July 21, 2019

To The Ones I Count on One Hand

Share

Blackstone Just Another Clever Term Smith

Free country? Whatever.. The U.S. corporation is a monstrous fraud…

PERSON and TAXES
June 21, 2019

Person and Taxes

A little primer By The Informer

Public Law 101-508 section 11801 A 45, repealed Subchapter E of Chapter 64. This Statue at Large wiped out all of 26 USC 6361 and all State Qualified Income Taxes in 1990. However, the Regs still are published and this cannot be. This is the fraud the IRS uses. Hawthorne, the leading authority states, “the regulation dies when the statute from which it came from is repealed.”

I would say the IRS has a rather large problem because 301 is administrative operation of the IRS and it does not exist because Congress repealed all statutes in 1990. In doing so it deleted about 600 regulations that the IRS still operates under, illegally.

The Qualified State Income Tax applied only to those sources of income and not the income itself; i.e.; the hamburger sold by Wendy’s is not the source, Wendy’s is the source. If your income came from a private company that private company is not the source because the “qualified tax” is shown in the agreement with the State and the IRS. Within that agreement lists the source as business in a revenue taxable activity.

Section 61 of 26 USC only lists the ITEMS of income which are taxable. 26 CFR 1.861-8 lists the sources of income that are taxable so the state can implement it’s state income tax. Knowing what to look for and knowing it is business you have to go to the 1909 Corporation Tax act to see that all income taxes are taxes on corporations and not on people in their natural physical state, but in their artificial state.

Now that means man, in his natural physical personality cannot ever be taxed. But should that man take on the personality of a “person,” IN LAW, then he becomes artificial and subject to the tax. Taking on that personality of “person” makes him a “resident” and is synonymous with “individual” and “Inhabitant.” This is borne out by the Supreme Court’s defining the term “resident” as being the same as “inhabitant” in the case of United States v Penelope, 27 Fed. Case #16024. The word person in 26 USC 7701(a)1 uses the word “individual” to define the word person as well as other artificial entities like association, partnership and corporation, all of whom are artificial. So how do you know you are an artificial personality or a physical personality in the eyes of “the law?”

Here is a rendition from a book that Paul Burge showed me when he obtained a complete set from the LaSalle Law school. The title is Vol 13,Jurisprudence and Legal Institutions, American Law and Procedures, by law professor James Andrews Albany Law school and Ruskin University. I will quote only portions as it is rather large to reproduce it all. I will not emphasize key words as I have done in the past.

I will bracket my notes in [ ]. Starting with the term “leading.” You all heard that term used in court where the defense or prosecutor jumps up and says “your honor he i s leading the witness.” What is happening is that the witness is being led to believe a set of words or circumstances the defense attorney wants him to believe and the answer from the witness will prove it. So we start in the book with a few passages before Section 64, The legal conception of leading words.

Jeremy Bentham, in his remarks in reference to the inexact use of language by Blackstone in pages 47 and 49 of the Commentaries, says: “When leading terms are made to chop and change their several significations, sometimes meaning one thing, sometimes another, at the upshot perhaps nothing, and this in the compass of a paragraph, one may judge what will be the complexion of the whole context”.

Sec. 64. The legal conception of leading words. Inasmuch as the words person, man, thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it, and at the same time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in the Roman, the English and in American law.

By now people you should see why the Rule of Presumption is applied in the courts or when you deal with government that YOU are looked upon by the court, government (IRS), NOT as what you think you are and they are applying leading terms to you. I have always said, DO NOT use pro se, or propria persona in any of your pleadings because of the below statements by this professor of law who wrote the best definition of person that you will ever get.

Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word “person,” and the latter word interchangeably with “individual” and “man,” whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.

Section 65. The word “person” defined.

Gaius says “De Juris divisione” [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding his division of the law; then follows, “De conditione hominm”[meaning the condition or status of men]. In the Institutes “De jura personarum” precedes the expression “all our law relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions. The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or status of individuals.

Still want to write in propria persona on your legal paperwork?

Continuing with section 65;

Person and Taxes

The word “homo” corresponds to the English word “man,” and, as the Romans expressed it, “unus homo sustinet plures personas;” i.e., one man has many persons, or sustains many status, or many different conditions (34 AUSTINS JUR., 362)
Austin says: “The term ‘person’ has two meanings, which must be carefully distinguished. It denotes a man or human being; or it signifies some condition borne by a man (35 See Harvard Law Review 101). A person (as meaning a man) is one or individual, but a single or individual person (meaning a man) may sustain a number of persons (meaning condition or status)” (36 Austins Jur., 363). Notice that this meaning is not so broad as that given by Ortolan. It does not include artificial persons.

Again, he says: “As throwing light on the celebrated distinction between jus rerum and jus personarum, phrases which have been translated so absurdly by Blackstone and others,–rights of persons and rights of things, jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. It is a remarkable confirmation of this that Gauis, in the margin purporting to give the title or heading of this part of the law, has entitled it thus: De conditione hominum; and Theophilus, in translating the Institutes of Justinian from Latin into Greek, has translated jus personarum . . . diviso personarum; understanding evidently by persona . . . not an individual or physical person but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons.This distinctly shows the meaning of the phrase jus personarurn, which has been involved in impenetrable obscurity by Blackstone and Hale. The law of persons is the law of status or condition; the law of things is the law of rights and obligations considered in a general manner, or as distinguished from these peculiar collections of rights and obligations which are styled conditions and considered apart.

A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is personality, which we see and by which we are affected.

I never liked Blackstone and his works and now this bears out my beliefs. Sure he led people to believe in freedom when all along he hid words that would show people that the King still ruled America as James Montgomery and I have pointed out. Blackstone is the modern agent provocateur. Further on in this chapter I quote a couple of sentences that make sense of the above and are a kick in the seat, they are;”The Law does not distinguish between men except by their personality.” “By nature all men are created free and equal, i.e. of equal rank, equal rights; but the law does not look upon all men as equal, though the law of the United States all men have equal civil rights. SEE Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 368

“The word “persons” denoted certain conditions of rank or status with which man was clothed by law.” Man clothed by law? Does this make you sick or what?

Knowing this now makes all that they are doing to us, for THEY KNOW the law and don’t tell us, a fraud. A complete unadulterated fraud to deprive us of our personality, rights and all that goes with it. However, everyone who claims to be a sovereign doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.

Montgomery and I and a few others never call ourselves “sovereign” because there is only one Sovereign and you are a mere subject of His. As I have stated before who are you to call yourself sovereign? Sovereign over what, another man? Then he is your slave and you are no better than those who have taken your rights and personality away by artifice. Ready for Ortolan’s explanation of Personality in section 65? You people calling yourselves sovereigns better start regrouping after reading this entire article.

Ortolan’s explanation of personality. The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan’s treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise: “The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. This word in law has two acceptations: In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subjects of rights.

“We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature. Thus, it erects into persons the state, cities, communities, charitable or other institutions, even purely material objects, such as the fiscus, or inheritance in abeyance, because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing rights. In the inverse sense, every man in Roman law is not a person. For example, slaves were considered as the property of the master, especially under the rigorous system of primitive legislation, because they are the object and not the subject of law. This, however, did not prevent the Romans from including them in another sense in the class of persons.

“We shall therefore have to discriminate between and to study two classes of person: physical or natural persons,for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman jurisprudence except the expressions taken from Ulpian, singularis persona (46 Does this not equal individuals See 10 Harvard Law Review., 101); that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.

