CORRECT PUBLIC TO FEDERAL LANDS

 Friday, March 16, 2018

DOI - Correct "Public" to "Federal" Lands!

Dear Secretary of DOI, Ryan Zinke,

BLM Acting Deputy Director (Operations) Michael D. Nedd, Deputy Director (Policy) Brian Steed and Acting Chief of Staff Peter Mali, 

In looking your website,  it was so noted that BLM must make the following corrections.  

1) Correct "public" to read "federal." 1976 FLPMA confirmed there are no remaining open (public) lands for settlement. 

2) Correct "wild" horses to read "feral." There are NO "wild" horses in America. 

3) Range Allotment Owners and otherwise property owners on Federal Land would greatly appreciate educational signage that would include language along the line of the following. You may want to consult with Dr. Angus McIntosh, as he's one of few individuals in the United States who knows statutes and policies inside out. 

You are now entering Federal Land. Please be respectful of Property Owners. 

On this land they own livestock, forage, easements, improvements and beneficial use of water. 

Do NOT take any water or forage samples or cause damage to any livestock, improvements etc.

Presently, the public is led to believe they own these lands, and therefore unwittingly cause harm to property owners. 

You can stop harmful actions, by providing the public with accurate information. 

Thank you,

Roni Bell Sylvester 

Here's a great example as to why DOI must make the corrections!

Monuments For All‏ @MonumentsForUSA Jan 17

URGENT: America's heritage is at risk! Tell @SenCoryGardner to defend our public lands and #MonumentsForAll.

Replying to @MonumentsForUSA @SenCoryGardnerMoBecause there are no "public" lands, please identify (provide a map) the exact "surveyed acreages" you want Senator Gardner to d

ALL WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER LAND AND WATER

 

Takings without Just Compensation

A book titled White Rural Rage by Paul Waldman & Tom Schaller is just another full armor attack against our Fuel and Food Providers (FFP), aka "Rural." Why? Rural folks have the Land and Water evil entities want. All wars are fought over Land and Water. Borrowers from such as China and Federal Reserve use all kinds of weapons including wolves,

@algore

's climate, illegals invasion, water theft, conservation easements and monument designations to seize rural Private Property on both deeded and Federal Land. Why? To provide unencumbered collateral for their loans. If, for example, any FFP hater - like

@AdamSchiff

,

@BarbraStreisand

,

@SenSchumer

,

@joebiden

,

@robreiner

,

@GeorgeTakei

,

@StephenKing

or

@cher

, had to take equal the time off as do FFP to defend their property from Takings without Just Compensation, they wouldn't have time to politic, entertain, write books, dehumanize FFP and you-get-the-gist.

COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

Testifying before Colorado General Assembly              photo by Norman Kincaide

By Roni Bell

Colorado Capitol, 2/22/17: 

We testified on two bills having to do with protecting our Constitutional Private Property Rights.
We thank Representatives Kimmi Lewis and Perry Buck, for their ongoing efforts to protect Private Property Rights Owners.
The committee we testified in is known as "The Kill Committee." Right out of the chute that screams "BIAS!" In particular against Private Property Rights.

I'd be embarrassed and apologetic if I served on any court or legislative body, that's so damn predictable as to have a tag liberal, conservative, or voodoo!

And as predicted, they "killed" both bills.
What's really revealing is this: The Republicans voted YEY, the "outnumbering" Democrats voted NAY.
I knew it'd shake out this way.
Why?
Because every committee I've ever testified in on property rights, Democrats don't ask Property Owners questions. Instead, they fawn over those who want to "trespass, use or deny" Property Owners property without Just Compensation.
In listening to the oppositions testimonies and the Democrats questions of them, the most dunning revealing was this: None, have knowledge of our Constitution, Private Property Rights, what constitutes compensatory property, statutes and policies.
One legislator portended to know "all about federal lands" but after their first sentence showed a glaring lack of knowledge.
If you are a Private Property Owner, know that any entity that wants to "hike, float, picnic, help themselves to it," will do so without your permission. Your property will no longer be protected in Colorado.
In Colorado, your foundational rights to "acquire and enjoy property" are gone!
Roni Bell

Photo courtesy of Representative Steve Humphrey

SMART METERS

 

By Peter Menkin

2014

Smart Meters

The controversy over Smart Meters has been steaming in various counties in the United States, including the County of Larimer and the area served in Colorado’s Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association where Lt. Col. Tom Niichel lives with his wife and children. He is on active duty with the United States Air Force. He does not want a Smart Meter installed in his home, which is off the military base and he has been opposed to one being installed since 2010.

