www.BREDL.org 4617 Pearl Rd. Raleigh N.C. 27610 (919) 345-3673 email@example.com
August 15, 2013
I am writing to make you aware of an important personal property rights issue that is facing North Carolina. Right now, the Mining and Energy Commission is deciding whether to allow the State, gas companies, and others to force an individual to sell their natural gas resource whether they want to, or not. If compulsory, forced pooling for hydraulic fracturing is allowed in North Carolina communities, a very few could affect the lives of many.
This is a good description of what forced pooling is:
“[To be] Forced Pooled is the act of being forced by state law into participation in an oil and/or gas producing unit. Pooling is a technique used by oil and gas development companies to organize an oil or gas field.
When two or more separately owned tracts are embraced within a drilling unit, or when there are separately owned interests in all or a part of the drilling unit, then persons owning such interests may pool their interests for the development and operation of the drilling unit. It is sometimes the case that not all interests within a drilling unit are in agreement about development. In that case, a party interested in development can make an application to the concerned state authority for forced or involuntary pooling.”
Recently, Calvin Tillman, former Mayor of Dish Texas said: “You know, what they’re doin’ here is the biggest assault on private property rights that I’ve ever heard of or seen. And, they’re supposed to be conservatives. That’s one of the founding principles of conservatism, is private property rights. And you got no property rights.”
Of additional concern is the potential for property rights abuses in the development of infrastructure for this industry.
One landowner was outraged when the company that had leased their land was given eminent domain power by the federal government in order to build a pipeline:
“Once the government becomes involved, this is what happens. Because you lose that leverage,” said Amy Gardner, who, with her husband, faces condemnation of part of their 175-acre parcel in Sullivan County.”
This threat to personal property rights concerns us all; we have a long history of working with communities facing the taking of their land by the government. We feel that the issues of forced pooling and eminent domain needs to be more widely understood and discussed in the public arena.
Regardless of what side of the fence you stand on concerning hydraulic fracturing, this is just plain wrong, and flies in the face of the Constitution. We are asking Governor McCrory to stop forced pooling in North Carolina. I would be more than happy to talk with you further concerning this important issue.
I saw this headline earlier and couldn’t help but comment about it; Student charged in stabbings on TX campus, 14 injured.
I doubt you will hear much about this in the media because the accused wasn’t carrying a gun. Think about that sentence for a minute. There’s no denying the truth. The gun control debates makes sensational news, news that will go on for some time. Why? Guns are good business for politics. It polarizes citizens on one side or the other and makes good news. It incites fear, but a knife attack actually has the opposite effect. If reported in the news like guns, then gun control advocates would have to insist on a knife ban, or controls on “tactical” knifes. (yes there are such things know as tactical knives) Guess how far a knife ban will get.
This entire gun control matter is really a waste of talk, news print, and broadcast time. Criminals couldn’t care less what is said, or what laws are passed. There are approximate 3o0 million guns in the United States right now and all of this talk is increasing sales every day. The attempt to ban or tax ammo out of existence won’t work either. People who have guns have already bought significant amounts of ammo for their guns, and a black market for ammo will emerge bringing imported ammo from other countries.
Gun control advocate’s or other extremists with a cause about firearms, get over it and find another cause. This battle is lost, those who want guns will have guns.
This is an opinion page and is open to the public to submit any reasonable topic they wish published.
None of the opinions are the views of WSTP, Rowan Media Inc., it’s management or its stockholders.
The reason many immigrates came to America in the 18, 19, and 20 century was to flee the state sponsor religions or oppressions there of by the governments of some nations.
The first amendment to the constitution states: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” Furthermore the sixth amendment states: ”no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.”
The original writers of the Constitution felt so strong about the separation between the church and state, they made it the first amendment, the absolute law of the country.
While Christianity may be practiced by the majority of the population, it may be offensive to other nationalities that have legally immigrated here. Today is no different than the circumstances of our ancestors 200 years ago. Every attempt that has challenged the interpretation of the first Amendment by US Supreme court has failed.
Our elected officials may want to practice Christianity as a trust guiding their decision making powers while in office, those same powers that affects the American people clearly challenges the First amendment of the Constitution. It would appear the word “Congress” may have different interpretations but the entire issue is about the separation of church and state. Only the courts can decide the interpretation of the word “Congress” but likely it has been challenged before with the same decision handed down over time.
While a body of elected officials decide the establishment of new laws or amendment of existing laws it should be prudent for the guidance of their decisions be based on an absence of religious beliefs, otherwise some acts of the elected officials may have a negative effect on other religious beliefs and practices of the people legally immigrated to this country.
Wikipedia was used as a source of information for this article.