“In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say,each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time.Here is even more to cause you to say, man now I know why everybody is losing when calling themselves all these leading presumptive terms in law.

Think you are getting the plan of attack organized in your head yet? Here is more to help you and we are still in section 65.There can be found in the Commentaries of Blackstone no definition of the word person, nor any explanation of the meaning intended to be ascribed to the word “person,” and the word is there used indiscriminately in the popular and the legal sense, interchangeably with “man” and “individual,” and also to designate artificial beings capable of having rights.

Boy, wasn’t Blackstone a real bastard for screwing the people at the behest of the King? Well all you people who claim you are the “People” in the Preamble and by golly you want that Constitution at all costs, don’t you. You have a false god before you rather than believe in the True God of the Universe, the true Law Giver. Well after reading The New History of America you cannot disagree, especially after reading the Padleford case, 14 GA 438, but many have disagreed. So with that in mind let us move to Chapter 13, Section 104 of the Law Book. After reading this and you still want to be a preamble citizen or State citizen then that is your choice. So don’t complain when they want all you have and tell you what to do. Ready for the coup d’etat?

Chapter VIII
PEOPLE.
Section 104. The people: Identity.

In the United States the people are brought on the stage as an acting political entity, acting, it is true, always through representatives. As expressed by Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: “In free states the people form an artificial person or body politic, the highest and noblest that can be known” (1 Wilson’s Works). By “the people” of a state is meant all of the (members) which compose that state and are integral parts of it, together making a body politic (2 Penhollow v Doane, 3 Dall. 55, 93).

[PEOPLE, THIS IS A STRAIGHT OUT ADMIRALTY CASE, IN CASE YOU DIDN”T KNOW AS IT DEALT WITH LAW MERCHANTS, YOU KNOW THEM AS CORPORATE ENTITIES. MEMBERS ARE THOSE WANTING IN ON THE ACTION AND ARE SUBJECTS AS THEY TAKE ON THE PERSONALITY OF PERSON IN LAW AND ARE , THEREFORE, ARTIFICIAL. ONLY ARTIFICIAL PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT BY ANOTHER FICTION (ARTIFICAL BODY POLITIC OR IN OTHER WORDS CORPORATION OF THE STATE OR UNITED STATES. THEY ARE DESCRIBED BY WILSON ABOVE AS MEMBERS OF THE BODY POLITIC AND YOU WILL SEE THIS BELOW AND TOWARDS THE END OF THIS ARTICLE]

The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body politic; thus constituted they form a moral person”. “It is this person we call a state.” (41 Wilson’s Works 321- 325: 2 Wilson’s Works 321)” “There is no distinction between the people and the state” (5 Penhollow v Doane, 3 Dall 93).

It must not be forgotten that, in using the expression “the people,” there is a distinction between the population of the nation, as individuals, and the same population organized under a constitution. By “the people,” in this connection, we intend a body politic, a corporate unity. Because of the quality of singleness we may properly use the pronoun “it,” though, this is not usual. It is hard for the citizen to lose sight of the individuals in the body; but correctly viewed, as drops of water lose their forms as drops when they mingle with the whole and become not drops, but one body, even so the citizen in his political capacity loses the civil capacity of (an individual when viewed as a part of that great unit “the people.”

It is the whole mass, and not a majority of the individuals composing it, which constitutes the people, and the people are to be regarded, not as an unorganized mob, but as a corporate unity composing a society (6) This is a big footnot —Jameson, Const. Con. (4thed.), pp. q8, 19, notes: Von Holst’s Con. Law, 48, 49; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 92.”A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person), I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens who compose the state, and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it; all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republic) in general is, that in the former the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as a subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the ease, for it has not been so universally.

But in a republic, all the citizens as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is In effect an act of the whole community, which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their political capacity only.”

[THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TRIED TO GET ACROSS IN THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA. The U.S was established as a CORPORATION in 1787 with all the states already a body of corporate entities of the King. As the People in the Preamble were those already in power and had money,wealth in land and so forth, these were the People mentioned in the Preamble to the corporate bylaws called a Constitution. Only they could vote, if you studied history. You needed so much land or so many pounds sterling to vote. VOTING WAS NOT A RIGHT AND NEVER HAS BEEN. It has always been a PRIVILEGE. For if it a right then even a beggar would have the “right” to vote. Such was not the case. So let me finish off Section 104 after the above long footnote.

There are dicta to the effect that the people, when spoken of in the political sense, means only those persons having the right to vote, that is, the electors; and it is at the same time said that in the electors is vested the sovereignty. Thus stated, the idea does not, as we shall see, properly obtain, and is contrary to the principles of American institutions. Voters are but parts of the machinery of government. In the constitution “the people ” is sometimes used to indicate persons or individuals. So in all provisions in reference to unreasonable seizures and searches. In such provision it is identical with the use in Blackstone.

[Ok, what did you learn in Section 65? You learned that persons and individuals, as just here stated are artificial persons. Men who have taken on the personality as corporate entities and now have no personality as a physical being AS DEFINED BY LAW OF THE CORPORATION.

Gee, how much plainer can it get? Now let us see what happens to this “individual” who is synonymous with “person” because “individual” is used in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) to define person and that person is liable according to their law because he is an artificial entity. Where is the sovereignty spoken of? There is none in a corporate body politic because all “members” must support the corporation at all costs and the corporation has the right to take whatever wealth from its members to prevent its collapse. Guess what shows up on all “Individual Master Files?” Yup, you guessed it, the first four letters of you name in all caps denoting the artificial man from the physical man. It even says so in the VAL 1 code, that some one else is using the physical man’s SS number.

I wonder who that could be? What personalities are working here? And while we are at it the definition of “Individual” in Title 5 USC 552 (a) (2) is that United States citizen who is a “member” of the “body politic.” They don’t use the word “person” but “individual” which is a word describing “person.” I am now going to go way back to 1990 when I published Which One Are You and quote from page 203. Many people say the book is just as hard to understand as is the code I was trying to make understandable. Those people are those that belong to a group that the Lord said, “There will always be the poor among you.”

Meaning not money poor, but comprehension poor or those that have eyes will that not see and those that have ears that will not hear. Here is the section out of my book that now, maybe, when put beside this article will show what I was trying to get across. You will also see how in Hale v Hinkle the court slides back and forth with the word “individual” by talking about it in the “common sense” and then the “legal sense.” This proves we have to look at those “LEADING TERMS” that I quoted at the very beginning of this article.

“It is an AXIOM that “he who deals with or trusts in government does so at his own peril,” (see American States Report Digest, ‘Bills and Notes’ etc.).So when in doubt, always treat the government as a corporation in a COMMERCIAL posture /environment /endeavor, for “The individual owes NOTHING to the State, for he receives nothing therefrom.” (Hale v Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43), but where that individual becomes involved with government’s commercial activities and actually or constructively receives a “benefit” therefrom, he is bound with no escape (eg. Wickard v Fi lburn,317 U.S. 111), even unto criminal sanctions, (Mala Prohibita remember) attaching to what is substantiallly a “civil” involvement (US Grimaud, 220 US 506; Wickard v Filburn supra), “civil” meaning a “private” or “commercial” relationship or “NEXUS” with the corporate State or United States.

Go back in this book and look for your unalienable rights in the definition of “citizen” and you will find the NEXUS. The United States and States of the Union not only are, but should be considered a commercial corporation and dealt with, with extreme care and such dealings, if at all possible, should be avoided like the plague.”[END OF QUOTE FROM
Which One Are You.]

