September 14, 2016

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC,

    S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the  United States

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    ———————————————————————–

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    —————————————————————-

    snippet…

    It is understood that the Senate passed the Murkowski version without forestry measures in April 2016, while the U.S. House of Representatives passed a second version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures in May 2016,namely,H.R. 2647 –the Resilient Federal

    Forests Act of 2015. H.R. 2647 was sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (AR-R) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. It seems H.R. 2647 was incorporated within the House version of S.2012 via an amendment adding new Title VII as part of “Division B, Titles I-X”.1 On September 8, 2016, the two versions of House/Senate S.2012 were submitted to a Congressional conference committee to be reconciled for ultimate passage by both chambers and signature into law by President Obama.

    ———————————————–

    DON’T WAIT UNTIL S.2012 IS PASSED  BY CONGRESS, LIKE OBAMACARE, TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2016  

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    ————————————————————–

    WELL NOT REALLY…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST INFORM AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDING USURPATION’S of  S.2012

    THAN ON NOV 8, 2016 WE THE PEOPLE  VOTE FOR TRUMP.

    AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TRUMP PUTS AN END TO ALL OF THE SECRECY, SHADY BACKROOM DEALS, AND USURPATION OF OUR NATURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    ENDING A MASSIVE  NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT USURPATION’S

    By definition an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

    INCLUDING OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    —————————————————————-

    A UN and tribal takeover? – Canada Free Press

    canadafreepress.com/…/energybillshidden-tribal-forest-management-amp-other-pro

    2 days ago – Hidden provisions in congressional energy bills undermine America’s … of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States … shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

     

    By Lawrence Kogan —— Bio and Archives September 17, 2016

    A MASSIVE 792-PAGE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE BILL THREATENS TO AUTHORIZE FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS TO CEDE EXTENSIVE CONTROL OVER WESTERN STATE WATER AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND FOREST MANAGEMENT TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES, LOCAL UN SUSTAINABILITY COUNCILS AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS.

     CERTAIN PROVISIONS COULD UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR NATION FROM WITHIN OUR NATION.

    S.2012, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, incorporates some 393 amendments. Incredibly, it is being driven forward by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and other members of Congress behind closed doors. Probably very few have read the bill in its entirety. Virtually none understand its likely impacts on western and other rural land, water and property rights, potentially throughout America, or on the families and communities whose lives will be upended.

    This secretive approach—with no opportunities for meaningful public examination or comment, even by those who will be most affected—is almost unprecedented. It could well become another example of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” But numerous people will have to live with the consequences, while the authors and implementers walk away exempted, unscathed and unaccountable.

    The bill’s tribal government forest management provisions are extremely harmful and could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States Constitutional Rights consortium emphasizes. Indeed, the pending legislation is itself unconstitutional, as explained in a legal memorandum the consortium sent to 13 members of Congress.

    This Montana-based nonprofit was formed to safeguard the property rights of farmers, ranchers and other land and business owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. WSCR members live on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and in other parts of northwestern Montana. But their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States. It has a long, hard road ahead on these issues.

    The apparent “shell game” is likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and confuse people. In fact, Congress is quietly considering two versions: a Senate-passedMurkowski version without forestry measures and a House of Representatives version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures (H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Bipartisan chicanery.

    On September 8, the two versions were submitted to a conference committee, to be reconciled so that both chambers can pass a bill and President Obama can sign it into law. The problems are extensive.

    The House/Senate versions’ forestry measures embrace Euro-UN-Agenda 21 sustainable forest management principles, plus United Nations Indigenous Peoples Rights policies that would supersede the U.S. Constitution—while implementing unscientific climate change and sustainability objectives devised by the White House and “Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework.”

    Tribal Forest Management (TFM) provisions in House/Senate S.2012 are more problematic, because they would racially discriminate in favor of Native American tribes. They would do so by using the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to recognize off-reservation aboriginal pre-European land and water rights—where none exist in U.S. law—at the expense of all other Americans’ constitutionally protected private property rights. S.2012s’ TFM provisions would also:

    • Supplant states’ authority and jurisdiction over their natural resources, as recognized by the Tenth Amendment requirement that these resources be held in “public trust” for the benefit of each state’s citizens—including incredibly hard-working western ranchers who put so much food on your table.
    • Enable Native American Tribes to treat “Federal Forest Lands” (including national forests and national parks belonging to all Americans) as “Indian Forest Lands,” merely by establishing that “the Federal forest land is located within, or mostly within, a geographical area that presents a feature or involves circumstances principally relevant to that Indian tribe.” That means a tribe only has to show that the lands are covered by an Indian treaty, are part of a current or former Indian reservation, or were once adjudicated by the former Indian Claims Commission as part of a “tribal homeland.”
    • Provide Native American Tribes near U.S. national forest and park lands with federal “638” contracts to manage, oversee and control such lands and appurtenant water resources for federal regulatory and other purposes, even when they are well beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations.
    • Expand tribal political sovereignty and legal jurisdiction and control, especially over mountainous forest lands—the source of most snowpack and other waters that farmers, ranchers, and even towns and cities rely on for irrigation, drinking and other water needs.
    • Enable tribes to impose new federal fiduciary trust obligations on the U.S. government to protect their religious, cultural and spiritual rights to fish, waters and lands located beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations, by severely curtailing non-tribal members’ constitutionally protected private water and land rights, without paying “just compensation” as required by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    A recently filed federal lawsuit by the Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service underscores the importance of this so-called federal fiduciary trust obligation. The tribe wants to compel the agencies to protect the tribe’s alleged off-reservation aboriginal pre-European water and fishing rights in southern Oregon’s Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake—even though their reservation is more than 240 miles southwest of the lake!

    A tribal court victory would severely curtail Klamath irrigators’ ability to exercise their rights to vitally needed water. Northern California’s Yurok Tribe says it will soon file its own lawsuit. A cascade of such legal actions would disrupt or destroy the entire western water rights system.

    Combined with S.3013 (Montana Democrat Senator John Tester’s Salish and Kootenai Water Rights Settlement Act), the TFM provisions would expand and codify into federal law off-reservation aboriginal water and fishing rights that the tribes now claim. That precedent could then be used by other litigious tribes to override water and private property public trust obligations that Montana, Oregon, California and other western states owe their citizens under state constitutions. It could happen throughout America!

    S.2012 would cause even more problems if Congress adds a Wyden-Merkley Amendment that provides federal funding and implementation for the controversial Klamath Basin Agreements Tribal Rights Settlement. That would greatly expand tribal water rights, in violation of U.S. constitutional requirements that any such expansion be pursuant to Congress’s authority to approve or reject interstate compacts or regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

    It would also create a federal and interstate template for greatly diminishing regional—and potentially all irrigators’—state-based private property rights, in favor of Native American tribes. Its proponents have grossly misrepresented the settlement’s alleged benefits and substantially understated the damage it would impose on Klamath Basin residents.

    If S.2012 is enacted into law with the tribal forest management, Wyden-Merkley Amendment and Salish-Kootenai Settlement, Congress will cede control over western and rural lands and waters to Native American tribes in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    This year’s presidential and congressional elections are a referendum on the role and performance of government.

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    Congress’ immediate withdrawal or modification of this grotesque omnibus energy bill would be a good first step in this direction.

    Lawrence Kogan is managing principal of The Kogan Law Group, PC of New York, NY and legal counsel to Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC.

    —————————————-

    Just asking?

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    ————————————————————————————–

    This West Is OUR West: Uniting Western States – Protecting Our Rights

    thiswestisourwest.com/

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions UndermineS.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress … protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    BREAKING NEWS September 15, 2016

    WESTERN STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, LLC

    PRESS RELEASE

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions Undermine Western and Rural U.S. Property Owners

    The following press release is based on a recently prepared memorandum of law and

    correspondences dispatched to 13 members of Congress explaining the unconstitutionality of pending legislation discussed below

    Polson, Montana – September 14, 2016 –

    Energy and forest management are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Nevertheless, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792-page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas. The bill in question is No. S.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress have not likely read.

