EQUAL UNDER THE LAW

Equal Under The Law 


Note to those who think you're more special than I: You're not! 
When you whine, "President Trump will take away my rights," please know that you're declaring you've obtained rights I never had, nor expect. 
I believe my plain ol' boring white skin, female gender is just as damn special as your whatever! 
Being "equal under the law," is good enough for me. 
You Planned Parenthood murder baby in-utero groupies bitch, "Trump wants to take away our reproductive rights." What?
Murdering babies in-utero is not a right and is the opposite of "reproduction."
Hell's bells you stupid gals. Planned Parenthood isn't included in Federal's enumerated powers. If you took as much time studying our U.S. Constitution as you do making pussy hats, you'd know this.
If you claim not to receive government funding, why do you protest against me?
You scream "stay out of my vagina," while ordering me to pay for your vagina's travels.
I don't want to know anything about your vagina - or penis's activities!
It's rude, crude, cold and callous of you to believe your sex exhibitions trump our rights to protect our children from such.
Your hate of me is born out of your thinking your women have the right to take away the rights of this woman. You don't.
Summary: We're all "equal under the law." 
Even YOU, you stupid little pussy.

Peace and love,

Roni 

HOW AL GORE BUILT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD

Let's put Al Gore far, far away in our rear view mirrors!

How Al Gore built the global warming fraud...And changed the alarmism from global cooling to global warming, and now climate change

Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”
Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?
Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.
This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.
TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”
Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.
Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993. Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.
Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development.
It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:
Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.
Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”
A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”
Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.
Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.
This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.
Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.
Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.
Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.
Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.
Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute of Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Portions of this article were excerpted with permission of the publisher and author of the 2018 book The Mythology of Global Warming, by Bruce Bunker, PhD, published by Moonshine Cove.

WALKAWAY & JUDO PRINCIPLE

JUDO PRINCIPLE aka - Why you should just Walkaway 

By Roni Bell 

Though I wrote this 2 years ago (10/16/2016), I believe it's still relevant and magnified - given what's unfolded since. 

Heck! Imagine my surprise to see I'd written "just walk away" before it became a hashtag  #justwalkaway #walkaway :-)

Here it is, with a couple tiny udate adjustments. ________________________________________

Judo Principle: When a leftist takes a charging campaign and turns it into a sprawl with a well-timed media blitz about its opponent "guessed to have done something."

The Judo Principle is always a question about the opponent's character (never policies). It is designed to get the voter just a little bit pregnant with a seed of doubt.

Leftists know most voters have been brought up on salacious gossip/soap operas/National Inquirers, and therefore dwell in emotion, rather than policies that govern them.

Get `em talk'n about the "Gee. Pour ol' Joe. Did you hear. He has a hidden gambling addiction, puppies in the basement, is addle minded, once shoved a tomato worm up Mary's nose and a badger between Harold's toes."

It's the old distract and surround trick.

Obama, Soros et al are still executing it with perfection.

Don't fall for it folks. Don't fall for it!

Each time you hear a Trump hating *Soros loving person blah, blah, blah about such, hit them by asking their solutions to policies that harm Americans.

They have no solutions.

Why?

They don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

So instead, they'll throw themselves on the floor, kick, scream and throw a big temper tantrum.

Walk away.

If you care to say anything at all to them, stroll past and say, "Little boy (or girl), does your mom know you're behaving like that?"

No. Don't do that. You'll lower yourself to their level.

Just walk away.

A DAIRY FARMER SPEAKS OUT

Kristie Docheff & Roni Sylvester July 2017

Recently, a tweeter asked about the plight (suicide) of dairy farmers. Even though I milked 40 cows every morning and night, from the time I was 13 through 16 years of age, and have lived learning 57 years since, I still don't understand the dairy industry. So I asked a couple dairy farmer friends to give their overview.
Kristie Docheff spoke up! 
I've known Kristie and her husband Jim, for 20 years. More importantly then being great Ag producers and Aggie (They're avid C.S.U. supporters!), they've done a terrific job raising 3 truly capable children!
We're grateful for Kristie's damn good answer!  
Roni Bell Sylvester 