Oh, let us now venture to section 133 in the professors book and see what that says about that “individual” and if I wasn’t correct back in 1990.Section 133. An individual contracts with a state at his peril. It is now well settled that there is no judicial remedy in favor of an individual against a state to compel the performance of a contract, though it is settled that a state can pass no law impairing the obligation of a contract once made (18 Murry v Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 is an instructive case on this subject).

Well you Preamble citizens, you cannot complain now that you know what you put yourself into. And you sovereign citizens can now see what an oxymoron term that is. And those signing pro per or propria persona will abruptly stop that if you want to retain the personality of that natural physical man that is not bound by your fellow man’s, those artificial persons, laws. I now quote right from my book, for those of you that have not read my book The New History of America, a case that states you don’t have to join their corporate venture.

“When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state.There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.Emphasis added.

By this very principle espoused by the court you cannot be made to “retire elsewhere” because, if anything, you retire from the corporate STATE and live upon the land of the Lord in the geographical place called North Carolina rather than the State of North Carolina. Go back and look at the Hamilton case where they said that you “* * * shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.” Let them keep their corporate State; depart out of it. Isn’t that what the Bible tells you “Come out of her?” What do you need it for? To continually be robbed by legal plunder? Not that they are going to stop if you do, because maybe, just maybe, the masses will wake up and want out also, thereby destroying the State’s power over you.

What’s the King going to do now? That is why so many of us with the knowledge are demonized by the spin doctors of government, using media to set the masses against us.Peace be with you people in hopes that you will not be poor in comprehension so that you will know the truth, which will set you free. Yea, providing we have enough physical personalities that know what to do against tyrants that just perpetrated their kind from the start of the country.

Sincerely,The Informer

Additional history;

Papal income tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_income_tax

~

WHY DO WE? … PAY PETER’S PENCE –

A statement of Pope Leo III (795-816) attributes the origin of this tax to King Offa. In 787 A.D. the King of the Mercians promised to pay it out of gratitude to Pope Hadrian I (772-795 A.D.) for the Pope’s agreeing to divide the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and establish a new Archdiocese at Lichfield.

There seems some doubt, however, that this promise of Offa to pay such a tax regularly to the supreme Pontiff to help cover costs associated with governing a world wide church, was ever honoured.

Perhaps the effective founder of the tax use, however, King Ethelwulf, who visited Rome in 855 A.D. and promised to pay the tax out of gratitude to the Pope, St. Leo IV (847-855) who had previously received his son Alfred with honour and anointed him King. This Alfred was to become not just King of Wessex, but (in 878 A.D.) king of all England that remained independent of the Danes.

“Ethelwulf went to Rome, when the kingdom was at peace, and there offered the tribute to Saint Peter which all England contributes to today, to Pope Leo IV who before had honourably received his son and anointed him King”. (Testa Regum Anglorum bk. II)

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/whypaypence.htm

Comment.-

Taxes are required to be paid, to be able to put administrative functions (external organization and government) into place, and to also be able to put into place those who are chosen to preside over these administrative functions, inorder for everyone to be governed under the eccleastical laws of the Church, which laws manifest themselves as civil law and international law, (subdivisions of canon law, that are namely, laws applicable to fictitious jurisdictions), or any and all laws found in personally owned private enumerated fictitious territorial jurisdictions, commonly known as countries, including any and all of the descriptive terms that attach to them.

We recollect –

REFERENCE SOURCE:
Pacta sunt servanda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda

Consequently, as a mechanism of the church put into place by it, a brocard, being in the ownership of the church’s Ecclesiastical Rules, makes ‘good-faith’ as a brocard, a primary source of ‘the canon law of the Catholic Church’, by which “the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church, [1]”, can be seen to belong to the church as an important conduit of its authority.

Similarly presented, the Catholic Church’s external organiztion and government, being the entities that resort to canon law, otherwise known as Ecclesiastical Law, through which ‘good-faith’ is held by those acting, knowingly or not, on the church’s behalf under the church’s Roman law, manifested outwardly as Civil Law, and acting on its several parts as International Law, in which the good-faith of the church are all found to be in use, provides for the extension of the church’s authority by propagating its laws of ‘good-faith’.

Brocard (law)

We read,

“A brocard is a legal principle expressed in Latin (and often derived from past legal authorities or Roman Law), …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocard_(law)

Comment.- A brocard being legal principles in the ownership of men in the service of the God of this world through a vast conglomerate of corporations..

Share

My Body Whose Choice?

If the main reason that the murder of unborn babies should be allowed is “My Body My Choice,” why is it that this claim to fleshly sovereignty exist nowhere else in our society?

We are forced by government to do a lot of things we don’t want to do. What makes this form of murder different?

Share

Maine Conservation Bond Issue: Stop Whining For Crying Out Loud

There is a proposal in the Maine Legislature to issue a bond to buy land for conservation. This proposal (only a proposal) is LD911. If this proposal passes the Legislature (two-thirds of BOTH Houses) it will then go before the VOTERS in the following November general election. There is nothing new here. This is the legislative procedure for ALL bond issuance elections.

Because there are whiners who hate hunting, trapping, and fishing, they take issue with this bond claiming it usurps local control, along with bitching and complaining that hunters and trappers are the most vocal groups in the state and always get what they want, blah, blah, blah.

The writer of the piece linked to above claims that the wording of the proposed bond issue is deliberately misleading the public by not telling voters that if the Land For Maine’s Future buys land to protect and conserve, the land will have to be open to the public for all access, including hunting, trapping, fishing.

The wording of the proposed bond issue (which can be changed during the Legislative debate process) is as follows: “Do you favor a $95,000,000 bond issue to invest in state parks and historic sites, land conservation, water access, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, farmlands and working waterfronts to be matched by at least $75,000,000 in private and public contributions?” (emboldening added)

It’s not as though the emboldened words were not included in the bond proposal. However, any whiner could object to this bond being used “unfairly” for state parks, historic sites, water access and any other State of Maine requirement stated in law. Sometimes we have to be grownups and deal with such things as sharing the land and not opening it up to preferred ideological uses.

I fail to see how there is any attempt at concealing from the public that public money used to buy public lands is open to hunting, trapping, and fishing…along with a myriad of other uses (no complaints about that?)

There is a process in place and the issuance of bonds is no new thing. Nothing is hidden, and in this case, LD 911 is rightly available for any voter to read…all the “fine print” that to the writer of the commentary seems to be misleading or hiding information from the public.

Or maybe the writer is hoping all readers will just believe his words and not bother to go read the entire proposal (It takes about 10 minutes if you are slow reader like me.)

Because, if you go read the proposed bond wording you’ll discover such things as, “Hunting, fishing, trapping and public access may not be prohibited on land acquired with bond proceeds, except to the extent of applicable state, local or federal laws, rules and regulations…” (emboldening added)

Oh, oops! Seems that local governments do have rights and some control as it may pertain to “dodging bullets.” But, there is no more local control than a voter going to the polls and actually casting a ballot that would, as a democratic collective, decide whether any purchase of public land MIGHT negatively affect them. You love your democracy, now live with it!

State law requires that when, through Land for Maine’s Future purchases, certain percentages of that money and purchase must be used for such things as protecting working waterfronts, protecting farmland, and public access to water, among others. The writer also forgot to tell his readers that in this particular bond issue the state MUST give preferential treatment to the purchase of deer wintering habitat to protect deer. Listening to the writer one would think that this money was only going to be used so hunters can kill more deer.