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC, S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering BEHIND CLOSED DOORS two versions of S.2012.

    —————————————————————————————-

    A shell game is a shell game….. by hook,  by crooks or by the U.S. Congress

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – The “RESTORATIONShell Game. A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which …

    ——————————————————————————

    Read more on Pie N Politics

    News from Klamath Basin Crisis.org

    by Liz Bowen

     

    http://klamathbasincrisis.org/billslaws/2016/Energybillshiddenprovisions091516.pdf

    —————————————————————————-

    Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC is a Montana-based nonprofit entity the mission of which is to promote the protection of private property rights held by western United States property owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. Its members are irrigators, landowners and business owners located on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project situated within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and from other areas in northwestern Montana, but their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

    All media inquiries should be directed to The Kogan Law Group, P.C., NY, NY, Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC’s legal counsel, at: 212-644-9240.

    —————————————————————–

    Energy,  forest management  and TRIBES are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Connecting the dots on  Senator Murkowski….

    Senator  Murkowski  (R) is an active member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and served as Vice Chairman of the Committee during the 110th Congress. She is the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Committee on Appropriations, She was honored with a Congressional Leadership Award by the National Congress of American Indians


  • UK Independence Day June 23, 2016

    Image for the news result

    ​Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership | Donald J Trump for President

    Donald Trump8 hours ago – June 24, 2016 –
     The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

    ———————————————————

    UK Independence Day June 23, 2016

    The populist vote is the ONLY reason the UK got out of the EU

    What was the Silent Majority thinking?

    UK out of the EU 7 Good Reasons

    Brexit: the 7 most important arguments for Britain to leave the EU

    Vox2 hours ago Updated by on June 24, 2016, 9:10 a.m. ET

    Yesterday, Britain voted to leave the European Union— an option dubbed “Brexit. … the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. … and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.

    Argument 1: The EU threatens British sovereignty

    Argument 2: The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

    Argument 3: The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

    Argument 4: The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

    Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants

    Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

    Argument 7: The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

    ———————————————————-

    Argument 1: The EU threatens British sovereignty

    This is probably the most common argument among intellectual-minded people on the British right, expressed by Conservative politicians such as former London Mayor Boris Johnson and Justice Minister Michael Gove.

    Over the past few decades, a series of EU treaties have shifted a growing amount of power from individual member states to the central EU bureaucracy in Brussels. On subjects where the EU has been granted authority — like competition policy, agriculture, and copyright and patent law — EU rules override national laws.

    Euroskeptics emphasize that the EU’s executive branch, called the European Commission, isn’t directly accountable to voters in Britain or anyone else. British leaders have some influence on the selection of the European Commission’s members every five years. But once the body has been chosen, none of its members are accountable to the British government or to Britons’ elected representatives in the European Parliament.

    Argument 2: The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

    Critics like Johnson say the EU’s regulations have become increasingly onerous:

    Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.

    Many British conservatives look at the European bureaucracy in Brussels the same way American conservatives view the Washington bureaucracy. Gove has argued that EU regulations cost the British economy “£600 million every week” ($880 million). (Though this figure is disputed.)

    Argument 3: The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

    Labour In Rally For The Last Time In The EU Referendum Campaign Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images
    Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has been a reluctant supporter of the “remain” campaign.

    This is the mirror image of the previous two arguments. Whereas many British conservatives see the EU as imposing left-wing, big-government policies on Britain, some on the British left see things the other way around: that the EU’s antidemocratic structure gives too much power to corporate elites and prevents the British left from making significant gains.

    “The EU is anti-democratic and beyond reform,” said Enrico Tortolano, campaign director for Trade Unionists against the EU, in an interview with Quartz. The EU “provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organized crime,” writes British journalist Paul Mason.

    This left-wing critique of the EU is part of a broader critique of elite institutions more generally, including the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Brexit supporters on the left would have a lot in common with Americans who are against trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    Argument 4: The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

    The United Kingdom has had a significant faction of euroskeptics ever since it joined the EU in 1973. But until recently, this was a minority position.

    “There are nearly 130 Conservative MPs who have declared for leaving the EU,” economist Andrew Lilico told me last week. “If you went back 10 years, you would have struggled to find more than 20 who even in private would have supported leaving the EU.”

    So what changed their minds? The global recession that began in 2008 was bad around the world, but it was much worse in countries that had adopted Europe’s common currency, the euro. The unemployment rate shot up above 20 percent in countries like Greece and Spain, triggering a massive debt crisis. Seven years after the recession began, Spain and Greece are still suffering from unemployment rates above 20 percent, and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.

    Luckily, the UK chose not to join the common currency, so there’s little danger of the euro directly cratering the British economy. But the euro’s dismal performance still provides extra ammunition to Brexit supporters.

    Many economists believe that deeper fiscal and political integration will be needed for the eurozone to work properly. Europe needs a common welfare and tax system so that countries facing particularly severe downturns — like Greece and Spain — can get extra help from the center.

    But that makes Britain’s continued inclusion in the EU awkward. Britain is unlikely to go along with deeper fiscal integration, but it would also be unwieldy to create a set of new, parallel eurozone-specific institutions that excluded the UK.

    So, the argument goes, it might be better for everyone if the UK got out of the EU, clearing the path for the rest of the EU to evolve more quickly into a unified European state.

    Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants

    Nigel Farage Gives His Final Speech Of The EU Referendum Campaign Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
    Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party, has focused his campaign for Brexit on limiting immigration.

    The intellectual case for Brexit is mostly focused on economics, but the emotional case for Brexit is heavily influenced by immigration. EU law guarantees that citizens of one EU country have the right to travel, live, and take jobs in other EU countries.

    British people have increasingly felt the impact of this rule since the 2008 financial crisis. The eurozone has struggled economically, and workers from eurozone countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania (as well as EU countries like Poland and Romania that have not yet joined the common currency) have flocked to the UK in search of work.

    “In recent years, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans have come to Britain to do a job,” British journalist and Brexit supporter Douglas Murray told me last week. This, he argues, has “undercut the native working population.”

    The UK absorbed 333,000 new people, on net, in 2015. That’s a significant number for a country Britain’s size, though according to the CIA the UK still received slightly fewer net migrants, relative to population, than the United States in 2015.

    Immigration has become a highly politicized issue in Britain, as it has in the United States and many other places over the past few years. Anti-immigration campaigners like Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, have argued that the flood of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe has depressed the wages of native-born British workers. Some voters are also concerned about immigrants using scarce public services.

    “One of the causes for the great public disgruntlement,” Murray argues, is that Labour governments at the turn of the century “massively understated the numbers [of immigrants] to be expected,” creating public distrust of current pledges to keep migration under control.

    Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

    While many Brexit supporters simply want to reduce the amount of immigration overall, others argue that the UK could have a more sensible immigration system if it didn’t have the straitjacket of the EU.

    EU rules require the UK to admit all EU citizens who wants to move to Britain, whether or not they have good job prospects or English skills.

    “Leave” advocates argue that the UK should be focused on admitting immigrants who will bring valuable skills to the country and integrate well into British culture. They mention the point-based immigration systems of Canada and Australia, which award potential migrants points based on factors like their language and job skills, education, and age. That, “leave” advocates argue, would allow the UK to admit more doctors and engineers who speak fluent English, and fewer unskilled laborers with limited English skills.

    Argument 7: The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

    The EU doesn’t have the power to directly collect taxes, but it requires member states to make an annual contribution to the central EU budget. Currently, the UK’s contribution is worth about £13 billion ($19 billion) per year, which is about $300 per person in the UK. (“Leave” supporters have been citing a larger figure, but that figure ignores a rebate that’s automatically subtracted from the UK’s contribution.)

    While much of this money is spent on services in the UK, Brexit supporters still argue that it would be better for the UK to simply keep the money and have Parliament decide how to spend it.

    —————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHAT IS THE SILENT MAJORITY THINKING IN THE USA?

    I stand with TRUMP!

    Image for the news result

    The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.