A DAIRY FARMER 
SPEAKS OUT 
By Kristie Dixon Docheff 

We, as agricultural, see our country very different than most.
We are stewards of this great land that some feel belongs to the Native Americans. 
We nurture it, we tend to our soils, we preserve our water. 
Daily, we make sure it is here for the next generation, who will also bring the best product possible to our consumers. 
We are 4th generation dairy farmers. Our son returned as the 5th generation and his children will be the 6th. 
The dairy industry has seen 4 years of very low  - below break even - milk prices.  
Our industry is really struggling. They send out suicide hot line numbers with our milk checks now. Back east I hear there are about 2 suicides a week.
There are only 40,000 dairy farmers in the US...so far too high of a percentage.
Three years of milk price was in Obama’s era...so can’t wholly blame Trump.
What Trump is trying to do with NAFTA is make it fair for us.
We have a 270% tariff on any dairy products going to Canada...but Canada dumps all their Class 7 skim milk on us tariff free. They are gluttoning our market with a product we can’t use; so it costs us as it displaces US produced milk.
The government in Canada subsidizes their price to keep it high by buying its milk and then dumping it on the US market.
We live in a country that loves high fat products. So the skim is useless to us - but we still have to take it. Very unfair part of the NAFTA agreement.
I know a lot of the dairy industry groups are concerned about Trump’s actions of pulling out of the NAFTA agreement...But we need to give it a chance to play out because obviously, at four years below break even, the way it was is not working for industry either.
Our industry’s profitability relies heavily on exports - primarily to China and the European Union as well as Mexico.
While everyone believes the system wasn’t broken and President Trump is breaking it...4 consecutive years below break even leads me to believe maybe it was/is slightly broken and we need to give this new business approach a shot.
I’m so sorry to hear about suicides, but our industry has a lot of its own issues that President Trump has nothing to do with. Like the fact there is no control over the ramped growth in dairy expansions and new dairies.
While the Colorado market, through Dairy Farmers of America, has put a moratorium on any new dairies coming in and shipping to the co-op until 2025, many other markets across the country have done nothing to control their milk production.
So while it may be easy and fashionable for one to blame all their problems on President Trump, we need to look at our own industry and correct our issues right here in America.
Every time production control management is brought up, everybody seems to go bat shit crazy over the thought of it.
Bet you didn’t expect such a long answer (or maybe you did since you know me and my passion for our industry) but this is my 2 cent answer.
It is all OK in our world because what we do best is feed the world. 
We may not travel it...but we will damn sure feed it.
Thank you for asking.
Kristie

OVERHYDRATION OF S. PLATTE RIVER INJURES PROPERTY

Dear Honorable Legislators, 

We offer to you, "A Resolution to reaffirm the process by which Colorado Water Rights are to be administered under the statutory laws of the State of Colorado."

Because Coloradans have a long standing history of supporting and enforcing "pre-existing law," we believe your sponsorship and ultimate passage of this Resolution will have 100% support. 

We encourage the addressed in this email, to please let your legislators know you "support this Resolution." 

This Resolution will resolve Water problems statewide.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Coloradans 

_________________________________

A Resolution

A Resolution to reaffirm the process by which Colorado Water Rights are to be administered under the statutory laws of the State of Colorado.

Be it hereby resolved by this legislative body, the State of Colorado directs and requires State Water Engineers to administer, distribute and regulate the water of the state in a manner consistent with the rules of the Prior Appropriation system: *“First in time, first in right" or "Prior Appropriation” doctrine is based on *Priority Date and amount, aka *Allotment Quantity,” of both surface water and groundwater tributary to a surface stream.  

There has been no law made that extinguished, “first in time, first in right.” Therefore,  we wholly defer to C.R.S. 37-92-102 and hereby declare C.R.S. 37-92-102 stand as the policy of the state of Colorado that, in the determination of water rights, uses, and administration of water, the following principles shall apply:

The Legislator finds the language of this Statute to be clear and unambiguous.

This Resolution hereby orders the State Engineer shall apply the law as it is written.  