Like with any election and voting process, the onus of knowing what you are voting on should fall into the lap of the voter. As I said, nothing is completely hidden and anyone who actually cares will read the “fine print” and make their decisions on that and not on some anti-hunting activist.

Now that you have heard the truth of the issue and have been given a link to the bond proposal to read, you now have to decide whether it is a good thing to give the state more land to control, thus controlling you, while removing that land from the tax rolls and placing a larger burden of taxes on you the voter.

Think about that one for awhile.

Share

AI: Taking Away The Power of Words and Independent Thought/Style

Well, here it comes! I knew it was only a matter of time. With the expansion of what is being promoted as “Artificial Intelligence” the rulers of this world will soon be the police of everything anyone tries to write or think – unless, as was suggested to me by a friend, said writer opts to revert back to pen, ink, and paper. How will these villainous creeps control pen and paper?

What has already been at play for awhile now, Microsoft announced that it is introducing a new application of their Word word processing program that will, in addition to spell-check and grammar suggestions, make a person’s choice of words politically correct – meaning cleansed and censored to fit the social acceptance devised by brainless fascists who run everything.

When spell-checking software first came on the market most people thought it was quite cool…that is until some discovered that this form of artificial intelligence wasn’t all that intelligent. (Kind of like when a GPS sends you down a dead-end road.) Some think AI is some magic formula whisked out of the sky that knows things nobody else does – a god. But, truth reveals that it is only as good as the dumb bastards who design it – they can’t spell and their vocabulary is limit, at least by some people’s standards.

After the spell checking, then we began to get these extremely annoying pop-up suggestions for words and grammar. In Google’s Gmail, they have added this to their software, offering the lazy, idiot emailer an option to click on little balloons in reply to an email. Should you be one of those who insist on using your own words, then you stand to be inundated with a continuous barrage of pop-up suggestions. This annoyance also exists with “smart” phones. Not so smart really.

In some cases, this software doesn’t provide the user with an option. It simply changes what you write to what IT wants you to write leaving you powerless to do anything about it.

Now that most of this post-normal society is primed and ready, there has been a heavy onslaught for the takeover of thought and now a premeditated solution to automatic word processing devised by someone or something else who has dictatorially decided what is right and wrong, what is grammatically correct and not, and what is politically correct in order that nothing written can be construed in any fashion as offensive.

While I can, I say fuck you! (Sorry. I had to make a point.)

For the most part, to this point all this AI gadgetry is optional. But, don’t think that it will remain this way. All the AI players have already decided what it is you are thinking, or better, what you ought to be thinking, and THEY will change your thoughts and words for you.

Some of us still remember when society changed the idea that somebody had to be a winner and somebody became a loser, to all participate and get a ribbon. This is but a continuation of that. Let’s render the guarantee that nobody will tower above anyone else with their word-smithing and, in some rare cases, independent thought. There will be no need for writers anymore because something will be providing us with all that is needed to know, and besides, once this is firmly in place all writing will be generically boring as hell.

In this existence of automatons, it will be just like an 6-year-old on Christmas morning – the discovery of AI.

All the ignorant and lazy slugs of this world are being given the gift of a lifetime…they think.

As a post script: If we convert AI to a number we get the number 19. With Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew translation of 19 is defined as “slaughter.”

Share

AI: The Final Nail in the Coffin

*Editor’s Note* – Below is an Executive Order by President Trump that ensures that the masses of American slaves will finally relinquish any remaining abilities to think. Artificial Intelligence is the tool that will finish that job.

Most people are so well-indoctrinated they are unaware of what Artificial Intelligence (AI) is. They suppose it’s some kind of magically crafted new digital encyclopedia of information containing nothing but true facts. In reality, AI is ONLY what the ruling establishment wants you to know. I can’t stress that enough. You are unwilling and/or incapable of this realization but it is the truth anyway.

For generations now, the takeover of the education factories in this country, along with a preplanned and well designed flood of media and technology, has successfully brought the people to a point where they question nothing and accept everything. In short, they know not what they do.

The world’s addiction to technological gadgetry, which includes the mindless activity of sticking a “smart” phone (why is is smart?) in front of your face 24/7 unaware that Rome is burning, has finally brought all things to a point where the Ruling Establishment (because you are clueless as to who they are) to a point where they can finish the job of turning you into a complete ignorant, brainwashed zombie with AI.

In recent years, the same Ruling Establishment has successfully desensitized and brainwashed our culture to not only accept homosexuality, but to promote it avidly along with the grocery list found in LBGTQ. Planned anger and hatred possess the moment brought on by the same Ruling Establishment’s promotion and perpetuation of racism, bigotry, intolerance, a destruction of common decency, immorality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. They are readying a society for the full, unquestioning implementation of AI.

In the past couple of years, this Satanic Ruling Establishment has been in high gear promoting Socialism/Communism. The brainwashing is so well established that not only is the effort to promote this cultural decay not recognized by the masses but they eagerly cry out for it.

And now, AI is going to drive the final nail in the coffin of what is left of what was once considered by many a great society (maybe). Don’t think so?

If AI was no big deal then why has President Trump taken it upon himself to deliver a long Executive Order to “maintain American leadership in AI?” Why, if AI was nothing more than the product of private enterprise, does the President of the United States need to not only make sure that America leads the way in AI, but to “to shap[e] the global evolution of AI in a manner consistent with our Nation’s values, policies, and priorities?”

And we mustn’t forget that within this Order comes the revelation that all AI must be created in a way that ensures that the Government’s control over AI includes TRACKING.

My generation is essentially the last generation to know and use books and the written word for learning. When we are gone, books will cease to exist, most likely locked in a vault requiring privileged access.

Our society has been forced into digital addiction and a blind acceptance of all things digital regardless of true facts or false facts. There is no hope.

AI is the product of nothing more than ONLY the information the Global Power Structure wants you to have. NOTHING ELSE. Ask a cylinder for your next breath, what to do, how to do it, or better yet let the AI do it for you. We are naturally and have been programmed to become a bunch of fat, lazy slobs eager for some gadget to come along and do our thinking along with all activities it is programmed to do for us. It is your Big Brother, a ball and chain, a Beast, a guarantee that you will continue to be willing participants in what Cicero called Bread and Circuses. Just feed you the information and you exist.

Trump’s order to promote AI will ensure that there are even fewer people with the ability to think and ask questions disturbing the Global Power Structure’s plans for the destruction of all those necessary to carry out their future plans. You have failed to recognize these bastards want you dead and out of their way. BUT DON’T ASK AI.

AI is important enough, just as all the other actions that have been heavily promoted to destroy any morality and decency in this country, that a long list of things are being laid out to make sure that the brainwashing is complete and never questioned again.

The below Executive Order is long, but contains information that everyone should be concerned about. Unfortunately, few care or are capable of an attention span long enough to read through it. The majority are incapable of understanding the words. Most will ignore it and any who might have an inkling of curiosity, will wait for it to come out in the AI version.

Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy and Principles.Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to drive growth of the United States economy, enhance our economic and national security, and improve our quality of life. The United States is the world leader in AI research and development (R&D) and deployment.  Continued American leadership in AI is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States and to shaping the global evolution of AI in a manner consistent with our Nation’s values, policies, and priorities.  The Federal Government plays an important role in facilitating AI R&D, promoting the trust of the American people in the development and deployment of AI-related technologies, training a workforce capable of using AI in their occupations, and protecting the American AI technology base from attempted acquisition by strategic competitors and adversarial nations.  Maintaining American leadership in AI requires a concerted effort to promote advancements in technology and innovation, while protecting American technology, economic and national security, civil liberties, privacy, and American values and enhancing international and industry collaboration with foreign partners and allies.  It is the policy of the United States Government to sustain and enhance the scientific, technological, and economic leadership position of the United States in AI R&D and deployment through a coordinated Federal Government strategy, the American AI Initiative (Initiative), guided by five principles:

(a)  The United States must drive technological breakthroughs in AI across the Federal Government, industry, and academia in order to promote scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and national security.

(b)  The United States must drive development of appropriate technical standards and reduce barriers to the safe testing and deployment of AI technologies in order to enable the creation of new AI-related industries and the adoption of AI by today’s industries.

(c)  The United States must train current and future generations of American workers with the skills to develop and apply AI technologies to prepare them for today’s economy and jobs of the future.

(d)  The United States must foster public trust and confidence in AI technologies and protect civil liberties, privacy, and American values in their application in order to fully realize the potential of AI technologies for the American people.

(e)  The United States must promote an international environment that supports American AI research and innovation and opens markets for American AI industries, while protecting our technological advantage in AI and protecting our critical AI technologies from acquisition by strategic competitors and adversarial nations.

Sec. 2.  Objectives.  Artificial Intelligence will affect the missions of nearly all executive departments and agencies (agencies).  Agencies determined to be implementing agencies pursuant to section 3 of this order shall pursue six strategic objectives in furtherance of both promoting and protecting American advancements in AI:

(a)  Promote sustained investment in AI R&D in collaboration with industry, academia, international partners and allies, and other non-Federal entities to generate technological breakthroughs in AI and related technologies and to rapidly transition those breakthroughs into capabilities that contribute to our economic and national security.

(b)  Enhance access to high-quality and fully traceable Federal data, models, and computing resources to increase the value of such resources for AI R&D, while maintaining safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality protections consistent with applicable laws and policies.

(c)  Reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies to promote their innovative application while protecting American technology, economic and national security, civil liberties, privacy, and values.

(d)  Ensure that technical standards minimize vulnerability to attacks from malicious actors and reflect Federal priorities for innovation, public trust, and public confidence in systems that use AI technologies; and develop international standards to promote and protect those priorities.

(e)  Train the next generation of American AI researchers and users through apprenticeships; skills programs; and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with an emphasis on computer science, to ensure that American workers, including Federal workers, are capable of taking full advantage of the opportunities of AI.

(f)  Develop and implement an action plan, in accordance with the National Security Presidential Memorandum of February 11, 2019 (Protecting the United States Advantage in Artificial Intelligence and Related Critical Technologies) (the NSPM) to protect the advantage of the United States in AI and technology critical to United States economic and national security interests against strategic competitors and foreign adversaries.

Sec. 3.  Roles and Responsibilities.  The Initiative shall be coordinated through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence (Select Committee).  Actions shall be implemented by agencies that conduct foundational AI R&D, develop and deploy applications of AI technologies, provide educational grants, and regulate and provide guidance for applications of AI technologies, as determined by the co-chairs of the NSTC Select Committee (implementing agencies).

Sec. 4.  Federal Investment in AI Research and Development.

(a)  Heads of implementing agencies that also perform or fund R&D (AI R&D agencies), shall consider AI as an agency R&D priority, as appropriate to their respective agencies’ missions, consistent with applicable law and in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) R&D priorities memoranda.  Heads of such agencies shall take this priority into account when developing budget proposals and planning for the use of funds in Fiscal Year 2020 and in future years.  Heads of these agencies shall also consider appropriate administrative actions to increase focus on AI for 2019.

(b)  Heads of AI R&D agencies shall budget an amount for AI R&D that is appropriate for this prioritization.

(i)   Following the submission of the President’s Budget request to the Congress, heads of such agencies shall communicate plans for achieving this prioritization to the OMB Director and the OSTP Director each fiscal year through the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program.

(ii)   Within 90 days of the enactment of appropriations for their respective agencies, heads of such agencies shall identify each year, consistent with applicable law, the programs to which the AI R&D priority will apply and estimate the total amount of such funds that will be spent on each such program.  This information shall be communicated to the OMB Director and OSTP Director each fiscal year through the NITRD Program.

(c)  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, heads of AI R&D agencies shall explore opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal entities, including:  the private sector; academia; non-profit organizations; State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; and foreign partners and allies, so all collaborators can benefit from each other’s investment and expertise in AI R&D.

Sec. 5.  Data and Computing Resources for AI Research and Development.

(a)  Heads of all agencies shall review their Federal data and models to identify opportunities to increase access and use by the greater non-Federal AI research community in a manner that benefits that community, while protecting safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality.  Specifically, agencies shall improve data and model inventory documentation to enable discovery and usability, and shall prioritize improvements to access and quality of AI data and models based on the AI research community’s user feedback.

(i)    Within 90 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to identify additional requests for access or quality improvements for Federal data and models that would improve AI R&D and testing.  Additionally, within 90 days of the date of this order, OMB, in conjunction with the Select Committee, shall investigate barriers to access or quality limitations of Federal data and models that impede AI R&D and testing.  Collectively, these actions by OMB will help to identify datasets that will facilitate non-Federal AI R&D and testing.

(ii)   Within 120 days of the date of this order, OMB, including through its interagency councils and the Select Committee, shall update implementation guidance for Enterprise Data Inventories and Source Code Inventories to support discovery and usability in AI R&D.

(iii)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, and in accordance with the implementation of the Cross-Agency Priority Goal:  Leveraging Federal Data as a Strategic Asset, from the March 2018 President’s Management Agenda, agencies shall consider methods of improving the quality, usability, and appropriate access to priority data identified by the AI research community.  Agencies shall also identify any associated resource implications.

(iv)   In identifying data and models for consideration for increased public access, agencies, in coordination with the Senior Agency Officials for Privacy established pursuant to Executive Order 13719 of February 9, 2016 (Establishment of the Federal Privacy Council), the heads of Federal statistical entities, Federal program managers, and other relevant personnel shall identify any barriers to, or requirements associated with, increased access to and use of such data and models, including:

(A)  privacy and civil liberty protections for individuals who may be affected by increased access and use, as well as confidentiality protections for individuals and other data providers;

(B)  safety and security concerns, including those related to the association or compilation of data and models;

(C)  data documentation and formatting, including the need for interoperable and machine-readable data formats;

(D)  changes necessary to ensure appropriate data and system governance; and

(E)  any other relevant considerations.

(v)    In accordance with the President’s Management Agenda and the Cross-Agency Priority Goal:  Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset, agencies shall identify opportunities to use new technologies and best practices to increase access to and usability of open data and models, and explore appropriate controls on access to sensitive or restricted data and models, consistent with applicable laws and policies, privacy and confidentiality protections, and civil liberty protections.

(b)  The Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Energy, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall, to the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, prioritize the allocation of high-performance computing resources for AI-related applications through:

(i)   increased assignment of discretionary allocation of resources and resource reserves; or

(ii)  any other appropriate mechanisms.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Select Committee, in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), shall submit a report to the President making recommendations on better enabling the use of cloud computing resources for federally funded AI R&D.

(d)  The Select Committee shall provide technical expertise to the American Technology Council on matters regarding AI and the modernization of Federal technology, data, and the delivery of digital services, as appropriate.

Sec. 6.  Guidance for Regulation of AI Applications.