  • Private Central Bank Awaken slaves!

    Unedited full text

    Awaken slaves! – How The Private Central Bank Ponzi Scheme Trapped And Destroyed America

    By Michael Rivero

    Once upon a time, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President transferred the money creation authority vested in the government by the Constitution to a private central bank. It was going to be called the Third Bank of the United States. Such a fundamental change to the nation’s economy should have required a Constitutional Amendment. But earlier that same year, there had been a huge fight to ratify another Amendment, the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax, and there is good reason to suspect that the 16th Amendment actually failed ratification even though the payers of that income tax were told otherwise.

    “I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.” – U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.

    Getting yet another Amendment ratified against such opposition, or worse, having to cheat one through, would be extremely difficult.

    Then there was a problem with the proposed name, “Third Bank of the United States”, as it reminded people of the predations of the First and Second Bank of the United States.

    “Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!” — Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

    Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination.

    But I digress.

    Faced with the possibility that a new Amendment to transfer money creation from the US Government to a privately owned bank might fail and fail badly, and with the name “Third Bank of the United States” already leading to opposition to the plan, the plotters did an end run around the Constitution, passing the Federal Reserve act over Christmas vacation when the members of Congress opposed to the bill would be away. The name of the new bank was then changed to “The Federal Reserve.” But, it is a private bank, no more “Federal” than Federal Express. From that moment on all currency would enter circulation as a loan at interest.

    “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — Woodrow Wilson 1919

    Ironically enough, this was the very system of banking the American Revolution was fought to free us from.

    “The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

    Starting in 1913, public schools stopped teaching about King George’s Currency Act, which ordered the American colonies to conduct business only using bank notes borrowed at interest from the Bank of England, and since then American students are taught that the revolution was about Tea Parties and Stamp Acts, lest the more clever students wonder how we ended up back in the same banking system that led to the first revolution.

    The Founding Fathers understood how dangerous such banking systems are, and I will try to teach you here what the public schools are forbidden to let you know. The Federal Reserve system is a deliberate trap, to enslave a population to unpayable debt in order to control and exploit them, and here is how it works.

    Before any commerce can happen, currency must go into circulation. Someone has to borrow it from that private central bank. The borrower can be government, a business, another bank, or ordinary citizens using credit cards, car loans, or mortgages. For the purposes of clarity, we will use a single dollar to represent that initial borrowing from the central bank. For the purpose of this illustration, “borrower” refers collectively to the entire American nation.

    That dollar now enters circulation, passing from the original borrower to others, as payment for labor, in exchange for raw materials, as taxes, and so forth. Round and round it goes, passing from hand to hand, yet it is still a note borrowed from the Central Bank and it is still accruing interest. That Central Bank note, or (in the United States) Federal Reserve Note, is not a unit of value, it is a unit of debt.

    At some point, that dollar is repaid to the Central Bank. The Central Bank then demands the interest. In our case, a nickle. But there is a problem. That nickle doesn’t exist and it never did. It is imaginary.

    So now the borrower has to borrow another dollar, out of which he takes a nickle to pay for the interest on the first dollar.

    The rest of that second borrowed dollar now goes into circulation, but this time, only 95 cents is in circulation to pass from borrower to vendor to employee to grocery store to government, then back to the Central Bank.

    The borrower goes back to the Central Bank to repay that second dollar, but only has 95 cents, plus he owes that imaginary five cents interest as well, or ten cents.

    Once more the borrower has to borrow a new dollar from the Central Bank, only this time he has to take a dime out of that new dollar to hand bank to the banker. The borrower walks out of the bank with only 90 cents to put into circulation, while still owing a whole dollar plus five cents interest.

    The cycle keeps repeating over and over with each new loan having to return more and more back to the Central bank as accumulated interest.

    With each cycle the Central Banks gets richer while there is less and less currency available for commerce. People have to tighten their belts. Works are let go. Sales slow down. “Austerity” is imposed.

    Eventually, a point is reached where as much accumulated interest is owed as the money being borrowed. So the borrower now has to borrow twice as much from the Central Bank merely to have the same actual currency in circulation as when they started. The Central Bank system only operates as long as the borrower is willing to go deeper and deeper into debt, and debt slavery. This is what makes the Central Bank scheme a pyramid system. It works only so long as ever-larger new generations of borrowers can be found to allow new currency to enter circulation, out of which the interest on the older loans is paid. And of course, by design, the debt can never ever be paid off. Once that first paper note is loaned into circulation, total debt will always exceed total currency. The system is designed that way, to keep you in debt, to keep you a slave to the bankers.

    This is the reason that every nation on Earth with such a Central Bank is now drowning in debt. The Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, are all built on this same system. This is why nations that refuse such banking systems are made war on.

    “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” — Nathan Mayor Rothschild, angered at the refusal of Congress to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States in 1811. Congress stood firm and Britain, goaded to “recolonize” America by the Bank of England, headed at the time by Lionel de Rothschild, launched the war of 1812.”If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — The London Times responding to Lincoln’s decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather that agree to private banker’s loans at 30% interest. Following Lincoln’s assassination, the Greenbacks were taken out of circulation.

    On June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, which authorized the US Treasury to issue “United States Notes, backed by silver, so that the American people would not have to borrow federal Reserve Notes at interest. Five months later Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, the US Notes were taken out of circulation, and John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the financial dimensions behind the assassination were never made public.

    And what did it cost the Central Banks to wield such power over nations? Paper and ink, or today a few keystrokes on a keyboard. In fact the practices of the Central Bank would be felonies under the United States Coinage Act of 1792, which declared debasement of the gold and silver-backed currency of the United States a death penalty offence.

    The Central Bank knows that those pieces of paper with ink are worthless. But while the Central Bank can just create those paper notes out of thin air (legalized counterfeiting), you may not. In order to pay that ever-growing debt you have to do what you are told to do by those who have some of those pieces of paper to hand out tell you to do. Work long hours. Invade a foreign nation that refuses to have a Private Central Bank. Torture innocent people to death to find weapons of mass destruction that do not exist to justify a war. Compromise your morals and integrity. Perform sexual favors. Whatever the purveyors of those pieces of paper want, you must do. That paper note is your slave chain.

    Even worse, as the imaginary debt piles higher and there is less and less currency in circulation, people start to become desperate to obtain those pieces of paper with colored ink on them to pay off that debt they have been tricked into believing they owe to the private central bankers. Over time, more and more moral accomodations become accepted by society in exchange for the acquisition of those pieces of paper with ink on them. Manufacturers start cutting corners, producing shoddy products that break and wear out. Food companies start using more cheap fillers. Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines of dubious efficacy and definite harm. Society turns brutal and predates on itself. Manufacturers come to want bad products that break easilyso people will buy more. The medical establishment comes to desire a sickly population because they cannot make money off of a healthy people. Food companies add addictive chemicals to food to make people buy and eat more. Wall Street comes to see fraud as a legitimate business tactic. Eventually immorality and unethical business behavior becomes the accepted social norm. Under the mounting illusion of debt society drifts into outright criminality perpetrated by everyone against everyone. From there it is a short step to seeing war and conquest of other nations’ weath as the only remaining solution to the debt problem. In short, the predations of private central banking lure society into trading what is best in human nature in exchange for those paper and ink tickets until civilization itself is at risk.

    Private Central Banking is not about banking, or even about money. It is about Control. Private Central Banking is about rule by enforced servitude to artificially created debt. No different from other hoaxes played by the rich on the poor, such as Rule by Divine Right, or Rule by Chattel Ownership of your Body (slavery). As a human civilization we have outgrown these hoaxes and realize they are illegitimate forms of governance. So too shall it be with Rule by Debt. Those previous systems only worked as long as the subjugated population believed that those systems were real; the way the world was supposed to be. When the people broke free of the slavery of belief, those forms of enslavement collapsed. For the few to feel rich, everyone else must be poor. As the availability of currency declines, it does not matter how hard people are willing to work; there must inevitably be homeless, joblessness, hunger, and wars of conquest to “balance the books.”