These devices measure the amount of electricity or gas used in a home and report it back to the energy company. Customers and consumers complain they emit radiation, and there are a large number of consumers who claim it emits harmful radiation that even causes cancer. People say their installation is an intrusion in their lives, as in the case of the Lt. Col. This is not an unusual complaint.

“A smart meter is usually an electronic device that records consumption of electric energy in intervals of an hour or less and communicates that information at least daily back to the utility for monitoring and billing purposes.^[7] Smart meters enable two-way communication between the meter and the central system. Unlike home energy monitors, smart meters can gather data for remote reporting. Such an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) differs from traditional automatic meter reading (AMR) in that it enables two-way communications with the meter.” So Wikipedia reports.

Europe uses Smart Meters. Wikipedia also reports: “The installed base of smart meters in Europe at the end of 2008 was about 39 million units, according to analyst firm Berg Insight.^[9] Globally, Pike Research found that smart meter shipments were 17.4 million units for the first quarter of 2011.^[10] Visiongain has determined that the value of the global smart meter market will reach $7bn in 2012.^[11]

“Smart meters may be part of a smart grid, but alone, they do not constitute a smart grid.^[12]” 

Lt. Col. Tom. Niichel says in an email that the energy company Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association reports in its minutes,  "Projected completion date is 2014 when all 36,000 meters will be AMI." That means of the 37,000 meters all but 1,000 will be Smart Meters in 2014. That is the energy company completion date target.

 

The Lt. Col. is one household head who does not want a Smart Meter, as has been said. He has opposed having the meter and in 2014 met with energy officials in their offices. After leaving their offices this is the incident he encountered. Others have had police encounters over smart meters, but this is an unusual one.

 

After the meeting with the Smart Meter officials Lt. Col. Tom Niichel, USAF, found himself suddenly confronted with police officers on exiting the building—to his surprise. He wrote in a narrative a report available to this reporter a long statement, and this is a quote:

As I was walking down the side walk I thought the sheriff’s car odd since there is a very narrow shoulder and I would have thought he would have had lights going since it was a hazard as parked.  I stopped about 10 feet from the end of the walk to contemplate it when two officers jumped up from behind some junipers separating the parking area from the turn-around drive.  They were off to my left and about 75 feet from me.  The younger officer to my far left had his pistol drawn and a bead on me.  The other officer seemed to have difficulty mounting his AR weapon and never really got me in his sights.  My hands were at my sides with several papers in my right.  The younger officer yelled at me to get my hands away from my body, as I complied by raising my arms to 90 degrees, I noticed a third officer off to my right a little over a hundred feet distant among some trees, he too was armed with an AR type weapon and it was trained in my general direction if not directly on me. 

 

The younger officer told me to turn around, I complied.  I was very concerned by the 1^st AR officer’s apparent inabilities with his weapon.  During this entire sequence of events, my demeanor was calm, non-threatening and as professional as one can be when facing three weapons.  I was however very concerned with the apparent lack of skill or training of particularly the 1^st AR officer as I could hear him fumbling with the weapon as I turned away from them.  I actually remember wondering if I might become the victim of a negligent discharge, I just prayed that if he did let one go, it would not be in my direction. 

 

This incident made the Lt. Col. both unhappy and even incensed at the police action, thinking it illegal even so that a long series of events followed and a private investigation was begun by the Lt. Col. that continues as of the writing of this report. He continues to discover the reason for their actions, thinking it connected to his own meeting with the Smart Meter officials. It is his reasonable suspicious that this is a form of intimidation regarding his belief that Smart Meters are a problem and even a hazard for homeowners for a variety of reasons, including these: invasion of privacy because they gather data that they don’t need or haven’t a right to record, that they emit radiation that can prove hazardous, and that they sometimes spontaneously catch fire.