(a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director, in coordination with the OSTP Director, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and the Director of the National Economic Council, and in consultation with any other relevant agencies and key stakeholders as the OMB Director shall determine, shall issue a memorandum to the heads of all agencies that shall:

(i)   inform the development of regulatory and non?regulatory approaches by such agencies regarding technologies and industrial sectors that are either empowered or enabled by AI, and that advance American innovation while upholding civil liberties, privacy, and American values; and

(ii)  consider ways to reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies in order to promote their innovative application while protecting civil liberties, privacy, American values, and United States economic and national security.

(b)  To help ensure public trust in the development and implementation of AI applications, OMB shall issue a draft version of the memorandum for public comment before it is finalized.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of the memorandum described in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of implementing agencies that also have regulatory authorities shall review their authorities relevant to applications of AI and shall submit to OMB plans to achieve consistency with the memorandum.

(d)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), shall issue a plan for Federal engagement in the development of technical standards and related tools in support of reliable, robust, and trustworthy systems that use AI technologies.  NIST shall lead the development of this plan with participation from relevant agencies as the Secretary of Commerce shall determine.

(i)   Consistent with OMB Circular A-119, this plan shall include:

(A) Federal priority needs for standardization of AI systems development and deployment;

(B) identification of standards development entities in which Federal agencies should seek membership with the goal of establishing or supporting United States technical leadership roles; and

(C) opportunities for and challenges to United States leadership in standardization related to AI technologies.

(ii)  This plan shall be developed in consultation with the Select Committee, as needed, and in consultation with the private sector, academia, non?governmental entities, and other stakeholders, as appropriate.

Sec. 7.  AI and the American Workforce.

(a)  Heads of implementing agencies that also provide educational grants shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, consider AI as a priority area within existing Federal fellowship and service programs.

(i)   Eligible programs for prioritization shall give preference to American citizens, to the extent permitted by law, and shall include:

(A)  high school, undergraduate, and graduate fellowship; alternative education; and training programs;

(B)  programs to recognize and fund early-career university faculty who conduct AI R&D, including through Presidential awards and recognitions;

(C)  scholarship for service programs;

(D)  direct commissioning programs of the United States Armed Forces; and

(E)  programs that support the development of instructional programs and curricula that encourage the integration of AI technologies into courses in order to facilitate personalized and adaptive learning experiences for formal and informal education and training.

(ii)  Agencies shall annually communicate plans for achieving this prioritization to the co-chairs of the Select Committee.

(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Select Committee shall provide recommendations to the NSTC Committee on STEM Education regarding AI-related educational and workforce development considerations that focus on American citizens.

(c)  The Select Committee shall provide technical expertise to the National Council for the American Worker on matters regarding AI and the American workforce, as appropriate.

Sec. 8.  Action Plan for Protection of the United States Advantage in AI Technologies.

(a)  As directed by the NSPM, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with the OSTP Director and the recipients of the NSPM, shall organize the development of an action plan to protect the United States advantage in AI and AI technology critical to United States economic and national security interests against strategic competitors and adversarial nations.

(b)  The action plan shall be provided to the President within 120 days of the date of this order, and may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.

(c)  Upon approval by the President, the action plan shall be implemented by all agencies who are recipients of the NSPM, for all AI-related activities, including those conducted pursuant to this order.

Sec. 9.  Definitions.As used in this order:

(a)  the term “artificial intelligence” means the full extent of Federal investments in AI, to include:  R&D of core AI techniques and technologies; AI prototype systems; application and adaptation of AI techniques; architectural and systems support for AI; and cyberinfrastructure, data sets, and standards for AI; and

(b)  the term “open data” shall, in accordance with OMB Circular A-130 and memorandum M-13-13, mean “publicly available data structured in a way that enables the data to be fully discoverable and usable by end users.”

Sec. 10.  General Provisions.

(a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 11, 2019.

Share

No NAZI Philosophy In The U.S. Aye? BS!

And both political parties delivered it to you…

Share

The Paradox of Power

*Editor’s Note* – The following article was written by former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, James Beers, and only scratches the surface into the depth of corruption that exists in this American Government apparatus. Most people don’t want nor are they capable of imagining and then accepting the depth and breadth of existing corruption or to what extent such a powerful system of corruption will go in order to protect itself while carrying out their agendas and other clandestine operations.  

What Non-Disclosure Agreements Disclose

By James Beers:

The last two weeks have seen a constant stream of news and accusations about the President paying two women six-figure sums to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements over two years ago.  Reportedly the payments were made to guarantee their silence about reputed liaisons before then-candidate Trump was preparing to run for President.

Living as I do in a very Progressive state, neighbors and friends are absolutely appalled that such a thing (six-figure payments to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement to guarantee silence about a purported sex incident or matter) was done by “our” (not “their) President.  If I were to ask; I am sure their outrage (they would say) was just as strong when they learned of candidate John Edwards betrayal of his wife, or President Clinton’s Oval Office escapades or all those Congressional female staffers paid off by their bosses out of a secret slush fund on Capitol Hill.

The radio talk shows and cable news stations have been a constant hum as they try to “explain” and “put in perspective” this dastardly practice of President Trump paying for “silence”.  We are told:

“When John Edwards payed for the silence of his pregnant paramour during his campaign for President by having donors pay for a Non-Disclosure Agreement; the court ruled that it was a legitimate action and use of donor money”.

“When President Clinton (sic, the most powerful politician/bureaucrat on the planet) had sexual activity in the Oval Office (sic, the epitome of US government offices) with a young intern (sic, the lowest and most helpless government employee); the courts and his Congressional defenders claimed it was no big deal even when he lied about it when asked.”  NOTE – Any one of these aspects, 1) sex with any employee, especially one “powerless” due to inferior status or grade; 2) sex in a government office; or 3) lying about it – had I done so would have guaranteed the loss of my job, public disgrace, and probably lifetime unemployment until they ran out of illegal aliens at the Employment Office

“Congress has kept a multi-million-dollar slush-fund for years to secretly pay staffers coerced into sex with ‘Members ’to forego any ‘Disclosure’ and return to Podunk.”  Actually; they didn’t say “Podunk” but this reminded me of something very funny but true that I heard years ago from a very Progressive Feminist Politician when asked by a reporter why “all these continuous Congressional sex scandals always seem to involve male Congressmen and Senators?”  Her reply was priceless, “Because we (i.e. the distaff politicians) don’t have 25-year-old lifeguards constantly throwing themselves at us”.

I have taken the time to write this, not to dwell on the salacious accusations about or provable amorous incidents of our politicians lives whether before politics, when running for office or while ensconced in “their” (actually “our”) government offices from the Capitol Building to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (i.e. The White House).  I am writing this to bring to your attention an even more abhorrent and ominous use by government of the “Non-Disclosure Agreement”; that is to cover-up criminal activity using Appropriated Funds.

In the late 1990’s, during the Monica Lewinsky/Impeachment news, I was a US Fish & Wildlife Service employee that had just completed 6 years of hard work and worldwide travel to keep Animal Rights advocates and the European Union from destroying the international fur market and the trapping of furbearers and predators in the US, Canada, and Russia (the major suppliers of furs).  The fact that I and others were successful in this endeavor earned me the enmity of recent political appointees under President Clinton.  Although they had pretended to be advocates for proactive wildlife management (as were their predecessors for over a century), their clandestine values and relationship with radical animal rights and extremist environmental organizations were outraged by our success and they set about getting rid of me.