    Modern banking is not a science. It is a religion, simply a set of arbitrary rules and assumptions that favor the masters of that belief system, which we are brainwashed in school to think is something tangible and real.

    It is time to stop, while we still can.

    We have outgrown Rule by Divine Right and recognize slavery as inherently wrong.

    Now is the time for the next step in our societies evolution in which the money must serve the people, rather than the people serve the money.

    Central Banks are a failed experiment. Look at the devastation of Europe, or your own home town and you will see it.

    The common enemy of all humankind are Private Central Banks issuing the public currency as a loan at interest.

     


  • RNC BROKERED CONVENTIONS 1912-2016

    RNC BROKERED CONVENTIONS 1912-2016

    Presidents are Selected, Not Elected

    2016 THE GOP POLITICO ESTABLISHMENT IS HELL BENT ON SELECTING THE NEXT PRESIDENT NOMINATED  WITH A BROKERED REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION (RNC).

    SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD NOTED THAT

    “WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE DO NOT KNOW.

    BUT THERE ARE ALSO UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS

    THE ONES WE DON’T KNOW WE DON’T KNOW.”

    ————————————————————————-

    INDEED, WHAT IS A (RCN) BROKERED CONVENTION?

    2016 IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION GOVERNED BY ITS OWN RULES AND BYLAWS,

    2016  ALL WHICH CAN BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO MECHANISMS PRESCRIBED IN THE PARTY’S RULES.

    2016 A BROKERED CONVENTION IS WHEN PARTY OFFICIALS BROKER OR NEGOTIATE BACKROOM CONSENSUS WITH DELEGATES, OR CHANGE THE NOMINATION RULES TO FACILITATE THE SELECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES.

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL BROKERED CONVENTION

    AMERICA’S ENTIRE PATCHWORK OF ARCANE PRIMARY RULES SHALL BE BROKERED IN BACKROOM DEALS BY 112-MEMBER RULES ON A COMMITTEES FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION GOVERNED BY CHANGING ITS OWN RULES AND BYLAWS?

    WHITTLE DOWN TRUMP’S  DELEGATES

    AND,  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION’S  112-MEMBER RULES PANEL, WHICH COMPRISES TWO OFFICIALS FROM EACH STATE AND TERRITORY SHALL MAKE UP THEIR OWN RULES AS THEY GO ALONG AND SELECT THE NEXT PRIMARY CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN BACKROOM DEALS

    ————————————————————————————

    THE ONES WE DON’T KNOW WE DON’T KNOW

    WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 1912 BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?

    “THE RESULTING FLOOR FIGHT IN THE APTLY NAMED CHICAGO COLISEUM LIVED UP TO THE PREDICTION OF THE IRISH-AMERICAN HUMORIST FINLEY PETER DUNNE

    THAT THE 1912 CONTESTED CONVENTION WOULD BE “A COMBYNATION IV TH’ CHICAGO FIRE, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW’S MASSACREE, THE BATTLE IV TH’ BOYNE, TH’ LIFE IV JESSE JAMES, AN’ TH’ NIGHT IV TH’ BIG WIND.”

    THE NOMINATION BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN WAS BRUTAL, PERSONAL

    AND ULTIMATELY FATAL TO THE PARTY’S CHANCES FOR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 1912 BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?

    1912 ROOSEVELT HANDILY DEFEATED TAFT IN THE PRIMARIES, WINNING NINE STATES TO TAFT’S TWO, ACQUIRING 278 DELEGATES TO HIS OPPONENT’S 48 DELEGATES ALONG WAY.

    1912 ROOSEVELT DISCOVERED THAT HIS 571 DELEGATES, HIGHER THAN THE REQUIRED 540 TO SECURE THE NOMINATION, HAD MYSTERIOUSLY GONE DOWN BY 72 DELEGATES

     1912 AFTER THE STATE PARTY CHAIRMEN FOR ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON WITHDREW THEIR SUPPORT AND DIRECTED THEIR DELEGATES TO SIT IN THE TAFT ‘SECTION’ OF THE COLISEUM.

    1912 WHAT FOLLOWED NEXT IN THE CHICAGO COLISEUM HAS BEEN COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL NATIONAL CONVENTIONAL IN U.S. HISTORY.

    PARTY OFFICIALS, WHO WERE ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY ALIGNED WITH ESTABLISHMENT CHOICE TAFT,

    BROKERED BACKROOM DEALS WITH DELEGATES FROM 36 NON-PRIMARY STATES TO WHITTLE DOWN ROOSEVELT’S DELEGATES.

    AS A REPUBLICAN OBSERVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN: “WE CAN’T ELECT TAFT & WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO ELECT WILSON SO AS TO DEFEAT ROOSEVELT.”

    ——————————————————————————

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN CLEVELAND DURING AND AFTER A  CONTESTED REPUBLICAN PRIMARY (RNC) 2016?

    Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that his supporters would respond with “riots” if he fails to secure the nomination at July’s convention in Cleveland.

    “I think you’d have riots,” Trump told CNN on Wednesday. “I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.”

    Far from idle chatter, Trump’s words come as escalating protests from left-wing activists, heated responses from his supporters, and increasing tensions within the GOP over his candidacy are raising fears that the convention could devolve into chaos.

    Cleveland is reportedly working to procure 2,000 sets of riot gear equipment for its officers.

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Trump is an Informed Prognosticator

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/03/…/trump-is-an-informed-prognosticat

    Mar 23, 2016 – Trump opined that the Paris and Brussels attacks are “just the beginning.” Trump … “I’m a pretty good prognosticator. …. thinkprogress.org/…

    ————————————————————————-

    PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE SELECTED BY AN ELITE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (RCN)

    AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE NOT ELECTED BY MILLIONS OF WE THE PEOPLE.

    NOW YOU KNOW WHY PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT SAID

    “PRESIDENTS ARE SELECTED,  NOT ELECTED”
    ————————————————————————-

    1912 Republican Convention | History | Smithsonian

    www.smithsonianmag.com/…/1912-republican-convention-…

    SmithsonianWilliam

    Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had once been friends. But when the … (Barry Goldwater supporters at the 1964 Republican National Convention.) Truman …. Otherwise, he said, the contested delegates should not vote. BOTH HE AND TAFT LOST TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WOODROW WILSON, THAT NOVEMBER.

    1912 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

    Return of the Rough Rider

    William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had once been friends.

     BUT WHEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MET IN CHICAGO TO CHOOSE ITS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN JUNE 1912,

     THE NOMINATION BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN WAS BRUTAL, PERSONAL

    AND ULTIMATELY FATAL TO THE PARTY’S CHANCES FOR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

    TAFT DECLARED ROOSEVELT TO BE “THE GREATEST MENACE TO OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN A LONG TIME.”

    ROOSEVELT SAW TAFT AS THE AGENT OF “THE FORCES OF REACTION AND OF POLITICAL CROOKEDNESS.

    ” THE RESULTING FLOOR FIGHT IN THE APTLY NAMED CHICAGO COLISEUM LIVED UP TO THE PREDICTION OF THE IRISH-AMERICAN HUMORIST FINLEY PETER DUNNE

     THAT THE 1912 CONVENTION WOULD BE “A COMBYNATION IV TH’ CHICAGO FIRE, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW’S MASSACREE, THE BATTLE IV TH’ BOYNE, TH’ LIFE IV JESSE JAMES, AN’ TH’ NIGHT IV TH’ BIG WIND.”

    THE CONVENTION WAS NOT ARMAGEDDON, BUT TO OBSERVERS IT SEEMED A CLOSE SECOND. SHOUTS OF “LIAR” AND CRIES OF “STEAMROLLER” PUNCTUATED THE PROCEEDINGS.