A reporter can find numerous if not numbers and numbers of people willing to complain about and even make argument about the dangers of Smart Meters. Some of these stories are more extreme than others.

Virginia Farver wrote Fort Collins Light and Power saying she didn’t want the Smart Meter. The result from writing them in the Fall of 2013 came in March 2014. The power company put the Smart Meter in anyway and came to her door to tell her this with a policeman. The Smart Meter is still at her house.

Rich Farver, Virginia’s son, passed away in 2008 and Virginia believes that the kind of cancer he died of was partially the result of living near a cell pole carrying Smart Meter information connected to the grid. “There were three men in the same room in the same building (teachers) who were diagnosed with brain cancer in 2008.” “My son graduated from Colorado State University and he went to San Diego State to receive his Masters degree. It was there that he became sick. He passed away at home in Colorado. He was 28 when he was diagnosed and passed away at 29.” She says the cell poles are dangerous. Regarding her home installation:

They put in the Smart Meter to control what we can and can’t do. They want to control how much water and energy we can use. “They know these things are dangerous but they continue to use them.” As she points out, “I live in Fort Collins, Colorado just north of Denver about 50 miles.” Virginia Farver is something of an authority on the issue of claims against Smart Meter regarding cancer causing incidences and actual cases. She can cite websites and news sources with ease that are connected to cell poles. This is a list of three news sources she suggests:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2009/03/11/can-you-figure-out-if-sdsu-has-a-coincid...
http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/03/san-diego-cancer-clusters-hazard-or-coinc...
 
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/campus-building-blame...
Because there is so much detail from Lt. Col. Tom Niichel of USAF, this reporter will again quote from him when he narrates his meeting with the Sheriff Justin Smith of Larimer County, Colorado regarding his request for an explanation for the intimidating incident with police who drew their guns on him. You’ll note that this August 7, 2014 meeting with the Larimer County Sheriff is not solo by the Lt. Col., but he is accompanied by an attorney named Terry Ryan who now represents him. Note that this business of the Smart Meter began in 2010 and it took four years to reach the point it has matured to at this time. As you can tell from the opening sentence of the Lt. Col.’s narrative, there was a threat to turn off his power. This is his narrative of the meeting with the Sheriff as he wrote it:

 

 

 

I still have power and the original analog meter.  Today Mr. Terry Ryan and I met at the Sheriff’s office at about 1545 for a 1600 meeting with Sheriff Justin Smith.  We waited in the lower lobby about 5 minutes before being led upstairs to the Sheriff’s outer office.  Shortly after 1600 Sheriff Smith came out of his office, introduced himself, asked if we needed anything to drink, got himself a cup of coffee and we all went to his office.  Mr. Ryan asked what the sheriff knew about the incident I had with his deputies at the PVREA office in late June and he replied that he was aware of the general circumstances but had not been briefed on the details. 

            They asked me to recount some of the details so I began with a short synopsis of the disagreement I have had with PVREA (Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association) regarding the Smart meter program since 2010 and how it had escalated into so forceful letters as of late.  I described how I had been invited to the PVREA office to discuss and see the meters they wanted to install on my premises.  I briefly recounted my experience with his officers and then asked what I believed was that his officers were given some erroneous information that led them to the level of force they executed that evening.  I told the sheriff that I wanted to know what that information was and who gave it to his deputies.  That in my mind the amount of force utilized on me was unwarranted unless the deputies were acting upon information other than the threat I presented while leaving the building.  \

 

It is clear to this reporter that the Lt. Col. remains unhappy and even incensed at the actions by the police in their intimidating behavior after his meeting with the Smart Meter officials and wants clarity and even an apology from the Sheriff’s department regarding the incident, including the action of the officers pulling their guns on him. This he said was dangerous and even life threatening. He wondered, and sanely so, what if there had been an accident and he had been shot!

 

Unfortunately, according to the Sheriff, his office is not the place to seek redress. The Sheriff wrote an email to this reporter and said Lt. Col. Tom needs to seek another venue. This is the text of the body of his email: I met with Mr. Niichel and advised him that we would provide him the information on the incident through an open records request. I believe it's best for him to review those records for himself. His concerns with the smart meter are a civil matter and I encouraged him to work with counsel through a court on civil matters if he wishes a legal remedy. A contract between a utility company and a customer is a private matter, so civil court would be the appropriate jurisdiction for him to reach out to.” Dated August 25, 2014, the email is signed Sheriff Smith.