During this period, fellow employees jumped off elevators for fear of being seen with me; threatening official letters were left on my doorstep on a Sunday morning; and police were notified unbeknownst to me that I was going to be fired and “may be dangerous”.

One afternoon I was called by a Congressional staffer on the US House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee and asked what was going on with me?  I went up to their office the next day and explained things and casually mentioned that the federal Excise Taxes collected on Arms and Ammunition (by law only to be used by the 50 States and US Territories on a formula basis for specific wildlife management activities and amounting to hundreds of Millions of dollars annually) seemed to be below expectations for several years.  No one in USFWS was interested in this and there were no audits conducted on these funds.

Long story short: The House Committee subpoenaed the USFWS financial records of the Excise Taxes’ receipts and allocation.  USFWS thought to be clever (shades of IRS, FBI. DOJ, et al) and lied that the figures could not be isolated from the entire USFWS Budget so they sent large boxes of contiguous computer printouts of the very complex USFWS budget with separate laws and restrictions as complex as any in the federal government.  One employee had joked that, “they will never be able to figure anything out from this”.  By this time, I had been sent home by USFWS and had hired a lawyer as they tried to figure out what to do with me.

The House Committee asked me if I could look over the records based on my varied and long experience with Washington and the USFWS structure and budget.  I did so and found numerous examples of the Excise Taxes popping up in USFWS Regional Offices, top employee bonuses, Endangered Species and a Public Affairs office in Portland.  The General Accounting Office was told by the Committee to conduct an Audit* of USFWS and the Excise Tax funds.

*This was before the General Accounting Office was renamed the General Accountability Office.  The point here is that this was an Audit by Accountants.  In the 1990’s I had noticed that “GAO Auditors” were increasingly young women and minorities with Sociology and Economics degrees for reasons I leave to your imagination. By the early 2000’s it was becoming increasingly difficult to identify the General Accounting Office work products as “Audits” so the name was changed to “General Accountability Office” and their work products mostly as “Accountability Reports”.

Anyway, I helped the GAO with their questions and other problems to complete the Audit.  The results were that $45 to 60 MILLION had been skimmed by USFWS before allocation to the States.  Records had been covered up and the money was spent mostly to Trap Wolves (in Canada) and transport (without Importation border forms being filed), acclimatize and release the wolves into Yellowstone Park and on an Indian Reservation from where they now occupy all the Northern Rockies’ States.  This action (releasing wolves into the Upper Rockies) had been turned down for funding by Congress and therefore was unauthorized but they (USFWS appointees) stole the money from state wildlife agencies and did it anyway.  Another major use of the stolen funds was to open a new Regional Office in California (to be closer to radical organizations and their more extreme supporters) by laundering the money through the Regional Office in Portland. This too, Congress had refused to authorize or fund.  Remaining Excise Tax dollars were scattered in bonuses for top managers that had nothing to do with Excise Taxes but were reminiscent of those three monkeys, “Hear no evil, see no evil, Say no evil”.

I wrote an article, years ago about how many federal criminal and civil laws and regulations were violated based on my many years and experience with Law Enforcement and big Investigations (see the Vesely Forte and Cartier Jewelry cases I made in New York City 1971-1972) but people’s eyes just glaze over.

I testified twice before the House Natural Resources Committee before a packed gallery about how the funds were taken and hidden.

My lawyer called me at home one day and said USFWS had an “offer” for me.  It turned out to be a “Six-figure” amount and my lawyer’s fees to sign a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT and retire immediately.  The NDA stated I “would not speak or write about anything involved with my separation from the US government for three years or I would forfeit the payment”.  I could not answer questions (there were many) or write about the affair.  My wife and I were glad to be done with the matter and my former colleagues.

USFWS went about conducting Damage Control and blamed it all on a misunderstanding and faulty record keeping.  All (to my great surprise) of the State wildlife agency Directors remained silent about the money stolen from “their” (actually “our”) wildlife management programs (to the delight of the animal rights/environmental extremist crowds.  By this time state agencies and their national organization had grown so dependent on federal funds and federal growing authorities that they had become little more than federal subcontractors.  The GW Bush/Al Gore campaigns had begun and the difficult-to-believe and understand (thanks to today’s “fake news” predecessors) affair soon faded from the public consciousness.  Those USFWS/DOI appointees responsible for the theft and misuse were never named publicly and all went on seamlessly to higher-paying jobs and glory in the parlors of Manhattan and San Francisco after retirement.

In other words, “your” tax dollars were used by “your” bureaucrats to cover-up “their” criminal activities.  Until this happened I had no idea such things were even possible, much less actually done.

Thus, Non-Disclosure Agreements can be financed by private funds; campaign funds; Congressional slush funds;AND BY APPROPRIATED FUNDS GIVEN TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR (???).

Also, Non-Disclosure Agreements can be used to “silence” allegations from women in your past; women you have made pregnant while married to someone else; fellow federal employees you have coerced to have sex with you; fellow employees you had sex with on government time or in government offices; AND EMPLOYEES OR OTHERS THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT APPOINTEES OR POWERFUL PERSONS WANT COVERED UP IMMEDIATELY!

I leave it to you to note how the more egregious and dastardly the offense and/or the perpetrator of behind any Non-Disclosure Agreement, the more it is ignored by the public and less it bothers anyone.  Think of it as Congressmen paying millions over time to cover-up peccadilloes, a President in The Oval Office, a Presidential wannabee everyone likes and a President the press and Washington politicians and bureaucrats hate.  The last one noted is nothing more than the latest missive intended to wound him How soon we forget when we really don’t hate someone accused of “paying for silence”. 

Now think about the secret practice of federal Agencies and Departments using Appropriated money and Non-Disclosure Agreements to cover up real criminal activity as either the arrogance or paradox of power.

Jim Beers

18 December 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Return to an Apologetic Savage Nation

Recently, Jim Beers, contributing writer for this website, wrote an article that concerned a piece found in the Wall Street Journal. The premise of the work is that with the ongoing promotion of “neo” ecological theory of hands-off “natural regulation,” wildlife and land management, and “rewilding,” the society is regressing from a civilized people back to a savage existence.

It prompted me to write my own article that first appeared in print in the Bethel Citizen (small Maine town) newspaper. Here is that article:

Return to a “Savage” State

Open Air with Tom Remington

James Beers, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee who spent considerable time in Washington, D.C., who became a whistleblower discovering as much as $60 million was stolen from Pittman-Robertson Federal Excise taxes to be used for reintroducing wolves to the Northern Rockies and other illegal activities, recently said that if we are not willing to put a stop to the current “Ecological Theory” that places man as equal to or lesser than that of plants and animals and “spiritual rewilding” our forests and plains, this lack of action will “…return all of us eventually into a “savage state.”

The definition of “civilize” is “to bring out of a savage state.” As our civilization advanced from what some have perceived as uncontrolled slaughter of many of our wild animals and destruction of the habitat that confronted the settlers, through responsible wildlife management which led to developing an understanding of the cooperation of both consumption and conservation, establishing the North American Model of Wildlife Management, we are now moving in a direction that is calling for a hands-off approach to plant and animal management; establishing wilderness and predator protection based somewhat on the belief that Nature produces a preferred outcome.

If the land was in a “natural” state when we found it, i.e. “savage state,” working to restore it to what it once was, or what we think it once was, surely must be a return to an uncivilized, savage state.