    ———————————————————————————-

    TO THIS DAY, MANY REMAIN SHOCKED AT THE AUDACIOUS MACHINATIONS OF PARTY OFFICIALS TO SECURE THE NOMINATION FOR TAFT

    —————————————————————————————-


    For years, the tensions within the GRAND OLD PARTY had been building over the issue of government regulation. During his presidency, Roosevelt had advocated a “Square Deal” between capital and labor in American society. By the time he left the White House in March 1909, Roosevelt believed that the federal government must do more to supervise large corporations, improve the lot of women and children who worked long hours for low wages in industry, and conserve natural resources. “When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service,” he said in August 1910. Roosevelt was especially critical of the state and federal courts for overturning reform legislation as unconstitutional, and he said that such decisions were “fundamentally hostile to every species of real popular government.”

    Roosevelt’s burgeoning crusade for more active government reflected his loss of faith in William Howard Taft, whom the former Rough Rider had chosen as his successor. As president, Taft had sided with the conservative wing of the party, which had opposed Roosevelt’s reforms at every turn. For his part, Taft believed Roosevelt had stretched the power of the executive branch too far. As a lawyer and former federal judge, Taft had nothing but disdain for his predecessor’s jaundiced view of the judiciary. “The regret which he certainly expressed that the courts had the power to set aside statutes,” wrote the president, “was an attack upon our system at the very point where I think it is the strongest.”

    Tensions deepened in 1912, when Roosevelt began ADVOCATING THE RECALL OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS THROUGH POPULAR VOTE. With the courts tamed as an enemy to reform, ROOSEVELT THEN WOULD PRESS FORWARD “TO SEE THAT THE WAGE-WORKER, THE SMALL PRODUCER, THE ORDINARY CONSUMER, SHALL GET THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE BENEFIT OF BUSINESS PROSPERITY.” To enact his program, Roosevelt signaled that he would accept another term as president and seek the nomination of the Republican Party.

    THESE AMBITIONS REVEALED, TAFT AND HIS FELLOW CONSERVATIVES DEEMED ROOSEVELT A DANGEROUS RADICAL. ONCE IN POWER FOR A THIRD TERM, THEY SAID, ROOSEVELT WOULD BE A PERPETUAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE. ROOSEVELT HAD BECOME THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY, SAID TAFT, “BECAUSE OF HIS HOLD UPON THE LESS INTELLIGENT VOTERS AND THE DISCONTENTED.” THE SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT ROOSEVELT SOUGHT INVOLVED, IN TAFT’S OPINION, “A FORCED DIVISION OF PROPERTY, AND THAT MEANS SOCIALISM.”

    Taft dominated the Republican Party machinery in many states, but a few state primaries gave the voters a chance to express themselves. The president and his former friend took to the hustings, and across the country in the spring of 1912 the campaign rhetoric escalated.

    Roosevelt described Taft as a “puzzlewit,”

    while the president labeled Roosevelt a “honeyfugler.”

     Driven to distraction under Roosevelt’s attacks, Taft said in Massachusetts, “I was a man of straw; but I have been a man of straw long enough; every man who has blood in his body and who has been misrepresented as I have is forced to fight.”

     A delighted Roosevelt supporter commented that “Taft certainly made a great mistake when he began to ‘fight back.’ He has too big a paunch to have much of a punch, while a free-for-all, slap-bang, kick-him-in-the-belly, is just nuts for the chief.”

    ROOSEVELT WON ALL THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES AGAINST TAFT EXCEPT IN MASSACHUSETTS.

    TAFT DOMINATED THE CAUCUSES THAT SENT DELEGATES TO THE STATE CONVENTIONS.

    WHEN THE VOTING WAS DONE, NEITHER MAN HAD THE 540 DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN.

    ROOSEVELT HAD 411,

     TAFT HAD 367 AND MINOR CANDIDATES HAD 46,

     LEAVING 254 UP FOR GRABS. THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DOMINATED BY THE TAFT FORCES,

     AWARDED 235 DELEGATES TO THE PRESIDENT AND 19 TO ROOSEVELT, THEREBY ENSURING TAFT’S RENOMINATION.

     ROOSEVELT BELIEVED HIMSELF ENTITLED TO 72 DELEGATES FROM ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO TAFT.

    Firm in his conviction that the nomination was being stolen from him,

    Roosevelt decided to break the precedent that kept the candidates away from the national convention and lead his forces to CHICAGO in person.

     The night before the proceedings Roosevelt told cheering supporters that there was “a great moral issue” at stake and he should have “sixty to eighty lawfully elected delegates” added to his total.

     Otherwise, he said, the contested delegates should not vote.

    Roosevelt ended his speech declaring: “FEARLESS OF THE FUTURE; UNHEEDING OF OUR INDIVIDUAL FATES; WITH UNFLINCHING HEARTS AND UNDIMMED EYES; WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON, AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!”

    One pro-Taft observer said that “a tension pervaded the Coliseum breathing the general feeling that a parting of the ways was imminent.”

     William Allen White, the famous Kansas editor, looked down from the press tables “INTO THE HUMAN CALDRON THAT WAS BOILING ALL AROUND ME.”

    On the first day, the Roosevelt forces lost a test vote on the temporary chairman. Taft’s man, Elihu Root, prevailed.

     ROOSEVELT’S SUPPORTERS TRIED TO HAVE 72 OF THEIR DELEGATES SUBSTITUTED FOR TAFT PARTISANS ON THE LIST OF THOSE OFFICIALLY ALLOWED TO TAKE PART IN THE CONVENTION.

    WHEN THAT INITIATIVE FAILED, ROOSEVELT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT WIN, AND HAD EARLIER REJECTED THE IDEA OF A COMPROMISE THIRD CANDIDATE.

    “I’LL NAME THE COMPROMISE CANDIDATE. HE’LL BE ME. I’LL NAME THE COMPROMISE PLATFORM. IT WILL BE OUR PLATFORM.

    “WITH THAT, HE BOLTED FROM THE PARTY AND INSTRUCTED HIS DELEGATES NOT TO TAKE PART IN THE VOTING;

     

    1912 Republican Convention

    Return of the Rough Rider

    image: http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/convention_aug08_2_631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpgRoosevelt Campaign Speech
    Theodore Roosevelt giving a campaign speech. (Bettmann/Corbis)

    TAFT EASILY WON ON THE FIRST BALLOT.

     ROOSEVELT, MEANWHILE, SAID HE WAS GOING “TO NOMINATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY A PROGRESSIVE ON A PROGRESSIVE PLATFORM.”

    IN AUGUST, ROOSEVELT DID JUST THAT, RUNNING AS THE CANDIDATE OF THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

    BOTH HE AND TAFT LOST TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WOODROW WILSON, THAT NOVEMBER.

    YET, FOR REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPORTED TAFT, THE ELECTORAL DEFEAT WAS WORTH THE IDEOLOGICAL VICTORY.

     AS A REPUBLICAN OBSERVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN: “WE CAN’T ELECT TAFT & WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO ELECT WILSON SO AS TO DEFEAT ROOSEVELT.”

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1912-republican-convention-855607/#uzV1GJQpW4pfCASe.99

    —————————————————————–
    TODAY, I AM  SHOCKED AT THE DOCUMENTED ABUSE AND THE AUDACIOUS ARCANE MACHINATIONS THAT THE  RNC PARTY OFFICIALS USED TO SELECT AND SECURE THE NOMINATION OF A PUPPET PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1912.

    “RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IF IT MEANS IT’S BECAUSE IT’S SITTING THERE AND FIGHTING THE FACT THAT OUR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS GONE CORRUPT AND DECIDED TO IGNORE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE,” TRUMP SUPPORTER SCOTTIE NEIL HUGHES TOLD CNN WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.

    ———————————————————————–

    “we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns-the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

    INDEED, RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IN 2016 CONSIDERING

    NOW WE KNOW  IN FACT THAT OUR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN CORRUPT  SINCE 1912 AND DECIDED  100 YEARS AGO TO IGNORE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE”

    ——————————————————————

    The press,  the News media , is therefore of the utmost importance in a representative democracy. EXCEPT WHEN THE MAJORITY (CNN AND FOX NEWS)  ARE IN COLLUSION WITH ANTI-TRUMP ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY

    Carlyle saw the press as instrumental to the birth and growth of democracy, spreading facts and opinions and sparking revolution against tyranny.