 

The Lt. Col. continues to seek information on the deputies reasons for drawing their guns. He continues to refuse to allow a Smart Meter to be installed in his home. People continue to oppose the installation of Smart Meters and call the act government “intrusion.” Smart Meters continue to be successfully installed in thousands of homes, many of them against people’s objections.

THE BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIE

 The Big Federal Government Lie

I can’t answer your (impertinent and inconvenient) question. The matter is under investigation.

William L. Kovacs

The eight most disingenuous words used these days by federal agencies are intended to hide their criminal activity: “I can’t answer. The matter is under investigation.”

These words are used to obstruct, mislead, delay and discourage congressional investigations into the legality of Executive Branch activity. In effect, they say: “Your question is impertinent, inconvenient and intolerable. How dare you question anything Executive Branch agencies are doing?”

Unfortunately, this simple statement often achieves its goal of obstructing efforts by Congress to obtain information that it and the American people need and deserve to have, to ensure “government of, by and for the people,” instead of the federal bureaucracy.

While Congress may be upset with the response, it is often cowed into accepting the assertion that presidents can protect their people from being investigated even for criminal conduct. However, fortunes and precedents can be reversed.

If Republicans win the White House with a presidential candidate who sincerely wants to uphold the rule of law, restore justice to the legal system and hold the “Deep State” accountable, that president can make it happen.

The leading Presidential candidates for the Republican nomination have promised to fire the FBI director and clean house at the Department of Justice. If a Republican wins the presidency in November 2024, FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland will resign long before they can be fired.

So, candidates, please, stop pandering. No one will be fired. It’s all pablum – worthless, insipid, oversimplified assertions, threats and promises.

Suppose a new president truly wants to clean up the deep, dark, corrupt state at the DOJ, FBI and other federal agencies. In that case, the Republican president need only waive Executive Privilege and issue an executive order declassifying all investigatory materials sought by the current Republican House of Representatives. Let Congress bleed the truth out of those subverting the Constitution.

Executive compliance is simple. When Congress requests documents, the Executive should order them produced. When testimony is sought, provide it without asserting objections. Cooperate with the Republican House to find the truth and restore our republican form of government.

Since the Nixon administration, presidents have asserted Executive Privilege thirty times to block congressional investigations. Presidential assertions included protecting the president’s brother (Billy Carter), girlfriends (Monica Lewinsky), mismanagement of funds (Solyndra), foreign affairs (Benghazi), gun running (Fast and Furious) and tape recordings (Watergate).

Democrat and Republican administrations have routinely acted as though providing Congress with requested information concerning an investigation will somehow diminish their manhood.

Finding and eliminating corruption is for the benefit of the nation. Hiding corruption does not assist the president in the faithful execution of the law.

The DOJ/FBI’s long-running minuet of never sharing information with congressional committees is a mechanism of deceit, not of protecting the independence and effectiveness of law enforcement, safeguarding informant identities, avoiding pre-trial publicity, or interfering with prosecutorial discretion.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the “…implied power [of Congress] to investigate and to compel the production of information” from the Executive branch.

“Executive Privilege for presidential communications is limited to the quintessential power and nondelegation of Presidential power, and those are the core functions in the Constitution.” It should only be asserted to preserve those core constitutional functions. Claiming it beyond the core constitutional functions is a delaying tactic that often allows illegal conduct to continue.

As to declassifying all documents related to alleged criminal activity in the Executive branch, no president should ever intentionally or unintentionally cover it up. The American Bar Association has written: “Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as Commander-in-Chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through executive orders.”

While there are procedures for declassifying the materials, except for certain materials such as nuclear secrets, a president has almost total control to declassify records by executive order. Presidents at all times have the power to shine sunlight on government corruption. When they choose not to expose corruption, it is an intentional coverup.

Unfortunately, since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, the Executive Branch has forced Congress to issue subpoenas to secure requested documents. Presidents achieve their goal of protecting corruption by requiring years of legal battles to enforce the subpoena.