From: C.R.S. 37-92-102 Legislative declaration basic tenets of Colorado Water Law

“(2)  Recognizing that previous and existing laws have given inadequate attention to the development and use of underground waters of the state, that the use of underground waters as an independent source or in conjunction with surface waters is necessary to the present and future welfare of the people of this state, and that the future welfare of the state depends upon a sound and flexible integrated use of all waters of the state, it is hereby declared to be the further policy of the state of Colorado that, in the determination of water rights, uses, and administration of water, the following principles shall apply:

·       (a)  Water rights and uses vested prior to June 7, 1969, in any person by virtue of previous or existing laws, including an appropriation from a well, shall be protected subject to the provisions of this article.

·       (b)  The existing use of groundwater, either independently or in conjunction with surface rights, shall be recognized to the fullest extent possible, subject to the preservation of other existing vested rights, but, at his own point of diversion on a natural watercourse, each diverter must establish some reasonable means of effectuating his diversion. He is not entitled to command the whole flow of the stream merely to facilitate his taking the fraction of the whole flow to which he is entitled.

·       (c) The use of groundwater may be considered as an alternate or * supplemental source of supply for surface decrees entered prior to June 7, 1969, taking into consideration both previous usage and the necessity to protect the vested rights of others.

·       (d) No reduction of any lawful diversion because of the operation of the priority system shall be permitted unless such reduction would increase the amount of water available to and required by water rights having senior priorities.”

*Supplemental well drilled prior to 1969 will have the same priority date as the original surface appropriation and can be used to supplement the surface allotment quantity only up to the adjudicated amount of the original surface appropriation. Any water pumped above the total original surface appropriation amount will only have a priority of the date upon which the well was drilled and put to beneficial use. This was the intent of the State legislature as expressed in this Statute. 

_____________________________________________________

*First in time, first in right. An appropriation is made when an individual physically takes water from a stream (or underground aquifer) and places that water to some type of beneficial use. The first person to appropriate water and apply that water to use has the first right to use that water within a particular stream system. This person (after receiving a court decree verifying their priority status) then becomes the senior water right holder on the stream, and that water right must be satisfied before any other water rights can be fulfilled.

*Priority date: “previous, existing, pre-existing, valid, vested and senior water rights.” and amount of surface and groundwater connected, not separate.  

The appropriation date of a water right is the earliest date on which the applicant can demonstrate the initiation of the appropriation, and applies to surface and groundwater (conjunctive use) tributary to a surface stream.

*surface water and groundwater are connected.

*Allotment Quantity: Assume three water-users exist on a stream system with adjudicated water rights totaling 5 cfs (cubic feet per second). The user with the earliest priority date has a decree for 2 cfs, the second priority has a decree for 2 cfs, and the third priority right has a decree for 1 cfs of water. When the stream is carrying 5 cfs of water or more, all of the rights on this stream can be fulfilled. However, if the stream is carrying only 3 cfs of water, its priority number 3 will not receive any water, with priority number 2 receiving only half of its 2 cfs right. Priority number 1 will receive its full amount of 2 cfs under this scenario.

This process of allocating water to various water users is traditionally referred to as "Water Rights Administration," and is the responsibility of the Division of Water Resources.

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?

Andrea Hutchison, Kimmi Lewis, Roni Bell Sylvester 2016 

Should I Stay Or Should I Go

By Andrea Hutchison 

"Should I stay or Should I go?" That 70's tune kept floating around in my head Friday as I drove home from our state capitol. Should I stay home from now on, hole up not leave the ranch? Should I stop fighting for each and every American cattle producer's liberty? I found out Friday it might be a dangerous thing to keep it up.
The Oklahoma beef placard bill, a bill which would force retailers to identify our U.S. beef- distinguish it from foreign imported beef which some-maybe all- of the four multinational beef packers that remain are bringing into the U.S.mixing their product with our awesome American Beef, and labeling it "Product of U.S" well it got a number! That means this bill which was introduced by concerned citizens, consumers and producers is moving forward into the rules committee here at our Oklahoma capitol. Other states around the country are introducing similar bills, we are being forced to do this because NCBA/ Farm Bureau and other Ag groups supposedly on the "cattlemen's side" helped repeal the Country of Origin Labeling standards...go figure? This action has ruined many U.S. cattle producers. So these placard bills have a lot of us producers very excited. It's a win win for both producers and consumers. It protects our businesses, our livelihoods, our rural communities.- Oklahoma and much of our nation was built on cattle, for centuries it has created the fabric of our nation.- and it allows the consumer to know where their beef comes from.
But there are some people that don't share our excitement. They want to keep American cattle producers on the path of vertical integration. Vertically integrating the beef industry will destroy many grassroots cattle producers just like it did the hog and chicken farmers who now serve as surfs upon their land. it will remove producers from their land...that's the plan.