    INDEED,  ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IN 2016


  • Annual Country Reports on Terrorism?

    Annual Country Reports on Terrorism?
    A 389 page report was published April 2015.

    Hmmm… Efforts by the United States to eliminate international financial support provided to those groups directly or provided in support of their activities?

    Country Reports on Terrorism 2014 – US Department of State

    www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/
    United States Department of State

    Country Reports on Terrorism 2014 is submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United … a full and complete annual report on terrorism for those countries and groups meeting the criteria of the Act. The report was published April 2015.
    22 U.S. Code § 2656f – Annual country reports on terrorism …

    The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by April 30 of each year, a full and complete report
    ———————————————————————————

    of Title 22 of the United States Code – US Department of State

    www.state.gov/documents/…/65464.pd…
    United States Department of State

    This report is submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United States Code, … (the “Act”), which requires the Department of State to provide Congress a full …

    —————————————————————————–

    22 U.S. Code § 2656f – Annual country reports on terrorism …

    www.law.cornell.edu › … › Chapter 38
    Legal Information Institute

    (a) Requirement of annual country reports on terrorism The Secretary of State shall … the Secretary as a foreign terrorist organization under section 1189 of title 8, and any other … (3) with respect to each foreign country from which the United States … (F). efforts by the United States to eliminate international financial support …
    ——————————————————————————————–
    (3) with respect to each foreign country from which the United States Government has sought cooperation during the previous five years in the investigation or …
    (a) Requirement of annual country reports on terrorism The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by April 30 of each year, a full and complete report providing—
    (1)
    (A) detailed assessments with respect to each foreign country—
    (i)
    in which acts of international terrorism occurred which were, in the opinion of the Secretary, of major significance;
    (ii)
    about which the Congress was notified during the preceding five years pursuant to section 4605(j) of title 50; and
    (iii)
    which the Secretary determines should be the subject of such report; and
    (B)
    detailed assessments with respect to each foreign country whose territory is being used as a sanctuary for terrorists or terrorist organizations;
    (2)
    all relevant information about the activities during the preceding year of any terrorist group, and any umbrella group under which such terrorist group falls, known to be responsible for the kidnapping or death of an American citizen during the preceding five years, any terrorist group known to have obtained or developed, or to have attempted to obtain or develop, weapons of mass destruction, any terrorist group known to be financed by countries about which Congress was notified during the preceding year pursuant to section 4605(j) of title 50, any group designated by the Secretary as a foreign terrorist organization under section 1189 of title 8, and any other known international terrorist group which the Secretary determines should be the subject of such report;
    (3) with respect to each foreign country from which the United States Government has sought cooperation during the previous five years in the investigation or prosecution of an act of international terrorism against United States citizens or interests, information on—
    (A)
    the extent to which the government of the foreign country is cooperating with the United States Government in apprehending, convicting, and punishing the individual or individuals responsible for the act; and
    (B)
    the extent to which the government of the foreign country is cooperating in preventing further acts of terrorism against United States citizens in the foreign country; and
    (4)
    with respect to each foreign country from which the United States Government has sought cooperation during the previous five years in the prevention of an act of international terrorism against such citizens or interests, the information described in paragraph (3)(B).
    (b) Provisions to be included in report The report required under subsection (a) should to the extent feasible include (but not be limited to)—
    (1) with respect to subsection (a)(1)(A)—
    (A)
    a review of major counterterrorism efforts undertaken by countries which are the subject of such report, including, as appropriate, steps taken in international fora;
    (B)
    the response of the judicial system of each country which is the subject of such report with respect to matters relating to terrorism affecting American citizens or facilities, or which have, in the opinion of the Secretary, a significant impact on United States counterterrorism efforts, including responses to extradition requests; and
    (C) significant support, if any, for international terrorism by each country which is the subject of such report, including (but not limited to)—
    (i)
    political and financial support;
    (ii)
    diplomatic support through diplomatic recognition and use of the diplomatic pouch;
    (iii)
    providing sanctuary to terrorists or terrorist groups;
    (iv)
    providing weapons of mass destruction, or assistance in obtaining or developing such weapons, to terrorists or terrorist groups; [1]
    (v)
    the positions (including voting records) on matters relating to terrorism in the General Assembly of the United Nations and other international bodies and fora of each country which is the subject of such report;
    (2) with respect to subsection (a)(1)(B)—
    (A)
    the extent of knowledge by the government of the country with respect to terrorist activities in the territory of the country; and
    (B) the actions by the country—
    (i)
    to eliminate each terrorist sanctuary in the territory of the country;
    (ii)
    to cooperate with United States antiterrorism efforts; and
    (iii)
    to prevent the proliferation of and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction in and through the territory of the country;
    (3) [2] with respect to subsection (a)(2), any—
    (A)
    significant financial support provided by foreign governments to those groups directly, or provided in support of their activities;
    (B)
    provisions of significant military or paramilitary training or transfer of weapons by foreign governments to those groups;
    (C)
    efforts by those groups to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction;
    (D)
    provision of diplomatic recognition or privileges by foreign governments to those groups;
    (E)
    provision by foreign governments of sanctuary from prosecution to these groups or their members responsible for the commission, attempt, or planning of an act of international terrorism; and
    (F)
    efforts by the United States to eliminate international financial support provided to those groups directly or provided in support of their activities;
    (4)
    2
    a strategy for addressing, and where possible eliminating, terrorist sanctuaries that shall include—
    (A)
    a description of terrorist sanctuaries, together with an assessment of the priorities of addressing and eliminating such sanctuaries;
    (B)
    an outline of strategies for disrupting or eliminating the security provided to terrorists by such sanctuaries;
    (C)
    a description of efforts by the United States to work with other countries in bilateral and multilateral fora to address or eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and disrupt or eliminate the security provided to terrorists by such sanctuaries; and
    (D)
    a description of long-term goals and actions designed to reduce the conditions that allow the formation of terrorist sanctuaries; and
    (5)
    an update of the information contained in the report required to be transmitted to Congress under [3] 7120(b) of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.
    (3)
    [4] to the extent practicable, complete statistical information on the number of individuals, including United States citizens and dual nationals, killed, injured, or kidnapped by each terrorist group during the preceding calendar year; and
    (4)

    4
    an analysis, as appropriate, of trends in international terrorism, including changes in technology used, methods and targets of attack, demographic information on terrorists, and other appropriate information.
    (c) Classification of report
    (1)
    Except as provided in paragraph (2), the report required under subsection (a) shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted in an unclassified form and may be accompanied by a classified appendix.
    (2)
    If the Secretary of State determines that the transmittal of the information with respect to a foreign country under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) in classified form would make more likely the cooperation of the government of the foreign country as specified in such paragraph, the Secretary may transmit the information under such paragraph in classified form.
    (d) DefinitionsAs used in this section—
    (1)
    the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
    (2)
    the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
    (3)
    the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
    (4)
    the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
    (5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
    (A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
    (i)
    to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
    (ii)
    as a transit point; and
    (B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
    (i)
    section 4605(j)(1)(A) of title 50;
    (ii)
    section 2371(a) of this title; or
    (iii)
    section 2780(d) of this title.
    (e) Reporting period
    (1)
    The report required under subsection (a) shall cover the events of the calendar year preceding the year in which the report is submitted.
    (2)
    The report required by subsection (a) to be submitted by March 31, 1988, may be submitted no later than August 31, 1988.
    (Pub. L. 100–204, title I, § 140, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1347; Pub. L. 101–246, title I, § 122, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 27; Pub. L. 103–236, title I, § 133(b)(1), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 395; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(c) [title V, § 578], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–121, 3009–169; Pub. L. 108–458, title VII, § 7102(d)(1)–(3), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3777, 3778; Pub. L. 108–487, title VII, § 701(a), Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3961.)
    ________________________________________


  • California’s Fire Protection Fee Laws?

    California’s Fire Protection Fee Laws?
    Are Cal Fire Protection Fee Laws like WA State Fire Protection Fees Laws?