Hopefully, there will be a Republican Congress, or at least a Republican House sworn in on January 3, 2025, and on January 20, 2025 a Republican president. Between January 3, 2025, and January 20, 2025, the Republican Congress can prepare the appropriate investigative letters to the incoming president, requesting the information needed to root out corruption, especially in the DOJ and FBI, but also in the EPA and CDC over climate, energy and Covid fear-mongering, disinformation and censorship.

On January 20, when the Republican president enters the White House, his first order of business should be to issue an executive order waiving executive privilege and formally declassifying the documents relating to all congressional investigations.

These waivers should encompass all alleged DOJ/FBI corruption, as described in the Durham, Mueller and Horowitz Reports, records of payments received by Joe and Hunter Biden and their family members from foreign countries, all matters associated with the development of a two-tier system of justice, efforts by the federal government to force social media companies to manipulate or censor information distributed to the public, and all other matters of high-level DOJ, FBI, EPA and CDC corruption.

By taking this approach, the president will tremendously assist the congressional investigation of executive agency misconduct, without investigating the departments he leads. If Congress finds evidence of criminal or unethical activity, it will refer the evidence to new appointees at a DOJ for appropriate prosecution.

Suppose Executive Branch personnel refuse to testify, or “take the Fifth” to protect their constitutional right not to be a witness against themselves.

In that case, Congress can grant the Use Immunity, which compels their testimony but provides immunity to the witness for the new information provided. A witness who refuses to testify after being given Use Immunity can be cited for contempt of Congress and imprisoned.

It's time for the federal government to get serious about corruption in government.

More intriguing and overdue would be having a president who followed the advice humbly presented here. The nation might uncover who is actually running the Deep State.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in DC law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy (government by the least qualified, most unscrupulous) is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

BLOOMBERG FINANCES & COOPTS STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL

State AGs aid Bloomberg quest for ‘green’ energy 

that threatens planet, wildlife and people

Paul Driessen

When you’ve built a financial information and media empire and become the world’s seventh richest person, you get to say dumb things, like suggesting that farming is easy: “You dig a hole, put a seed in, put dirt on top, add water – and up comes the corn.”

Being ultra-wealthy also shields Michael Bloomberg from any fallout from the climate and energy policies he pursues so zealously. He will doubtless be able to afford electricity at any price for his multiple mansions, from any source, backed up by thousands of battery modules to cover the repeated blackouts his policies will unleash. The other 99.9% won’t be so fortunate.

Mr. Bloomberg bankrolls campaigns against coal and natural gas; supports efforts to populate the Biden Administration with rogue regulators equally intent on “transforming” America’s energy system, society and living standards; and champions ESG principles for financial firms, companies and investors. His company even has Sustainability and ESG & Climate divisions. Mr. Bloomberg serves as UN Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions, enabling him to advance his agendas internationally.

ESG (Environmental Social Governance) helps unelected asset managers use their control over trillions of investment dollars to pressure companies, lenders and consumers to embrace far-left activist versions of public welfare and justice, even if it causes clients’ portfolio values to decline. ESG is a subversive way to bypass legislatures, voters and democratic processes, to impose unpopular political and ideological agendas, often in violation of fiduciary obligations.

ESG opposes fossil fuels, insisting they are causing climate cataclysms. Any company in that business, or offering to finance a drilling project, gets blackballed. But companies building or financing “clean, green” energy score in the ESG stratosphere – even though most such projects destroy vast swaths of wildlife habitats, involve slave and child labor, and leave widespread toxic pollution in their wake. ESG human rights, ecological and climate justice principles are duplicitous and hypocritical.

As New York City mayor, Mr. Bloomberg infamously advocated exorbitant taxes on large sugary drinks, claiming they lead to obesity and thus to diabetes, cancer, heart disease and premature death. He simply wanted to help poor people live longer, he asserted, by making Big Gulps less affordable.

It’s thus puzzling that he now wants to banish reliable, affordable gas heat and coal- and gas-generated electricity for heating and air conditioning – in favor of pricey, weather-dependent wind and solar power, backed up by outrageously expensive batteries. Those policies shorten lives.