We have and are being misled that leaving things up to Nature, will provide for a stabilization of animal and plant existence, i.e. that Nature achieves a “balance” where everything is Nirvana. My very good friend, Dr. Valerius Giest, a professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, says that the Utopian belief in nature, free from the hands of man, achieving balance is “intellectual rubbish.” Life consists of constant negative and positive feedback loops where everything is in constant change.

Leaving it to Nature will yield what Nature has to offer. Reality shows us that Nature’s results are not what most of us prefer. We prefer control and manipulation to achieve healthy plants and wildlife as best possible, while at the same time continuing to provide an opportunity for that long-held, civilized existence of regulated hunting, trapping, and fishing.

If we prefer a healthy existence for our wildlife, someone has to manage and control it. Nature will not, contrary to what some believe, give us what we want in this civilized society. Taking from the resource in a responsible, scientific approach is a cooperation that undertakes the task of managing wildlife for a healthy bounty and providing opportunities for those who wish to take sustenance from that resource. It’s a win-win.

It seems with each passing year, the grumbles and groans get louder and louder of the need to end hunting, fishing, and trapping. As it currently stands, we exist in a back scratching situation where licensed hunters, fishers, and trappers pay the costs of wildlife management in return for an opportunity to reap the rewards of taking from the resource. To deny that privilege, thinking wildlife will manage itself is wrong thinking. To steal it away with a belief that wildlife will control itself is uncivilized, returning us eventually to the previous savage state.

The next time you see a hunter, trapper, or fisherman, thank them for providing the means of responsible conservation so that all of us can enjoy a healthy wildlife.

********

Today, a friend sent me a link to an article published at National Review called “Friends of Elmer.” In this piece of work, the author points out how the existence of the (perhaps second) oldest profession, hunting, has morphed into an act of apologizing and calling on all hunters, as was requested by the long-held magazine of hunting and outdoor activities, Sports Afield, “…for the sake of the hunting community, please don’t say anything about it on social media, and please, please don’t post any pictures.” This in regards to whether anyone was able to obtain a license to hunt a grizzly bear.

Another hunting magazine was quoted as saying, “We need to be very, very careful and intentional about what we post and what are in those posts.”

The author of the referred-to article writes: “The problem with that line of argument is that dead animals are necessarily front-and-center when it comes to hunting. That is, ultimately, what hunting is about — and hunters should not apologize for that. Hunting is one of the most ancient of organized human undertakings: Hunting, and not that other thing, may very well be the world’s oldest profession. And whether one thinks of it as sport or ritual — or simply as gathering protein — it is part of an honorable tradition, and a pursuit that can be, at its best, profound.”

Aren’t these actions of apologizing for being a hunter and for hunting, and the fear we are instilled with driving us to feel the need to apologize, just another aspect of this society’s regression toward a savage state? If, as has been stated, our society brought itself out of an uncivilized existent, to return to that is savage.

I witness repeatedly, fish and wildlife departments across the country living in fear of lawsuits from environmentalists and animal rights groups. I understand the concern but not the fear (or apologies) but are we to shed our responsibilities to manage, control, protect where needed, etc. wildlife because we fear a lawsuit?

The author says that the protests from people are “aesthetic” – a set of idealistic false principles guiding one’s every move, an almost “Keeping up with the Joneses” kind of existence. It also sounds a lot like the changing of our “Foundational Libraries” – the Power Structure‘s efforts to rewrite the foundational principles and morals that are the driving force of our cultural existence.

Partly because of fear of lawsuits, but mostly due to Environmentalism’s powerful outreach to brainwash (change the foundational library) the masses, this very disease has reached epidemic proportions in this country, as can be witnessed at any time in our society; apologizing for being a hunter. I guess it holds more moralistic and cultural value to proclaim your sexual orientation and expose your immoral behavior, along with your hatred and complete disregard for your Creator, than to admit you are a hunter.

If you are ashamed to be a hunter, feel the need to apologize, and believe that the North American Model of Wildlife Management is wrong, before you apologize for being a hunter, destroy your guns and never buy a hunting license again. Don’t be an apologist as some of our traditional hunting magazines, as well as many hunters, are doing. They are only doing the bidding for those changing our foundational structures while at the same time putting a noose around the necks of themselves and the long-held heritage of hunting.

Share

Hegelian Dialectic, Communitarianism, and the Perpetuators

Outcome-based scientism is a product of the Hegelian Dialect. Some understand that outcome-based science is a process in which the desired result is considered, followed by selecting actual or false information and presenting it as in support of the desired outcome.

In Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis, there must be a conflict of ideas or theories. This sets the stage for synthesis, i.e. the desired outcome.

We are also given examples of how the Dialectic is used. Here it is explained the scientific use: “Hegel’s Dialectic as Interpreted by Gavin Schmitt: “To Hegel, understanding what something is not helps to better understand what something is (and conversely, the more we know what something is, the more we know what it is not). The concept or object (which we call a “realization of the concept”) is “affirmed” by its opposite….Often times Hegel’s method is explained as “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.” This was, in fact, the way it was explained to me in my introductory classes and the way it appears in many philosophic dictionaries. If we start with a certain idea or object, this idea or object is the thesis. Any idea or object we compare contrary to the thesis is the antithesis. The outcome is the synthesis, a better understanding of the thesis and occasionally a “higher” step in the world of ideas (as we will see in a moment when I discuss history).”

[Source]

“Hegel was an idealist who believed that the highest state of mankind can only be attained through constant ideological conflict and resolution. The rules of the dialectic means mankind can only reach its highest spiritual consciousness through endless self-perpetuating struggle between ideals, and the eventual synthesizing of all opposites.

“He believed that all conflict takes man to the next spiritual level. But in the final analysis, this ideology simply justifies conflict and endless war. It is also the reasoning behind using military power to export an illogical version of freedom and false democratic ideals.

“The reason we can call it the justification for modern conflicts and war is because no one can prove Hegel’s theory is true. No matter how many new words they make up to define it, or how many new theories they come up with to give it validity, we can prove beyond a doubt that it is all false. And, we can show the final equation in Hegel’s dialectic is:

“A: The [your nation goes here] System of Political Economy (List 1841) + B: State-controlled world communism = C: State-controlled global communitarianism”

“Political communitarianism includes market communist/socialist economic programmes, free trade, appointed citizen councils, exportable freedom programmes, faith-based funding, intervention programmes, mental health testing, emergency preparedness training, FEMA, The Vatican, The Talmud, The Earth Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Earth Summits, sustainable development, European royals, British royals, Communist Party leaders, elected Socialists, friendly dictators, sociologists, fascists, mobsters, Fabians, international liberals, G-8, Bank of England, The City of London, billionaires, Bilderbergs, secret societies, think tanks, private foundations, philanthropists, alchemists, theosophist organizations (like 1000 Points of Light), environmental law firms (like 1000 Friends of Washington/Oregon etc.), UN, LA-21, EU, WB, ICC, NATO, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, NSC, OAS, AID, IMF, FED, IRS, SSI, UI, NEA, CFR, TR, AIPAC, NOW, ACLU, NLG, FBI, CIA, KGB, Mossad, M-15, M-16, NSA, WH, DOD, DOJ, HS, War on Terror, PNAC, War on Crime, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Obesity, Neighborhood Watch, Volunteer America, ABCD, NGOs, churches, WCC, NATS, DON, SPO, COPS, IACP, USDOE, USDOA, USNF, USNP, HUD, Weed&Seed;, Citizen Corps, CAOs, EPA, Crime Acts, DV Acts, DUI laws, COMPASS and much, much more.”

Share