    This posting and comment from Liz Bowen “Pie N Politics”
    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee
    By Chris Nichols, Capital Public Radio, 9/17/15 prompted me to research, document and post a comment on WA State Fire Fees Protection laws.

    ——————————————————

    Behind My Back | What do WA State Fire Fees Pay For?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/22/what-dowastatefirefeespay-for/

    1 day ago – I checked my Clallam County, WA State tax statement. … A LEGISLATED ACT OF FEE FI FOE FUM, AN ACT OF “OR ELSE” AND AN ACT OF PAY THE FEES “OR ELSE” … www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe–fum/.
    —————————————————————————————
     Californians and Washingtonians have a  lot in common when it comes to THE HORRENDOUS DEADLY, OUT OF CONTROL,  WILDFIRES BURNING IN OUR STATES. WE THE PEOPLE ARE REELING FROM THE LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES …. THE LOSS OF FAMILY HOMES AND BUSINESS’S …

    AND, AMERICAN FAMILIES BEING FORCED TO EVACUATE AND ENDING UP LIKE DISPLACED FOREIGN REFUGEES.

    —————————————————————————–

    WILDFIRE FIGHTERS LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE.

    ——————————————————————-
    AT THE VERY LEAST…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMAND ANSWERS FROM OUR FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, REGARDING NOT ONLY THE FIRE FEES WE PAY FOR FIRE PROTECTION.

    BUT, WHY THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FIDDLING WHILE THE WEST BURNS?

    ———————————————————————–

    Added for emphasis and clarity…

    Fiddle while Rome burns definition. To do something trivial and irresponsible in the midst of an emergency; legend has it that while a fire destroyed the city of Rome, the emperor Nero played his violin, thus revealing his total lack of concern for his people and his empire.
    ——————————————————————————–
    This is the full text of the New post on Pie N Politics
    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee

    Comment from Stephen Frank
    Cal Fire Continues to Steal $$ From Rural Property Owners
    September 18, 2015
    For years the people in rural California has been paying hundreds of dollars a year to Cal Fire, for fire protection. It is as if their regular taxes had nothing to do with the fire fighters hired by the State to protect them. These folks sued and it will take years before a court will hear the case and a dozen more years before all the appeals are done. Then Sacramento bureaucrats will have close to twenty years of using your money—think they will ever give it back? Maybe by increasing taxes on everybody to pay for their theft.
    “Like many rural Californians, the Millers grudgingly pay the state an annual fire prevention fee of one hundred seventeen dollars. It was passed four years ago to help the state close a budget deficit. And even as the Butte and other mega-fires threaten their homes, rural residents say the mistrust over the fee lives on. Les Miller calls it a state cash grab.
    Les Miller: “They want more money, so they find a way to get it. Everybody is concerned about fire. So, they call it a fire fee.”

    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee
    By Chris Nichols, Capital Public Radio, 9/17/15
    Rural Californians are reeling from yet another destructive fire season.
    But that doesn’t mean they now support a controversial fire fee imposed several years ago by legislative Democrats and Governor Jerry Brown. Chris Nichols reports from Sacramento.
    Bags stuffed with Betsy Miller’s family photos and quilting fabric sit ready to go in her Sierra foothills home. Miller and her husband, Les, are retirees who live in Amador County. The Butte Fire forced them to evacuate last week. Now, they’re back home. But they’re not unpacking.
    Betsy Miller: “Fires have a way of coming back.”
    Betsy Miller says she loves quilting too much to have her fabric go up in flames.
    Betsy Miller: “I want to pick and choose what I’m going to finish, not have a fire pick and choose what I’m going to finish.”
    Like many rural Californians, the Millers grudgingly pay the state an annual fire prevention fee of one hundred seventeen dollars. It was passed four years ago to help the state close a budget deficit. And even as the Butte and other mega-fires threaten their homes, rural residents say the mistrust over the fee lives on. Les Miller calls it a state cash grab.
    Les Miller: “They want more money, so they find a way to get it. Everybody is concerned about fire. So, they call it a fire fee.”
    A dozen homeowners here interviewed this week say they remain opposed because the money doesn’t help fight fires. It only helps prevent them.
    The Brown Administration declined comment. But a recent state report says the fee raises about $75 million dollars a year for efforts like identifying evacuation routes and clearing brush.
    Signs thanking firefighters dot highways across the foothills. But that gratitude doesn’t extend to the state leaders who imposed the fee. Vincent Campa also fled his home during the Butte Fire.
    Campa: “I’ve also had people frustrated with the fee, not being able to afford it, living on fixed incomes.”
    A taxpayers group has sued the state, alleging the fee is an unconstitutional tax. But a final ruling could take years.
    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/cal-fire-continues-to-steal-from-rural-property-owners/
    ———————————————————————————

    WILDFIRE FIGHTERS LIVES MATTER.


  • PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” power grab

    —————————
    SACRAMENTO, CA; July 15, 2015: On behalf of a number of landowners and major organizations representing landowners, including the state cattlemen’s associations of California, Washington, and New Mexico, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) sued the Obama Administration today over its vast new expansion of Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction — an expansion that could bring virtually all the nation’s water and much of the land under direct federal regulatory control.

    ——————————————
    M. Reed Hopper
    Principal Attorney
    Anthony Francois
    Senior Staff Attorney

    —————————————-
    SPECIFICALLY, the lawsuit seeks invalidation of the new regulatory rule defining the “waters of the United States” that are subject to CWA jurisdiction. Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, the rule is illegal — and unconstitutional — because it sets no limit on the CWA’s reach, while explicitly expanding it to waters that the Supreme Court has already ruled to be off-limits to federal control.

    Judicial precedent and statutory language limit the CWA to “navigable” waters such as rivers, lakes, oceans, and adjacent waters directly connected to them. In violation of this rule, the administration’s new definition of “waters of the United States” is open-ended; for instance, it includes all “tributaries,” no matter how small or remote; “neighboring” water bodies without any connection to a navigable water; and even isolated waters that the Supreme Court has held to be beyond CWA coverage.

    In this lawsuit, PLF represents landowners and organizations of landowners whose rights are endangered by the administration’s limitless expansion of Clean Water Act regulatory power, including Washington Cattlemen’s Association; California Cattlemen’s Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; family-owned Duarte Nursery, Inc., of Hughson (Stanislaus County) California; and other private landowners. Donor-supported PLF represents all these parties without charge, as with all PLF clients.
    The administration is violating the Rapanos precedent that PLF won at the Supreme Court
    PLF’s precedent-setting victories against CWA overreach include the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Rapanos v. United States, which prompted regulators to develop the new rule that is challenged in this litigation. In Rapanos, the Supreme Court recognized clear limits on the reach of the CWA, holding that the federal government could not regulate all “tributaries” to navigable waterways, and reaffirmed that isolated water bodies are off-limits to federal regulators. Indeed, the lawsuit filed today is based on the fact that the new rule violates Rapanos and other legal principles.

    In his testimony to Congress opposing the rule, Jack Field, Executive Vice President for the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, stated: “One thing is clear, the definition [of waters of the United States] is not clear. The [rule] would include ditches as Waters of the U.S. if a regulator can distinguish a bed, bank, and ordinary high water mark. The proposal also would make everything within a floodplain and a riparian area a federal water by considering them ‘adjacent waters.’ I don’t think the negative impacts of this definition can be overstated.”

    ——————————————-
    Statement by PLF’s Reed Hopper
    “We are suing to block the administration’s breathtaking attempt to control practically every pond, stream, and ditch in the country,” said PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the Rapanos case at the Supreme Court. “This new regulation is an open-ended license for federal bureaucrats to assert control over nearly all of the nation’s water, and much of the property, from coast to coast.

    “This regulation expands the scope of the Clean Water Act to an unprecedented extent — violating both the terms of the Act and the Constitution’s limits on federal authority,” Hopper continued. “Under its vague and limitless terms, the only waters that are clearly not subject to federal regulatory power are a few that are expressly excluded in the Clean Water Act, including artificial reflective pools, ornamental waters, some ground water, and gullies.