Back to the scary encounter. I made the trip to the capitol Friday to visit with my legislators. I pulled into a full parking lot and had to park a good distance out, as I gathered papers together, put different shoes on, combed my hair, painted my nails, and put lipstick on- I was so behind on a multiple mound of tasks that I wasn't all put together when I arrived..When I was nearly ready to exit I noticed a white Mercedes, tall top van, no windows, pull up behind me, The guy looked like he had a badge on and I thought, "oh no I'm going to get in trouble.was I parking in a no parking spot? But he backed into an empty slot behind me facing my vehicle. Relieved he was only parking I continued to gather my stuff and exit my suburban trying to appear half way presentable. By that time the man in the van was ahead of me. I remember thinking that he wasn't really dressed to go to visit his legislators, he had a heavy industrial looking jacket on. Maybe he was an employee working on the structure as it is under construction,I remember thinking. After walking from the far south side to the entrance I entered the security area, put my items on the conveyor belt and I walked thru the metal detector. As soon as I walked thru security, the guy was waiting for me just a few feet ahead on the other side.
He swung around with a big smile, asked about the papers I had, said something about liking brochures, wanted to shake my hand, and asked if he could have one. I explained they were about farming and ranching -that he might not be interested, but he, replied enthusiastically, "I'm a farmer, I'm an organic citrus farmer from California, I use your manure on my organic crops." As he held the brochure in his hand- I did give him one, I questioned him, 'So you're an organic citrus farmer , and you work for Lincoln Electric? ...this was the wording on the badge I thought I'd seen earlier on his coat. He smiled and muttered nervously something about being cold here in Oklahoma. I quickly took my brochure back telling him I remembered I had only enough for my legislators and was going to need all of them.
He tried to coax me to let him have it and I said you can look us up on line (which made no sense) and I hurried to the bathroom on the other end. When I came out he was taking pictures of the legislators placards down the hall. I quickly went back to security and told them I was very uncomfortable with this man. They said, "the one you were with? I told them I was not with him and they discussed among themselves that he had tried to go around security. They asked if I was OK, I said I want to go do what I had come to do, that I wasn't scared but just concerned. So I went to my legislators offices which took about five minutes as they weren't in. My visit in the capitol wasn't very long- 25 minutes maybe. I returned to the security desk and asked if the man had left yet. They said he hadn't exited that door but he could have gone out another way. One of the OHP's asked if he could walk me back to the car and I accepted. When we got to my suburban he walked around the van, took the tag number and as he was walking back in front said, "Ma'm , get in your vehicle and leave hurry" and I said, "what/" he said, "he's coming". He told me to leave again, and I told him I wasn't leaving and moved closer to the OHP. I said I'm not leaving until he's gone. The guy said, defensively, "I don't know that women"
I stuck with that OHP like glue until I filed a report with the head OHP. I shared with him that our bill might be causing some hard feelings among some very bad people. He agreed, gave me the the California tag number told me to be aware of my surroundings. I was shaky most of the way home.

So...."Should I stay or should I go?" I know for certain without a doubt that we are fighting a spiritual battle.. Those wanting control have always wanted control, they've been around for thousands of years all throughout history trying to take it. Am I scared? No, just more aware of the evil. My faith is in Him and I have a host of angels watching over me and a powerful group of prayer warriors. I contacted several of them afterwards- they prayed for me while I was driving and one said, " I keep this scripture in my car,
Psalm 121:7-8 The Lord will keep you from all harm—He will watch over your life; the Lord will watch over your coming and going...
I serve a powerful God, He is in control, not Jason Clay with the WWF, nor JBS' cartel, nor the others maneuvering the Global and US Roundtables for Sustainable Beef upon America's farms and ranches.
I'm staying...