Even if manmade or natural climate change causes average global temperatures to climb 2-3 degrees, modern technologies would keep us safely comfortable. But if laws, policies and ESG pressures make heating and AC inaccessible or unaffordable, indoor temperatures can soar 15-25 degrees in summertime and drop as precipitously in wintertime. People die – and cold is far deadlier than heat.

When people, especially the elderly, cannot heat their homes properly, they can perish from hypothermia or illnesses they would likely survive if they weren’t so cold. The Economist calculated that expensive energy may have killed 68,000 more Europeans than Covid did last winter.

LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) will help the poorest families – until the subsidy money runs out – but not middle/working classes, and not small businesses.

Even worse, three billion people worldwide still do not have access to reliable, affordable electricity. Message to climate zealots like Mr. Bloomberg: Access to intermittent, unpredictable wind/solar electricity doesn’t count, especially if it’s only enough to charge a cell phone or power a lightbulb or one-cubic-foot refrigerator. Lack of access to sustained, affordable energy kills.

The billionaire’s legal power grab is even more insidious and dangerous to democracy.

In 2017 he began covertly funding New York University Law School’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center, which provides grants to progressive (Democrat) state attorneys general, enabling them to hire “special assistant” AGs or “fellows.”

The Center’s mission is to provide “direct legal assistance” to interested AGs “on specific administrative, judicial or legislative matters involving clean energy, climate change and environmental interests of regional and national significance,” when AGs say they lack sufficient public funds to hire such help.

NYU now says “the fellows’ sole duty of loyalty is to the attorney general in whose office they serve.” However, these partisan Bloomberg grants pay salaries and “generous benefits packages” to “special assistants” whose functions are dictated by the Center; address specified “regional and national” issues normally beyond the purview of state AGs; are routinely coordinated with energy and climate activists and donors to those causes; and often launch “public nuisance” or RICO litigation against oil companies, to the detriment of targeted industries and the consumers and ratepayers who depend on their products, within the AGs’ home states and in distant states and communities.

It is the Bloomberg agenda that is being served, by grants that effectively conscript and coopt the public authority and power of the attorney general’s offices.

As a 2022 report by the American Tort Reform Foundation notes, “These SAAGs are private attorneys placed in public positions to exercise government authority. Yet, they are not independent or impartial because their mandate is to carry out an overtly political agenda funded by wealthy private donors.”

This “unique” arrangement, the Foundation continues, “allows well-heeled individuals and organizations to commandeer state and local police powers to target opponents with whom they disagree, raising the specter of corruption and fundamental unfairness in what should be public enforcement of the law.”

Those same considerations also appear to raise fundamental ethical, legal and constitutional issues. They certainly raise questions about laws governing gifts, campaign contributions and bribes – and where Bloomberg-funded lawyers are involved in prosecutions, serious due-process concerns.

And yet the NYU Center has already placed at least 11 special assistants in eight state attorney general offices, which have filed at least 20 lawsuits against a few selected oil companies, charging them with “climate denial” or causing planetary warming, rising seas, more frequent and intense hurricanes and tornadoes, and other “offenses.”

This litigation ignores the actions of hundreds of other oil and gas companies across the globe; steadily rising emissions from China, India and other rapidly developing nations; the role of natural forces and emissions from wind turbine, solar panel and battery mining, processing and manufacturing; the lack of evidence to support claims of a climate “crisis” or more frequent and violent storms; and the fact that these issues should be litigated in federal courts or relegated to a democratic political process.

The US Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to quash this rampant litigation, but it chose not to review the state and local cases and send them to federal courts. The seemingly endless lawsuits and acrimony are creating a legal, constitutional, scientific and public policy nightmare for businesses, consumers, courts, states and the nation.

Rest assured, billionaires like Bloomberg, Gates, Kerry, Zuckerberg and Soros – who demand that we commoners give up our cars, gas stoves and furnaces, steaks, air travel and suburban homes – don’t intend to give up anything.

Let’s hope the pro-America governors, AGs, legislators, judges and business groups battling ESG and other woke campaigns tackle this NYU Impact Center hornets nest as well..

Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environmental, and human rights issues.