    “In short, the administration is engaged in a sweeping power grab,” said Hopper. “Property owners around the country will be faced with the prospect of being micro-managed by federal bureaucrats. This turns our federal system on its head. Under our constitutional framework, the states and localities are charged with the primary role in land use regulation and local water-quality protection. The Obama Administration’s sweeping new rule usurps the authority and responsibility of the states, and empowers bureaucrats in Washington D.C. to act as zoning and land use czars for the entire nation.”

    —————————————————-
    Statement by California Cattlemen’s Association
    “With this rule, the EPA and Corps are seeking an extraordinary expansion of their jurisdictional authority and significantly increasing regulatory burdens on California’s ranchers,” said Billy Gatlin, Executive Vice President of the California Cattlemen’s Association. “Many elements of the rule are also troublingly vague, creating confusion over what routine ranching activities might cause cattlemen to run afoul of the regulation. CCA has been adamant since the rule was proposed that the EPA and Corps’ proposal far exceeds the limits imposed on those agencies by the CWA, and CCA is proud to partner with PLF and our industry allies to overturn the rule and protect the property rights of our members.”

    —————————————-
    Statement by New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association
    “In the arid, brittle climate of New Mexico, water is the source of all life,” said Jose Varela Lopez, President, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association. “Without access to water we are finished … as is the rest of the nation. My family has been on our land for 14 generations. I believe we have the history to prove that we are caretakers of the water and the land without the help of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

    —————————————————–
    Statement by New Mexico Federal Lands Council
    “Government management and regulation or over-regulation hasn’t helped our forests and grasslands one bit,” noted Don L. (Bebo) Lee, President, New Mexico Federal Lands Council. “In fact, it has harmed our land and our watershed. We do not need the federal government doing the same harm to our water.”

    ———————————————————–
    Statement by New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
    “How does the federal government expect ranchers and farmers to feed the nation,” asked Leroy Cravens, President, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. “If water isn’t readily available to agriculture, outside the whims of Mother Nature, the American people won’t eat.”

    ——————————————————-
    Statement by John Duarte of Duarte Nursery
    “The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are already grossly overreaching beyond the authority given to them in the Clean Water Act,” said John Duarte, president of family-owned Duarte Nursery, based in Hughson, Calif. “With this new WOTUS rule they will completely obliterate any ties to congressional intent and common sense.”
    The case is Washington Cattlemen’s Association et. al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et. al. More information, including the complaint and a podcast, may be found at: www.pacificlegal.org.

    About Pacific Legal Foundation
    Donor-supported PLF is a watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, individual rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. PLF represents all clients free of charge.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Who is Protecting “We the People?”

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/12/who-is-protectingwe-the-people/

    Mar 12, 2014 – PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION Status: protecting PEOPLE …. As these groups consist of individuals and families who enjoy off-road recreation …


  • WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill
    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

    ———————————
    I DON’T NEED AN APPLE TO FALL ON MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would have subjected all waters (running down hill) within 4,000 feet of a navigable water to EPA review and control.

    —————–
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL ” water returns to the earth from precipitation falling on the land, where “GRAVITY” either takes it into the ground as infiltration or it begins RUNNING DOWNHILL as surface runoff”

    ——————————-
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL “NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, IT TRIES TO FLOW DOWNHILL”

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

    ———————————-
    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    —————————–
    Indeed, science has proven that each water basin has its own land area of the water cycle, including its rainfall, its snow melt, recharging the aquifer, surface water, groundwater, rain that is absorbed into the soil RUNS DOWNHILL. Rain that is not absorbed by soil RUNS OFF DOWN THE HILL

    .——————–
    But how does much of the water get back into the oceans to keep the water cycle going?
    Indeed, the U.S. Geological Survey science tells us that 93 to 97 percent of well water used for domestic or irrigation purposes, RUNS DOWN HILL and is returned to the watershed in the proximity of where it was withdrawn.

    And, ALL precipitation, rain and snow melt do the same, GRAVITY TAKES WATER DOWN HILL as infiltration or surface runoff.

    ————————————–
    The EPA says, the new rule applies to tributaries and ANY BODIES OF WATER (that runs downhill) near rivers that (run down hill and ) “COULD” seep into waterways and “AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT”
    ———————————————————————————
    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF  (WOTUS)

    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” power grab

    WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation
    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, as we …
    —————————————————————-
    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    ——————————-
    THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS FILED BY 13 STATES (ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, IDAHO, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING),
    which claimed, among other things, that the WOTUS rule is a threat to state sovereignty because it asserts federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)that should be subject to state government control. As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. In this case, the district court concluded that the states were likely to succeed on the merits as the EPA had adopted an “exceptionally expansive” view of its own jurisdiction under the CWA. According to the court, the WOTUS rule “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” and therefore exceeds the limits on federal regulatory authority identified by the Supreme Court in Rapanos.
    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    —————————————————
    OUR WA State legislators “DID  NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
    Washington State attorney General “DID” file lawsuits against ONE Superbowl ticket vendor, Arlene’s Flowers, and Hanford.

    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE WOTUS LAWSUIT
    ———————————————————————————-

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology MUST FIRST ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    ——————————-
    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————
    What’s Up With WOTUS?
    9/3/2015
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

    Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.

    Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.

    The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.

    The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.

    What does the temporary injunction mean for Nebraska farmers? It means that, for now, the status quo will be maintained. So current guidance documents and existing regulations for making “jurisdictional determination” will continue to be used by the Corp. New definitions and parameters outlined in the WOTUS rule will not be part of the Corp’s checklist when making these determinations in Nebraska. Jurisdictional determination simply means that the Corp reviews the necessary checklist regarding features of a water body, and possibly conducts an on-site inspection, to make a decision about whether the water body should be under their jurisdiction as “waters of the U.S.”

    The temporary injunction does not halt the rule entirely; it simply postpones implementation of the rule until legal proceedings are completed (which could take months or even years as we saw with the new AFO/CAFO regulations a few years back).

    If the pending lawsuits are not successful, and the WOTUS rule is eventually implemented in Nebraska, it remains to be seen what parts of the rule will remain and which will not. In Nebraska, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
    Source: Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ————————————————————————————
    By Jonathan H. Adler August 28, 2015
    UPDATE: On Friday, the plaintiff states informed the court that the U.S. EPA had announced it would continue to apply the WOTUS rule in states that did not challenge the injunction.

    Late Friday, the district court responded with an order for supplemental briefing on whether the injunction “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.” Briefs are due on Tuesday, September 1.
    ———————————————————————
    CALIFORNIA IS NOT PART OF THE LAWSUITS
    California Farmers Claim EPA Water Rules Extend To Dirt Fields
    August 31, 2015 6:22 PM
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (CBS13) — Farmers say federal regulators are going too far and are taking away their water and chipping away at their property rights under a new rule.
    The Environmental Protection Agency says any bodies of water near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will fall under federal regulation.
    Since the 1980s, the EPA has regulated any water you can navigate through, including rivers and large lakes. But the new Clean Water Act Rule will add smaller bodies of water to the government’s oversight.
    Bruce Blodgett with the San Joaquin Farm Bureau says the new rule would include any standing body of water, and dry land that can potentially hold water.
    “This field is a great example,” he said. “This dirt field would now be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under this proposed rule.”
    The bureau says the new rule allows the government to require farmers to get permits to farm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    “We have a lot of fields that are fallow, sitting idle this year, because of the drought,” he said. “That will enable the Corps to come after those lands when they try to bring them back into production next year saying, ‘No, those are now waters of the U.S.’”
    Under the new Clean Water Act rule, the bureau claims any private property with a pond and any farm with an irrigation district is now under federal regulation.
    But the EPA says, that’s not true. It says the new rule applies to tributaries and water near rivers that could seep into waterways and affect the environment . The agency says it’s not going after ponds and won’t interfere with farm irrigation. It says ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit. California is not part of the lawsuits, but farmers are watching.